{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36677/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36677","id":"gutenberg_36677","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36677","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Other","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Cephalopoda","Marine animals"],"text":"\n\n\n\nProduced by Jeannie Howse, Anna Hall, Bryan Ness and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n(This file was produced from images generously made\navailable by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: THE SEA SERPENT, AS FIRST SEEN FROM H.M.S. 'DAEDALUS.'\n_Frontispiece._]\n\n\n\n\n (_International Fisheries Exhibition_ LONDON, 1883)\n\n\n SEA MONSTERS UNMASKED\n\n BY\n\n HENRY LEE, F.L.S., F.G.S., F.Z.S.\n\n SOMETIME NATURALIST OF THE BRIGHTON AQUARIUM\n AND\n AUTHOR OF 'THE OCTOPUS, OR THE DEVIL-FISH OF FICTION AND FACT'\n\n ILLUSTRATED\n\n LONDON\n WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED\n INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES EXHIBITION\n AND 13 CHARING CROSS, S.W.\n 1883\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nAs I commence this little history of two sea monsters there comes to my\nmind a remark made to me by my friend, Mr. Samuel L. Clemens--\"Mark\nTwain\"--which illustrates a feeling that many a writer must have\nexperienced when dealing with a subject that has been previously well\nhandled. Expressing to me one day the gratification he felt in having\nmade many pleasant acquaintances in England, he added, with dry humour,\nand a grave countenance, \"Yes! I owe your countrymen no grudge or\nill-will. I freely forgive them, though one of them did me a grievous\nwrong, an irreparable injury! It was Shakspeare: if he had not written\nthose plays of his, I should have done so! They contain _my_ thoughts,\n_my_ sentiments! He forestalled me!\"\n\nIn treating of the so-called \"sea-serpent,\" I have been anticipated by\nmany able writers. Mr. Gosse, in his delightful book, 'The Romance of\nNatural History,' published in 1862, devoted a chapter to it; and\nnumerous articles concerning it have appeared in various papers and\nperiodicals.\n\nBut, for the information from which those authors have drawn their\ninferences, and on which they have founded their opinions, they have\nbeen greatly indebted, as must be all who have seriously to consider\nthis subject, to the late experienced editor of the _Zoologist_, Mr.\nEdward Newman, a man of wonderful power of mind, of great judgment, a\nprofound thinker, and an able writer. At a time when, as he said, \"the\nshafts of ridicule were launched against believers and unbelievers in\nthe sea-serpent in a very pleasing and impartial manner,\" he, in the\ntrue spirit of philosophical inquiry, in 1847, opened the columns of his\nmagazine to correspondence on this topic, and all the more recent\nreports of marine monsters having been seen are therein recorded. To\nhim, therefore, the fullest acknowledgments are due.\n\nThe great cuttles, also, have been the subject of articles in various\nmagazines, notably one by Mr. W. Saville Kent, F.L.S., in the 'Popular\nScience Review' of April, 1874, and a chapter in my little book on the\nOctopus, published in 1873, is also devoted to them. In writing of them\nas the living representatives of the kraken, and as having been\nfrequently mistaken for the \"sea-serpent,\" my deductions have been drawn\nfrom personal knowledge, and an intimate acquaintance with the habits,\nform, and structure of the animals described. It was only by watching\nthe movements of specimens of the \"common squid\" (_Loligo vulgaris_),\nand the \"little squid\" (_L. media_), which lived in the tanks of the\nBrighton Aquarium, that I recognised in their peculiar habit of\noccasionally swimming half-submerged, with uplifted caudal extremity,\nand trailing arms, the fact that I had before me the \"sea-serpent\" of\nmany a well-authenticated anecdote. A mere knowledge of their form and\nanatomy after death had never suggested to me that which became at once\napparent when I saw them in life.\n\nIt is a pleasure to me to acknowledge gratefully the kindness I have\nmet with in connection with the illustrations of this book. The\nproprietors of the _Illustrated London News_ not only gave me permission\nto copy, in reduced size, their two pictures of the _Daedalus_ incident,\nbut presented to me electrotype copies of all others small enough for\nthese pages--namely, \"Jonah and the Monster,\" Egede's \"Sea-Serpent,\" and\nthe Whale as seen from the _Pauline_. Equally kind have been the\nproprietors of the _Field_. To them I am greatly indebted for their\npermission to copy the beautiful woodcuts of the \"Octopus at Rest,\" \"The\nSepia seizing its Prey,\" and the arms of the Newfoundland squids, and\nalso for \"electros\" of the two curious Japanese engravings, all of which\noriginally appeared in their paper. From the _Graphic_ I have had\nsimilar permission to copy any cuts that might be thought suitable, and\nthe illustrations of the sea-serpent, as seen from Her Majesty's yacht\n_Osborne_ and the _City of Baltimore_, are from that journal. Messrs.\nNisbet most courteously allowed me to have a copy of the block of the\n_Enaliosaurus_ swimming, which was one of the numerous pictures in Mr.\nGosse's book, published by them, already referred to. And last, not\nleast, I have to thank Miss Ellen Woodward, daughter of my friend, Dr.\nHenry Woodward, F.R.S., for enabling me to better explain the movements\nand appearances of the squids when swimming, and when raising their\nbodies out of water in an erect position, by carefully drawing them from\nmy rough sketches.\n\n HENRY LEE.\n\n SAVAGE CLUB;\n _July 21st, 1883_.\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.\n\n\n_Frontispiece._--The Sea Serpent as first seen from H.M.S. _Daedalus_.\n\n FIG. PAGE\n\n 1. Beak and Arms of a Decapod Cuttle 16\n\n 2. The Octopus (_Octopus vulgaris_) 18\n\n 3. The Cuttle (_Sepia officinalis_) 21\n\n 4. Hooked Tentacles of _Onychoteuthis_ 23\n\n 5. Japanese fisherman attacked by a Cuttle 29\n\n 6. Arms of a great Cuttle exhibited in a Japanese fish-shop 29\n\n 7. Facsimile of De Montfort's \"_Poulpe colossal_\" 32\n\n 8. Gigantic Calamary caught by the French despatch vessel\n _Alecton_, near Teneriffe 39\n\n 9. Tentacle of a great Calamary (_Architeuthis princeps_)\n taken in Conception Bay, Newfoundland 43\n\n 10. Head and Tentacles of a great Calamary (_Architeuthis\n princeps_) taken in Logie Bay, Newfoundland 44\n\n 11. Jonah and the Sea Monster 55\n\n 12. Sea Serpent seizing a man on board ship 58\n\n 13. Gigantic Lobster dragging a man from a ship 58\n\n 14. Pontoppidan's \"Sea Serpent\" 63\n\n 15. The Animal drawn by Mr. Bing as having been seen by Egede 66\n\n 16. The Animal which Egede probably saw 67\n\n 17. The Sea Serpent of the Wernerian Society (_facsimile_) 69\n\n 18. A Calamary swimming at the surface of the sea 77\n\n 19. The Sea Serpent passing under the quarter of H.M.S.\n _Daedalus_ 81\n\n 20. The Sea Serpent and Sperm Whale as seen from the _Pauline_ 91\n\n 21. The Sea Serpent as seen from the _City of Baltimore_ 93\n\n 22. The Sea Serpent as seen from H.M. yacht _Osborne_. Phase 1 94\n\n 23. The Sea Serpent as seen from H.M. yacht _Osborne_. Phase 2 94\n\n 24. Skeleton of the _Plesiosaurus_, restored by Mr. Conybeare 98\n\n 25. The Sea Serpent on the Enaliosaurian hypothesis 100\n\n\n\n\nSEA MONSTERS UNMASKED.\n\n\n\n\nTHE KRAKEN.\n\n\nIn the legends and traditions of northern nations, stories of the\nexistence of a marine animal of such enormous size that it more\nresembled an island than an organised being frequently found a place. It\nis thus described in an ancient manuscript (about A.D. 1180), attributed\nto the Norwegian King Sverre; and the belief in it has been alluded to\nby other Scandinavian writers from an early period to the present day.\nIt was an obscure and mysterious sea-monster, known as the Kraken, whose\nform and nature were imperfectly understood, and it was peculiarly the\nobject of popular wonder and superstitious dread.\n\nEric Pontoppidan, the younger, Bishop of Bergen, and member of the\nRoyal Academy of Sciences at Copenhagen, is generally, but unjustly,\nregarded as the inventor of the semi-fabulous Kraken, and is constantly\nmisquoted by authors who have never read his work,[1] and who, one after\nanother, have copied from their predecessors erroneous statements\nconcerning him. More than half a century before him, Christian Francis\nPaullinus,[2] a physician and naturalist of Eisenach, who evinced in his\nwritings an admiration of the marvellous rather than of the useful, had\ndescribed as resembling Gesner's 'Heracleoticon,' a monstrous animal\nwhich occasionally rose from the sea on the coasts of Lapland and\nFinmark, and which was of such enormous dimensions, that a regiment of\nsoldiers could conveniently manoeuvre on its back. About the same date,\nbut a little earlier, Bartholinus, a learned Dane, told how, on a\ncertain occasion, the Bishop of Midaros found the Kraken quietly\nreposing on the shore, and mistaking the enormous creature for a huge\nrock, erected an altar upon it and performed mass. The Kraken\nrespectfully waited till the ceremony was concluded, and the reverend\nprelate safe on shore, and then sank beneath the waves.\n\n [1] 'Natural History of Norway.' A.D. 1751.\n\n [2] Born 1643; died 1712.\n\nAnd a hundred and fifty years before Bartholinus and Paullinus wrote,\nOlaus Magnus,[3] Archbishop of Upsala, in Sweden, had related many\nwondrous narratives of sea-monsters,--tales which had gathered and\naccumulated marvels as they had been passed on from generation to\ngeneration in oral history, and which he took care to bequeath to his\nsuccessors undeprived of any of their fascination. According to him, the\nKraken was not so polite to the laity as to the Bishop, for when some\nfishermen lighted a fire on its back, it sank beneath their feet, and\noverwhelmed them in the waters.\n\n [3] Olaus Magnus has sometimes been mistaken for his brother and\n predecessor in the archiepiscopal see, Johan Magnus, author of a\n book entitled 'Gothorum, Suevorumque Historia.' Olaus was the last\n Roman Catholic archbishop of the Swedish church, and when the\n Reformation, supported by Gustavus Vasa, gained the ascendancy in\n Sweden, he remained true to his faith, and retired to Rome, where\n he wrote his work, 'Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus,' Romae,\n 1555. An English translation of this book was published by J.\n Streater, in 1658. It does not contain the illustrations.\n\nPontoppidan was not a fabricator of falsehoods; but, in collecting\nevidence relating to the \"great beasts\" living in \"the great and wide\nsea,\" was influenced, as he tells us, by \"a desire to extend the popular\nknowledge of the glorious works of a beneficent Creator.\" He gave too\nmuch credence to contemporary narratives and old traditions of floating\nislands and sea monsters, and to the superstitious beliefs and\nexaggerated statements of ignorant fishermen: but if those who ridicule\nhim had lived in his day and amongst his people, they would probably\nhave done the same; for even Linnaeus was led to believe in the Kraken,\nand catalogued it in the first edition of his 'Systema Naturae,' as\n'_Sepia Microcosmos_.' He seems to have afterwards had cause to\ndiscredit his information respecting it, for he omitted it in the next\nedition. The Norwegian bishop was a conscientious and painstaking\ninvestigator, and the tone of his writings is neither that of an\nintentional deceiver nor of an incautious dupe. He diligently\nendeavoured to separate the truth from the cloud of error and fiction by\nwhich it was obscured; and in this he was to a great extent successful,\nfor he correctly identifies, from the vague and perplexing descriptions\nsubmitted to him, the animal whose habits and structure had given rise\nto so many terror-laden narratives and extravagant traditions.\n\nThe following are some of his remarks on the subject of this gigantic\nand ill-defined animal. Although I have greatly abbreviated them, I have\nthought it right to quote them at considerable length, that the modest\nand candid spirit in which they were written may be understood:[4]\n\n \"Amongst the many things,\" he says, \"which are in the ocean, and\n concealed from our eyes, or only presented to our view for a few\n minutes, is the Kraken. This creature is the largest and most\n surprising of all the animal creation, and consequently well\n deserves such an account as the nature of the thing, according to\n the Creator's wise ordinances, will admit of. Such I shall give at\n present, and perhaps much greater light on this subject may be\n reserved for posterity.\n\n \"Our fishermen unanimously affirm, and without the least variation\n in their accounts, that when they row out several miles to sea,\n particularly in the hot summer days, and by their situation (which\n they know by taking a view of different points of land) expect to\n find eighty or a hundred fathoms of water, it often happens that\n they do not find above twenty or thirty, and sometimes less. At\n these places they generally find the greatest plenty of fish,\n especially cod and ling. Their lines, they say, are no sooner out\n than they may draw them up with the hooks all full of fish. By this\n they know that the Kraken is at the bottom. They say this creature\n causes those unnatural shallows mentioned above, and prevents their\n sounding. These the fishermen are always glad to find, looking upon\n them as a means of their taking abundance of fish. There are\n sometimes twenty boats or more got together and throwing out their\n lines at a moderate distance from each other; and the only thing\n they then have to observe is whether the depth continues the same,\n which they know by their lines, or whether it grows shallower, by\n their seeming to have less water. If this last be the case they\n know that the Kraken is raising himself nearer the surface, and\n then it is not time for them to stay any longer; they immediately\n leave off fishing, take to their oars, and get away as fast as they\n can. When they have reached the usual depth of the place, and find\n themselves out of danger, they lie upon their oars, and in a few\n minutes after they see this enormous monster come up to the surface\n of the water; he there shows himself sufficiently, though his whole\n body does not appear, which, in all likelihood, no human eye ever\n beheld. Its back or upper part, which seems to be in appearance\n about an English mile and a half in circumference (some say more,\n but I chuse the least for greater certainty), looks at first like a\n number of small islands surrounded with something that floats and\n fluctuates like sea-weeds. Here and there a larger rising is\n observed like sand-banks, on which various kinds of small fishes\n are seen continually leaping about till they roll off into the\n water from the sides of it; at last several bright points or horns\n appear, which grow thicker and thicker the higher they rise above\n the surface of the water, and sometimes they stand up as high and\n as large as the masts of middle-sized vessels. It seems these are\n the creature's arms, and it is said if they were to lay hold of the\n largest man of war they would pull it down to the bottom. After\n this monster has been on the surface of the water a short time it\n begins slowly to sink again, and then the danger is as great as\n before; because the motion of his sinking causes such a swell in\n the sea, and such an eddy or whirlpool, that it draws everything\n down with it, like the current of the river Male.\n\n \"As this enormous sea-animal in all probability may be reckoned of\n the Polype, or of the Starfish kind, as shall hereafter be more\n fully proved, it seems that the parts which are seen rising at its\n pleasure, and are called arms, are properly the tentacula, or\n feeling instruments, called horns, as well as arms. With these they\n move themselves, and likewise gather in their food.\n\n \"Besides these, for this last purpose the great Creator has also\n given this creature a strong and peculiar scent, which it can emit\n at certain times, and by means of which it beguiles and draws other\n fish to come in heaps about it. This animal has another strange\n property, known by the experience of many old fishermen. They\n observe that for some months the Kraken or Krabben is continually\n eating, and in other months he always voids his excrements. During\n this evacuation the surface of the water is coloured with the\n excrement, and appears quite thick and turbid. This muddiness is\n said to be so very agreeable to the smell or taste of other fishes,\n or to both, that they gather together from all parts to it, and\n keep for that purpose directly over the Kraken; he then opens his\n arms or horns, seizes and swallows his welcome guests, and converts\n them after due time, by digestion, into a bait for other fish of\n the same kind. I relate what is affirmed by many; but I cannot give\n so certain assurances of this particular, as I can of the existence\n of this surprising creature; though I do not find anything in it\n absolutely contrary to Nature. As we can hardly expect to examine\n this enormous sea-animal alive, I am the more concerned that nobody\n embraced that opportunity which, according to the following account\n once did, and perhaps never more may offer, of seeing it entire\n when dead.\"\n\n [4] 'Natural History of Norway,' vol. ii., p. 210.\n\nThe lost opportunity which the worthy prelate thus lamented, with the\ntrue feeling of a naturalist, was made known to him by the Rev. Mr.\nFriis, Consistorial Assessor, Minister of Bodoen in Nordland, and Vicar\nof the college for promoting Christian knowledge, and was to the\nfollowing effect:\n\n \"In the year 1680, a Krake (perhaps a young and foolish one) came\n into the water that runs between the rocks and cliffs in the parish\n of Alstaboug, though the general custom of that creature is to keep\n always several leagues from land, and therefore of course they must\n die there. It happened that its extended long arms or antennae,\n which this creature seems to use like the snail in turning about,\n caught hold of some trees standing near the water, which might\n easily have been torn up by the roots; but beside this, as it was\n found afterwards, he entangled himself in some openings or clefts\n in the rock, and therein stuck so fast, and hung so unfortunately,\n that he could not work himself out, but perished and putrefied on\n the spot. The carcass, which was a long while decaying, and filled\n great part of that narrow channel, made it almost impassable by its\n intolerable stench.\n\n \"The Kraken has never been known to do any great harm, except,\"\n the Author quaintly says, \"they have taken away the lives of those\n who consequently could not bring the tidings. I have heard but one\n instance mentioned, which happened a few years ago, near\n Fridrichstad, in the diocess of Aggerhuus. They say that two\n fishermen accidentally, and to their great surprise, fell into such\n a spot on the water as has been before described, full of a thick\n slime almost like a morass. They immediately strove to get out of\n this place, but they had not time to turn quick enough to save\n themselves from one of the Kraken's horns, which crushed the head\n of the boat, so that it was with great difficulty they saved their\n lives on the wreck, though the weather was as calm as possible; for\n these monsters, like the sea-snake, never appear at other times.\"\n\nPontoppidan then reviews the stories of floating islands which suddenly\nappear, and as suddenly vanish, commonly credited, and especially\nmentioned by Luke Debes in his 'Description of Faroe.'\n\n \"These islands in the boisterous ocean could not be imagined,\" he\n says, \"to be of the nature of real floating islands, because they\n could not possibly stand against the violence of the waves in the\n ocean, which break the largest vessels, and therefore our sailors\n have concluded this delusion could come from no other than the\n great deceiver, the devil.\"\n\nThis accusation, the good bishop, in his desire to be strictly\nimpartial, will not admit on such hear-say evidence, but is determined\nto, literally, \"give the devil his due;\" for he warns his readers that\n\"we ought not to charge that apostate spirit without a cause; for,\" he\nadds, \"I rather think that this devil who so suddenly makes and unmakes\nthese floating islands, is nothing else but the Kraken.\"\n\nReferring to a monster described by Pliny, he repeats his belief that\n\"This sea-animal belongs to the Polype, or Star-fish species;\" but he\nbecomes very much \"mixed\" between the _Cephalopoda_ and the _Asteridae_,\nbetween the pedal segments, or arms, of the cuttle radiating from its\nhead, and the rays of a Star-fish radiating from a central portion of\nthe body. He evidently inclines strongly towards a particular Star-fish,\nthe rays of which continually divide and subdivide themselves, or, as he\ndescribes it, \"which shoots its rays into branches like those of trees,\"\nand to which he gave the name of \"Medusa's Head,\" a title by which, in\nits Greek form, _Gorgonocephalus_, it is still known to zoologists.\n\"These Medusa's Heads,\" he says, \"are supposed by some seafaring people\nhere, to be the young of the Sea-Krake; perhaps they are its smallest\novula.\" After considering other reports concerning the Kraken, he\narrives at the following definite opinion:\n\n \"We learn from all this that the Polype or Starfish have amongst\n their various species some that are much larger than others; and,\n according to all appearance, amongst the very largest inhabitants\n of the ocean. If the axiom be true that greatness or littleness\n makes no change in the species, then this Krake must be of the\n Polypus kind, notwithstanding its enormous size.\"\n\nHis diagnosis is correct; but it is stated with a modesty which his\ndetractors would do well to imitate; and his concluding words on this\nsubject place him in a light very different from that in which he is\npopularly regarded:\n\n \"I do not in the least insist on this conjecture being true,\" he\n writes, \"but willingly submit my suppositions in this and every\n other dubious matter to the judgment of those who are better\n experienced. If I was an admirer of uncertain reports and fabulous\n stories, I might here add much more concerning this and other\n Norwegian sea-monsters, whose existence I will not take upon me to\n deny, but do not chuse, by a mixture of uncertain relations to make\n such account appear doubtful as I myself believe to be true and\n well attested. I shall therefore quit the subject here, and leave\n it to future writers on this plan to complete what I have\n imperfectly sketched out, by further experience, which is always\n the best instructor.\"\n\nIt is easy to recognise in Pontoppidan's description of the Kraken, the\nform and habits of one of the \"Cuttle-fishes,\" so-called. The appearance\nof its numerous arms, with which it gathers in its food, and which grow\nthicker and thicker as they rise above the surface, is just what would\ntake place in the case of one of the pelagic species of these mollusks\nraising its head out of the sea. The rendering of the water turbid and\nthick by the emission of a substance which the narrator supposed to be\nfaecal matter, is exactly that which occurs when a cuttle discharges the\ncontents of the remarkable organ known as its ink-bag; and the strong\nand peculiar scent mentioned as appertaining to it, is actually\ncharacteristic of its inky secretion. The musky odour referred to, is\nmore perceptible in some species than in others. In one of the Octopods\n(_Eledone moschatus_), it is so strong, that the specific name of the\nanimal is derived from it.\n\nThe ancient Greeks and Romans, who were well acquainted with the\nvarious kinds of cuttles and regarded them all as excellent food, and\neven as delicacies of the table, applied the word \"polypus\" especially\nto the octopus. But Pontoppidan evidently uses it as descriptive of all\nthe cephalopods. It must not be forgotten, however, that when he wrote,\nscience was only slowly recovering from neglect of many centuries'\nduration. In the enlightened times of Greece and Rome, natural history\nflourished, and as in our day, attracted and occupied the attention of\nthe man of science, and afforded recreation to the man of business and\nthe politician. Aristotle wrote 322 years before the birth of Christ,\nand his works are monuments of practical wisdom. When we consider the\nperiod during which he lived, and the isolated nature of his labours,\nand compare them with the information which he possessed, we are\nastonished at his sagacity and the great scope and general accuracy of\nhis knowledge. Pliny, 240 years later, lived in times more favourable\nfor the cultivation of science; but with all his advantages made little\nimprovement on the work of the great master. And then, later still, the\nsun of learning set; and there came over Europe the long night of the\ndark ages which succeeded Roman greatness, during which science was\ndegraded and ignorance prevailed; and it is not till the middle of the\nsixteenth century, that the zoologist finds much to interest and\ninstruct him. When we further reflect, that until within the past five\nand twenty years--till our large aquaria were constructed--Aristotle's\nknowledge of the habits and life-history of marine animals, and amongst\nthem the cephalopods, was incomparably greater and more perfect than\nthat possessed by any man who had lived since he recorded his\nobservations, we cannot help feeling that in some departments of\nknowledge there is still lost ground to be recovered.\n\nIn the old days of the Caesars, a Greek or Roman house-wife who was\naccustomed to see the cuttle, the squid, and the octopus daily exposed\nfor sale in the markets, would of course have laughed at the idea of\nmistaking the one for the other; but there are comparatively few persons\nin our own country, at the present day, except those who have made\nmarine zoology their study, whose ideas on the subject are not\nexceedingly hazy. This want of technical knowledge is not confined to\nthe masses; but is common, if not general, amongst those who have been\nwell educated, and is frequently apparent even in leaders in the daily\npapers--the productions, for the most part, of men of receptive minds,\ntrained discrimination, and great general knowledge. As the subject is\none in which I have long felt especial interest, I venture to hope that\nI may succeed in making clear the difference between the eight-footed\noctopus and its ten-footed relatives, and thus enable the reader to\nidentify the member of the family from which we are to strip the dress\nand \"make up\" in which it masqueraded as the Kraken, and cause it to\nappear in its true and natural form.\n\nOne of the great primary groups or divisions of the animal kingdom is\nthat of the soft-bodied mollusca; which includes the cuttle, the oyster,\nthe snail, &c. It has been separated into five \"classes,\" of which the\none we have especially to notice is the _Cephalopoda_,[5] or\n\"head-footed,\"--the animals belonging to it having their feet, or the\norgans which correspond with the foot of other molluscs, so attached to\nthe head as to form a circle or coronet round the mouth. Some of these\nhave the foot divided into eight segments, and are therefore called the\n_Octopoda_:[6] others have, in addition to the eight feet, lobes, or\narms, two longer tentacular appendages, making ten in all, and are\nconsequently called the _Decapoda_.\n\n [5] From the Greek words _cephale_, the head; and _poda_, feet.\n\n [6] From _octo_, eight; and _pous_ (_poda_), feet.\n\nOf the ten-footed section of the cephalopods, there are four \"families;\"\ntwo only of which exist in Britain--the _Teuthidae_, and the _Sepiidae_.\nThe _Teuthidae_ are the Calamaries, popularly known as \"Squids,\" and are\nrepresented by the long-bodied _Loligo vulgaris_, that has internally\nalong its back a gristly, translucent stiffener, shaped like a\nquill-pen; from which and its ink it derives its names of \"calamary\"\n(from \"_calamus_,\" a \"pen\"), \"pen-and-ink fish,\" and \"sea-clerk.\" The\n_Sepiidae_ are generally known as the Cuttles proper. As a type of them\nwe may take the common \"cuttle-fish,\" _Sepia officinalis_, the owner of\nthe hard, calcareous shell often thrown up on the shore, and known as\n\"cuttle-bone,\" or \"sea-biscuit.\"\n\nIt must here be remarked, that as these head-footed mollusks are not\n\"fish,\" any more than lobsters, crabs, oysters, mussels, &c., which\nfishmongers call \"shell-fish,\" are \"fish,\" the word \"fish\" is\nmisleading, and should be abandoned; and secondly, that the names\n\"cuttle\" and \"squid,\" as distinctive appellations, are unsatisfactory.\nThe word \"cuttle\" is derived from \"cuddle,\" to hug, or embrace--in\nallusion to the manner in which the animal seizes its prey, and enfolds\nit in its arms; and \"squid\" is derived from \"squirt,\" in reference to\nits habit of squirting water or ink. But as all the known members of the\nclass, except the pearly nautilus, _Nautilus pompilius_, have these\nhabits in common, the distinguishing terms are hardly apposite. As,\nhowever, they are conventionally accepted and understood, I prefer to\nuse them. As with other mollusks, so with the cephalopods, some have\nshells, and some are naked or have only rudimentary shells. The\nArgonaut, or paper nautilus, has been regarded as the analogue of the\nsnail, which, like it, secretes an _external_ shell for the protection\nof its soft body; and the octopus as that of the garden slug, which,\nhaving organs like those of the snail, as the octopus has organs like\nthose of the shell-bearing argonaut, has no shell. The cuttles and\nsquids may be compared to some of the sea-slugs, as _Aplysia_ and\n_Bullaea_, and to some land-slugs, as _Parmacella_ and _Limax_, which\nhave an _internal_ shell.\n\nThe argonaut and the other families of the cephalopods do not come\nwithin the scope of this treatise; we will therefore confine our\nattention to the three above mentioned. Of the anatomy and homology of\nthe _Octopus_, _Sepia_, and _Calamary_ we need say no more than will\nsuffice to show in what manner they resemble each other, and wherein\nthey differ, in order that we may the more clearly perceive to which of\nthem the story of the Kraken probably owes its origin.\n\nThe octopus, the sepia, and the calamary are all constructed on one\nfundamental plan. A bag of fleshy muscular skin, called the mantle-sac,\ncontains the organs of the body, heart, stomach, liver, intestines, a\npair of gills by which oxygen is absorbed from the water for the\npurification of the blood, and an excurrent tube by which the water thus\ndeprived of its life-sustaining gas is expelled. The outrush of water\nwith more or less force, from this \"syphon-tube,\" is also the principal\nsource of locomotion when the animal is swimming, as it propels it\nbackward--not by the striking of the expelled fluid against the\nsurrounding water, as is generally supposed; but by the unbalanced\npressure of the fluid acting inside the body in the direction in which\nthe creature goes. Into this syphon-tube, or funnel, opens, by a special\nduct, the ink-bag; and from it is squirted at will the intensely black\nfluid therein secreted. I doubt very much the correctness of the\nstatement mentioned by Pontoppidan and others, that the cuttle ejects\nits ink with a desire to lie hidden and in ambush for its intended prey,\nor with the intention to attract fish within its reach by their\npartiality for the musky odour of this secretion. It may be so, but\nduring the long period that I had these animals under close observation\nat the Brighton Aquarium, I never witnessed such an incident. I believe\nthat the emission of the ink is a symptom of fear, and is only employed\nas a means of concealment from a suspected enemy. I have found, that\nwhen first taken, the _Sepia_, of all its kind, is the most sensitively\ntimid. Its keen, unwinking eye watches for and perceives the slightest\nmovement of its captor; and if even most cautiously looked at from\nabove, its ink is belched forth in eddying volumes, rolling over and\nover like the smoke which follows the discharge of a great gun from a\nship's port, and mixes with marvellous rapidity with the surrounding\nwater. But, like all of its class, the _Sepia_ is very intelligent. It\nsoon learns to discriminate between friend and foe, and ultimately\nbecomes very tame, and ceases to shoot its ink, unless it be teased and\nexcited. By means of the communication between the ink-bag and the\nlocomotor tube, it happens that when the ink is ejected, a stream of\nwater is forcibly emitted with it, and thus the very effort for escape\nserves the double purpose of propelling the creature away from danger,\nand discolouring the water in which it moves. Oppian has well described\nthis--\n\n \"The endangered cuttle thus evades his fears,\n And native hoards of fluids safely wears.\n A pitchy ink peculiar glands supply\n Whose shades the sharpest beam of light defy.\n Pursued, he bids the sable fountains flow,\n And, wrapt in clouds, eludes the impending foe.\n The fish retreats unseen, while self-born night\n With pious shade befriends her parent's flight.\"\n\nProfessor Owen has remarked that the ejection of the ink of the\ncephalopods serves by its colour as a means of defence, as corresponding\nsecretions in some of the mammalia by their odour.\n\nIt is worthy of notice that the pearly nautilus and the allied fossil\nforms are without this means of concealment, which their strong external\nshells render unnecessary for their protection.\n\nFrom the sac-like body containing the various organs, protrudes a head,\nglobose in shape, and containing a brain, and furnished with a pair of\nstrong, horny mandibles, which bite vertically, like the beak of a\nparrot. By these the flesh of prey is torn and partly masticated, and\nwithin them lies the tongue, covered with recurved and retractile teeth,\nlike that of its distant relatives, the whelk, limpet, &c., by which the\nfood is conducted to the gullet. Around this head is, as I have said,\nthe organ which is equivalent to the foot in other molluscs--that by\nwhich the slug and the snail crawl--only that the head is placed in the\ncentre, instead of in the front of it, and it is divided into segments,\nwhich radiate from this central head. These segments are very flexible,\nand capable of movement in every direction, and are thus developed into\narms, prehensile limbs, by which their owner can seize and hold its\nliving prey. That this may be more perfectly accomplished, these arms\nare studded along their inner surface with rows of sucking discs, in\neach of which, by means of a retractile piston, a vacuum can be\nproduced. The consequent pressure of the outer atmosphere or water,\ncauses them to adhere firmly to any substance to which they are applied,\nwhether stone, fish, crustacean, or flesh of man.\n\nBut, although in all these highly-organised head-footed mollusks the\nsame general build prevails, it is admirably modified in each of them to\nsuit certain habits and necessities. Thus the octopus, being a shore\ndweller, its soft and pliant, but very tough body, having merely a very\nsmall and rudimentary indication of an internal shell (just a little\n\"style\") is exactly adapted for wedging itself amongst crevices of\nrocks. A large, rigid, cellular float, or \"sepiostaire,\" such as _Sepia_\npossesses, or a long, horny pen such as _Loligo_ has, would be in the\nway, and worse than useless in such places as the octopus inhabits. Its\neight long powerful arms or feet are precisely fitted for clambering\nover rocks and stones, and as its food of course consists principally of\nthe living things most abundant in such localities, namely, the\nshore-crabs, its great flexible suckers, devoid of hooks or horny\narmature, are exactly adapted to firm and air-tight attachment to the\nsmooth shells of the crustacea.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 1.--BEAK AND ARMS OF A DECAPOD CUTTLE.\n\n_a_, the eight shorter arms; _t_, the tentacles; _f_, the funnel, or\nlocomotor tube.]\n\nUnlike the octopus, which is capable only of short flights through the\nwater, the \"cuttles\" and \"squids,\" such as _Sepia_ and _Loligo_, are all\nfree swimmers. For them it is necessary for accuracy of natation that\ntheir soft, and in the squids long bodies, should be supported by such a\nframework as they possess. In _Sepia_, the mantle-sac is flattened\nhorizontally all along its lateral edges so as to form a pair of fins,\nwhich nearly surround the trunk. These fins could never be used, as they\nare, to enable the animal to poise itself delicately in the water by\nmeans of their beautiful undulations, which I have often watched with\ndelight, if their attached edges were not kept in a straight line on\neither side. Then, these ten-footed or ten-armed genera have not,\nbecause they need them not, eight long, strong and highly mobile arms\nlike those of the octopus, nor have they large suckers upon them.\nWhereas a great length of reach is an advantage to the octopus, animals\nwhich are purely swimmers, and which hunt and overtake their prey by\nspeed, would be impeded by having to drag after them a bundle of stout,\nlengthy appendages trailing heavily astern. Their eight pedal arms are\nshort and comparatively weak, though strong enough, in individuals such\nas are regarded on our own coasts as fullgrown, to seize and hold a fish\nor crustacean as strong as a good sized shore-crab. But, as compensation\nfor the shortness of the eight arms, they are provided with two others\nmore than three times the length of the short ones. These are so slender\nthat they generally lie coiled up in a spiral cone in two pockets, one\non each side, just below the eye, when the animal is quiescent, and are\nonly seen when it takes its food. These long, slender tentacular arms\nare expanded at their extremity, and the inner surface of their enlarged\npart is studded with suckers--some of them larger in size than those on\nthe eight shorter arms. As the food of these swimmers consists, of\ncourse, chiefly of fish, their sucking disks are curiously modified for\nthe better retention of a slippery captive. A horny ring with a sharply\nserrated edge is imbedded in the outer circumference of each of them,\nand when a vacuum is formed, the keen, saw-like teeth are pressed into\nthe skin or scales of the unfortunate prisoner, and deprive it of the\nslightest chance of escape.\n\nThe manner in which the eight-armed and ten-armed cephalopods capture\ntheir prey is similar in principle and plan, but differs in action in\naccordance with their mode of life. The ordinary habit of the octopus is\neither to rest suspended to the side of a rock to which it clings with\nthe suckers of several of its arms, or to remain lurking in some\nfavourite cranny; its body thrust for protection and concealment well\nback in the interior of the recess; its bright eyes keenly on the watch;\nthree or four of its limbs firmly attached to the walls of its hiding\nplace--the others gently waving, gliding, and feeling about in the\nwater, as if to maintain its vigilance, and keep itself always on the\nalert, and in readiness to pounce on any unfortunate wayfarer that may\npass near its den. To a shore-crab that comes within its reach the\nslightest contact with one of those lithe arms is fatal. Instantaneously\nas pull of trigger brings down a bird, or touch of electric wire\nexplodes a torpedo or a mining fuse, the pistons of the series of\nsuckers are simultaneously drawn inward, the air is removed from the\npneumatic holders, and a vacuum created in each: the crab tries to\nescape, but in a second is completely pinioned: not a movement, not a\nstruggle is possible; each leg, each claw is grasped all over by\nsuckers, enfolded in them, stretched out to its fullest extent by them;\nthe back of the carapace is completely covered by the tenacious disks,\nbrought together by the adaptable contractions of the limb, and ranged\nin close order, shoulder to shoulder, touching each other; and the\npressure of the air is so great that nothing can effect the relaxation\nof their retentive power but the destruction of the air-pump that works\nthem, or the closing of the throttle-valve by which they are connected\nwith it. Meanwhile the abdominal plates of the captive crab are dragged\ntowards the mouth; the black tip of the hard horny beak is seen for a\nsingle instant protruding from the circular orifice in the centre of the\nradiation of the arms; and, the next, has crushed through the shell, and\nis buried deep in the flesh of the victim.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 2.--THE OCTOPUS (_Octopus vulgaris_).]\n\nUnlike the skulking, hiding octopus, its ten-armed relative, the\n_Sepia_ loves the daylight and the freedom of the upper water. Its\npredatory acts are not those of a concealed and ambushed brigand lying\nin wait behind a rock, or peeping furtively from within the gloomy\nshadow of a cave; but it may better be compared to the war-like Comanche\nvidette seated gracefully on his horse, and scanning from some elevated\nknoll a wide expanse of prairie, in readiness to swoop upon a weak or\nunarmed foe. Poised near the surface of the water, like a hawk in the\nair, the _Sepia_ moves gently to and fro by graceful undulations of its\nlateral fins,--an exquisite play of colour occasionally taking place\nover its beautifully barred and mottled back. When thus tranquil, its\neight pedal arms are usually brought close together, and droop in front\nof its head, like the trunk of an elephant, shortened; its two longer\ntentacular arms being coiled up within their pouches and unseen. Only\nwhen some small fish approaches it does it arouse itself. Then, its eyes\ndilate, and its colours become more bright and vivid. It carefully takes\naim, advancing or retreating to such a distance as will just allow the\ntwo hidden tentacles to reach the quarry when they shall be shot out.\nNext, the two highest or central feet are lifted up, and the three\nothers on each side are spread aside, so that they may be all out of the\nway of the two concealed tentacles, presently to be launched forth; and\nthen, in a moment--so instantaneously that the eye of an observer, be he\never so watchful, can hardly see the act--this pair of tentacles, side\nby side, are projected and withdrawn, as if in a flash. The fish or\nshrimp has vanished, the suckers of the dilated ends of the tentacles\nhaving adhered to it, and left it, as they re-entered their pouches,\nwithin the fatal \"cuddle,\" or embrace, where it is torn to pieces by the\ndevouring beak.[7] This action of the tentacles of the decapods is the\nmost rapid motion that I know of in the whole animal kingdom--not\nexcepting even that of the tongue of the toad and the lizard. These long\ntentacles are not used when the food is within reach of the shorter\narms.\n\n [7] See an excellent article in the _Field_, Sept. 2, 1876, on the\n 'Ten Footed Cuttle' (_Sepia officinalis_), by the late Mr. W. A.\n Lloyd, an earnest and accomplished aquatic zoologist; eccentric,\n but in all that relates to the construction and management of an\n aquarium a master of his craft. It was his wish that in any future\n edition of my little book on the Octopus, or other writings on the\n cephalopods, I should use the woodcuts which illustrated his\n articles on Sepia and Octopus. By the kind permission of the\n proprietors of the _Field_, I reproduce them in suitable size for\n these pages.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 3.--THE CUTTLE (_Sepia officinalis_).]\n\nThe calamaries or squids of our British Seas seize their prey in the\nsame manner as _Sepia_, and the description of one will suffice for\nboth. But there exist two groups of them, which are armed with curved\nand sharp-pointed hooks or claws, either in addition to, or instead\nof suckers. In the one group (_Onychoteuthis_), the hooks are\nrestricted to the extremities of the pair of tentacles, in the other\n(_Enoploteuthis_), both the tentacles and the shorter arms have hooks.\nProfessor Owen, in his description of these hook-armed calamaries in the\n_Cyclopaedia of Anatomy_, notices also another structure which adds\ngreatly to their prehensile power (Fig. 4.). \"At the extremity of the\nlong tentacles a cluster of small, simple, unarmed suckers may be\nobserved at the base of the expanded part. When these latter suckers are\napplied to one another the tentacles are securely locked together at\nthat part, and the united strength of both the elongated peduncles can\nbe applied to drag towards the mouth any resisting object which has been\ngrappled by the terminal hooks. There is no mechanical contrivance which\nsurpasses this structure; art has remotely imitated it in the\nfabrication of the obstetrical forceps, in which either blade can be\nused separately, or, by the inter-locking of a temporary blade, be made\nto act in combination.\"\n\nThe cephalopods obtain and eat their food very much like the rapacious\nbirds. They are the falcons of the sea. Some of them, like\n_Onychoteuthis_, strike their prey with talons and suckers also, others\nlay hold of it with suckers alone; but they all tear the flesh with\ntheir beaks, and swallow and digest their food in the same manner as the\nhawk or vulture.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 4.--HOOKED TENTACLES OF _Onychoteuthis_.]\n\nThe _Sepia_, the owner of the broad, flattened bone, has a decided\npredilection for the vicinity of the shore, and for comparatively\nshallow water. It there attaches its grape-like eggs to some convenient\nstone or growing alga, and delights occasionally to sink to the bottom,\nand there to rest half covered by the sand, a habit for which the form\nof its body is well adapted. But the calamaries--they of the horny\npen--prefer the wide waters of the open ocean; and although they, too,\nespecially the smaller species, are common upon the coasts, they are\nfrequently met with far out at sea, and away from any land. The\nelongated and almost arrow-like shape of their bodies enables them to\nglide through the water with great rapidity, and the momentum exerted by\na vigorous out-rush from their syphon-tube is sometimes so great that\nwhen the opposite pressure thus produced is so exerted as to cause them\nto take an upward direction they leap out of the water to so great a\nheight as to fall on the decks of ships; and are, therefore, called by\nsailors, \"flying squids.\" Their spawn is very different from that of\neither octopus, or sepia. It consists of dozens of semi-transparent,\ngelatinous, slender, cylindrical sheaths, about four or five inches\nlong, each containing many ova imbedded in it (making a total number of\nabout 40,000 embryos), all springing from a common centre and resembling\na mop without a handle. I have never seen any of these \"sea-mops\"\nattached to anything, and the pelagic habits of the calamaries render it\nprobable that they are left floating on the surface of the sea.\n\nHaving made ourselves acquainted with the structure and habits of these\nthree divisions of the eight-footed and ten-footed mollusks, let us take\nevidence as to the size to which they are respectively known to attain,\nand the degree in which they may be regarded as dangerous to man.\n\nAn octopus from our own coasts having arms two feet in length may be\nconsidered a rather large specimen; and Dr. J. E. Gray, who was always\nmost kindly ready to place at the disposal of any sincere inquirer the\nvast store of knowledge laid up in his wonderful memory, told me that\n\"there is not one in the British Museum which exceeds this size, or\nwhich would not go into a quart pot--body, arms and all.\" The largest\nBritish specimen I have hitherto seen had arms 2 ft. 6 in. long. We have\nsufficient evidence, however, that it exceeds this in the South of\nFrance, and along the Spanish and Italian coasts of the Mediterranean;\nand my deceased friend John Keast Lord tells us in his book, 'The\nNaturalist in British Columbia,' that he saw and measured, in\nVancouver's Island, an octopus which had arms five feet long.\n\nI have often been asked whether an octopus of the ordinary size can\nreally be dangerous to bathers. Decidedly, \"Yes,\" in certain situations.\nThe holding power of its numerous suckers is enormous. It is almost\nimpossible forcibly to detach it from its adhesion to a rock or the flat\nbottom of a tank; and if a large one happened to fix one or more of its\nstrong, tough arms on the leg of a swimmer whilst the others held firmly\nto a rock, I doubt if the man could disengage himself under water by\nmere strength, before being exhausted. Fortunately the octopus can be\nmade to relax its hold by grasping it tightly round the \"throat\" (if I\nmay so call it), and it may be well that this should be known.\n\nThat men are occasionally drowned by these creatures is, unhappily, a\nfact too well attested. I have elsewhere[8] related several instances of\nthis having occurred. Omitting those, I will give two or three others\nwhich have since come under my notice. Sir Grenville Temple, in his\n'Excursions in the Mediterranean Sea,' tells how a Sardinian captain,\nwhilst bathing at Jerbeh, was seized and drowned by an octopus. When his\nbody was found, his limbs were bound together by the arms of the animal;\nand this took place in water only four feet deep.\n\n [8] See 'The Octopus; or, the Devil-fish of Fiction and of Fact.'\n 1873. Chapman and Hall.\n\nMr. J. K. Lord's account of the formidable strength of these creatures\nin Oregon is confirmed by an incident recorded in the _Weekly Oregonian_\n(the principal paper of Oregon) of October 6th, 1877. A few days before\nthat date an Indian woman, whilst bathing, was held beneath the surface\nby an octopus, and drowned. The body was discovered on the following day\nin the horrid embrace of the creature. Indians dived down and with their\nknives severed the arms of the octopus and recovered the corpse.\n\nMr. Clemens Laming, in his book, 'The French in Algiers,' writes:--\"The\nsoldiers were in the habit of bathing in the sea every evening, and from\ntime to time several of them disappeared--no one knew how. Bathing was,\nin consequence, strictly forbidden; in spite of which several men went\ninto the water one evening. Suddenly one of them screamed for help, and\nwhen several others rushed to his assistance they found that an octopus\nhad seized him by the leg by four of its arms whilst it clung to the\nrock with the rest. The soldiers brought the 'monster' home with them,\nand out of revenge they boiled it alive and ate it. This adventure\naccounted for the disappearance of the other soldiers.\"\n\nThe Rev. W. Wyatt Gill, who for more than a quarter of a century has\nresided as a missionary amongst the inhabitants of the Hervey Islands,\nand with whom I had the pleasure of conversing on this subject when he\nwas in England in 1875, described in the _Leisure Hour_ of April 20th,\n1872, another mode of attack by which an octopus might deprive a man of\nlife. A servant of his went diving for \"poulpes\" (octopods), leaving his\nson in charge of the canoe. After a short time he rose to the surface,\nhis arms free, but his nostrils and mouth completely covered by a large\noctopus. If his son had not promptly torn the living plaister from off\nhis face he must have been suffocated--a fate which actually befell some\nyears previously a man who foolishly went diving alone.\n\nIn _Appleton's American Journal of Science and Art_, January 31st,\n1874, a correspondent describes an attack by an octopus on a diver who\nwas at work on the wreck of a sunken steamer off the coast of Florida.\nThe man, a powerful Irishman, was helpless in its grasp, and would have\nbeen drowned if he had not been quickly brought to the surface; for when\ndragged on to the raft from which he had descended, he fainted, and his\ncompanions were unable to pull the creature from its hold upon him until\nthey had dealt it a sharp blow across its baggy body.\n\nA similar incident occurred to the government diver of the colony of\nVictoria, Australia. Whilst pursuing his avocation in the estuary of the\nriver Moyne he was seized by an octopus. He killed it by striking it\nwith an iron bar, and brought to shore with him a portion of it with the\narms more than three feet long.\n\nMr. Laurence Oliphant, in his 'China and Japan,' describes a Japanese\nshow, which consisted of \"a series of groups of figures carved in wood,\nthe size of life, and as cleverly coloured as Madame Tussaud's\nwax-works. One of these was a group of women bathing in the sea. One of\nthem had been caught in the folds of a cuttle-fish; the others, in\nalarm, were escaping, leaving their companion to her fate. The\ncuttle-fish was represented on a huge scale, its eyes, eyelids, and\nmouth being made to move simultaneously by a man inside the head.\"\n\nAn attack of this kind is most artistically represented in a small\nJapanese ivory-carving in the possession of Mr. Bartlett, of the\nZoological Gardens.[9]\n\n [9] This carving was figured in illustration of an interesting\n paper by Professor Owen, C.B., F.R.S., &c., \"On some new and rare\n Cephalopoda,\" in the Transactions of the Zoological Society, April\n 20, 1880.\n\nThe Japanese are well acquainted with the octopus; for it is commonly\ndepicted on their ornaments, and forms no unimportant item in their\nfisheries.\n\nI have recently had an opportunity of inspecting a most curious\nJapanese book, in the possession of my friend Mr. W. B. Tegetmeier,\nwhich is chiefly devoted to the representations of the fisheries and\nfish-curing processes of the country. It is in three volumes, and is\nentitled, 'Land and Sea Products,' by Ki Kone. It is evidently ancient,\nfor it is slightly worm-eaten, but the plates, each 12 inches by 8\ninches, are full of vigour. Two of these illustrate in a very\ninteresting manner the subject before us, and by the kindness of Mr.\nTegetmeier I am able to give facsimiles of them, which appeared with an\narticle by him on this book, in the _Field_ of March 14th, 1874. Fig. 5\nrepresents a fisherman in a boat out at sea: a gigantic octopus has\nthrown one of its arms over the side of the boat; the man, who is alone,\nhas started forward from the stern of the boat, and has succeeded, by\nmeans of a large knife attached to a long handle, in lopping off the\ndangerous limb of his enemy. As Mr. Tegetmeier says, \"From the extreme\nmatter of fact manner in which all these engravings are made, and the\ntotal absence of exaggeration in any other representation, I cannot but\nregard the relative sizes of the man, the boat, and the octopus, as\ncorrectly given, in which case we have evidence of the existence of\ngigantic cephalopods in Japanese waters.\" The only doubt I have is\nwhether the fisherman correctly described his assailant as an octopus,\nand whether it was not a calamary. Fig. 6 is a vivid picture of a\nfishmonger's shop in a market, under the awning of which may be seen two\narms of a gigantic cuttle hung up for sale as food. These are evidently\nof most unusual size, judging from the action of the lookers on; the one\nto the left, with a tall stand or case on his back, like a Parisian\ncocoa-vendor, is holding out his hand in mute astonishment; whilst the\nattention of the smaller personage in the right-hand corner is directed\nto the suspended arms of the cuttle by the man nearest to him, who is\npointing to them with upraised hand. In another plate in this most\ninteresting work a Japanese mode of fishing for cuttles is delineated. A\nman in a boat is tossing crabs, one at a time, into the sea, and when a\ncuttle rises at the bait he spears it with a trident and tosses it into\nthe boat.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 5.--JAPANESE FISHERMAN ATTACKED BY A CUTTLE.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 6.--ARMS OF A GREAT CUTTLE EXHIBITED IN A JAPANESE\nFISHMONGER'S SHOP.]\n\nThe octopus, therefore, though not abundant on our own coasts, is found\nin every sea in the temperate zone; and in so far as that it secretes an\nink with which it can render the water turbid, and has many radiating\narms with which it can seize and drown a man, it possesses certain\nattributes of the Kraken; but we have no authentic knowledge of its ever\nattaining to greater dimensions than I have stated, nor does it bask on\nthe surface of the sea. It is not amongst the _Octopidae_ therefore that\nwe must look for a solution of the mystery.\n\nThe basking condition is fulfilled by the _Sepia_; and its flattened\nback, supported and rendered hard and firm to the touch by the\ncalcareous _sepiostaire_ beneath the skin, is broader in proportion than\nthat of the octopus or the squid. Thus _Sepia_ might pass as a\nmicroscopic miniature of the great Scandinavian monster. But it lacks\nthe character of size. We have no reason to believe that any true\n_Sepia_ exists, as the family is now understood, that has a body more\nthan eighteen inches long. If it were otherwise it would be more likely\nto be known of this family than of its relatives, for its lightly\nconstructed and well known \"cuttle-bone\" would float on the surface for\nmany weeks after the death of its owner, and large specimens of it would\nbe seen and recognised from passing ships.\n\nAs we can find no species of the _Octopidae_ or _Sepiidae_ which can\nfurnish a pretext for the stories told of the Kraken, we must try to\nascertain how far a similitude to it may be traced in the third family\nwe have discussed, the _Teuthidae_.\n\nThe belief in the existence of gigantic cuttles is an ancient one.\nAristotle mentions it, and Pliny tells of an enormous polypus which at\nCarteia, in Grenada--an old and important Roman colony near\nGibraltar--used to come out of the sea at night, and carry off and\ndevour salted tunnies from the curing depots on the shore; and adds that\nwhen it was at last killed, the head of it (they used to call the body\nthe head, because in swimming it goes in advance) was found to weigh 700\nlbs. AElian records a similar incident, and describes his monster as\ncrushing in its arms the barrels of salt fish to get at the contents.\nThese two must have been octopods if they were anything; the word\n\"polypus\" thus especially designates it, and moreover, the free-swimming\ncuttles and squids would be helpless if stranded on the shore. Some of\nthe old writers seem to have aimed rather at making their histories\nsensational than at carefully investigating the credibility or the\ncontrary of the highly coloured reports brought to them. These were, of\ncourse, gross exaggerations, but there was generally a substratum of\ntruth in them. They were based on the rare occurrence of specimens,\nsmaller certainly, but still enormous, of some known species, and in\nmost cases the worst that can be said of their authors is that they were\nculpably careless and foolishly credulous.\n\nUnhappily so lenient a judgment cannot be passed on some comparatively\nrecent writers. Denys de Montfort, half a century later than\nPontoppidan, not only professed to believe in the Kraken, but also in\nthe existence of another gigantic animal distinct from it; a colossal\n_poulpe_, or octopus, compared with which Pliny's was a mere pigmy. In a\ndrawing fitter to decorate the outside of a showman's caravan at a fair\nthan seriously to illustrate a work on natural history,[10] he depicted\nthis tremendous cuttle as throwing its arms over a three masted vessel,\nsnapping off its masts, tearing down the yards, and on the point of\ndragging it to the bottom, if the crew had not succeeded in cutting off\nits immense limbs with cutlasses and hatchets. De Montfort had good\nopportunities of obtaining information, for he was at one time an\nassistant in the geological department of the Museum of Natural History,\nin Paris; and wrote a work on conchology,[11] besides that already\nreferred to. But it appears to have been his deliberate purpose to\ncajole the public; for it is reported that he exclaimed to M. Defrance:\n\"If my entangled ship is accepted, I will make my 'colossal poulpe'\noverthrow a whole fleet.\" Accordingly we find him gravely declaring[12]\nthat one of the great victories of the British navy was converted into a\ndisaster by the monsters which are the subject of his history. He boldly\nasserted that the six men-of-war captured from the French by Admiral\nRodney in the West Indies on the 12th of April, 1782, together with four\nBritish ships detached from his fleet to convoy the prizes, were all\nsuddenly engulphed in the waves on the night of the battle under such\ncircumstances as showed that the catastrophe was caused by colossal\ncuttles, and not by a gale or any ordinary casualty.\n\n [10] 'Histoire Naturelle generale et particuliere des Mollusques,'\n vol. ii., p. 256.\n\n [11] 'Conchyliologie Systematique.'\n\n [12] 'Hist. Nat. des Moll.,' vol. ii., pp. 358 to 368.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 7.--FACSIMILE OF DE MONTFORT'S \"_Poulpe colossal_.\"]\n\nUnfortunately for De Montfort, the inexorable logic of facts not only\nannihilates his startling theory, but demonstrates the reckless falsity\nof his plausible statements. The captured vessels did not sink on the\nnight of the action, but were all sent to Jamaica to refit, and arrived\nthere safely. Five months afterwards, however, a convoy of nine\nline-of-battle ships (amongst which were Rodney's prizes), one frigate,\nand about a hundred merchantmen, were dispersed, whilst on their voyage\nto England, by a violent storm, during which some of them unfortunately\nfoundered. The various accidents which preceded the loss of these\nvessels was related in evidence to the Admiralty by the survivors, and\nofficial documents prove that De Montfort's fleet-destroying _poulpe_\nwas an invention of his own, and had no part whatever in the disaster\nthat he attributed to it.\n\nI have been told, but cannot vouch for the truth of the report, that De\nMontfort's propensity to write that which was not true culminated in his\ncommitting forgery, and that he died in the galleys. But he records a\nstatement of Captain Jean Magnus Dens, said to have been a respectable\nand veracious man, who, after having made several voyages to China as a\nmaster trader, retired from a seafaring life and lived at Dunkirk. He\ntold De Montfort that in one of his voyages, whilst crossing from St.\nHelena to Cape Negro, he was becalmed, and took advantage of the\nenforced idleness of the crew to have the vessel scraped and painted.\nWhilst three of his men were standing on planks slung over the side, an\nenormous cuttle rose from the water, and threw one of its arms around\ntwo of the sailors, whom it tore away, with the scaffolding on which\nthey stood. With another arm it seized the third man, who held on\ntightly to the rigging, and shouted for help. His shipmates ran to his\nassistance, and succeeded in rescuing him by cutting away the creature's\narm with axes and knives, but he died delirious on the following night.\nThe captain tried to save the other two sailors by killing the animal,\nand drove several harpoons into it; but they broke away, and the men\nwere carried down by the monster.\n\nThe arm cut off was said to have been twenty-five feet long, and as\nthick as the mizen-yard, and to have had on it suckers as big as\nsaucepan-lids. I believe the old sea-captain's narrative of the incident\nto be true; the dimensions given by De Montfort are wilfully and\ndeliberately false. The belief in the power of the cuttle to sink a ship\nand devour her crew is as widely spread over the surface of the globe,\nas it is ancient in point of time. I have been told by a friend that he\nsaw in a shop in China a picture of a cuttle embracing a junk,\napparently of about 300 tons burthen, and helping itself to the sailors,\nas one picks gooseberries off a bush.\n\nTraditions of a monstrous cuttle attacking and destroying ships are\ncurrent also at the present day in the Polynesian Islands. Mr. Gill, the\nmissionary previously quoted, tells us[13] that the natives of Aitutaki,\nin the Hervey group, have a legend of a famous explorer, named Rata, who\nbuilt a double canoe, decked and rigged it, and then started off in\nquest of adventures. At the prow was stationed the dauntless Nganaoa,\narmed with a long spear and ready to slay all monsters. One day when\nspeeding pleasantly over the ocean, the voice of the ever vigilant\nNganaoa was heard: \"O Rata! yonder is a terrible enemy starting up from\nocean depths.\" It proved to be an octopus (query, squid?) of\nextraordinary dimensions. Its huge tentacles encircled the vessel in\ntheir embrace, threatening its instant destruction. At this critical\nmoment Nganaoa seized his spear, and fearlessly drove it through the\nhead of the creature. The tentacles slowly relaxed, and the dead monster\nfloated off on the surface of the ocean.\n\n [13] _Leisure Hour_, October, 1875, p. 636.\n\nPassing from the early records of the appearance of cuttles of unusual\nsize, and the current as well as the traditional belief in their\nexistence by the inhabitants of many countries, let us take the\ntestimony of travellers and naturalists who have a right to be regarded\nas competent observers. In so doing we must bear in mind that until\nProfessor Owen propounded the very clear and convenient classification\nnow universally adopted, the squids, as well as the eight-footed\n_Octopidae_, were all grouped under the title of _Sepia_.\n\nPernetty, describing a voyage made by him in the years 1763-4,[14]\nmentions gigantic cuttles met with in the Southern Seas.\n\n [14] 'Voyage aux Iles Malouines.'\n\nShortly afterwards, during the first week in March 1769, Banks and\nSolander, the scientific fellow-voyagers with Lieutenant Cook\n(afterwards the celebrated Captain Cook), in H.M.S. _Endeavour_, found\nin the North Pacific, in latitude 38 deg. 44' S. and longitude 110 deg. 33' W.,\na large calamary which had just been killed by the birds, and was\nfloating in a mangled condition on the water. Its arms were furnished,\ninstead of suckers, with a double row of very sharp talons, which\nresembled those of a cat, and, like them, were retractable into a sheath\nof skin from which they might be thrust at pleasure. Of this cuttle they\nsay, with evident pleasurable remembrance of a savoury meal, they made\none of the best soups they ever tasted. Professor Owen tells us, in the\npaper already referred to, that when he was curator of the Hunterian\nMuseum of the Royal College of Surgeons, and preparing, in 1829, his\nfirst catalogue thereof, he was struck with the number of oceanic\ninvertebrates which Hunter had obtained. He learned from Mr. Clift that\nHunter had supplied Mr. (afterwards Sir Joseph) Banks with stoppered\nbottles containing alcohol, in which to preserve the new marine animals\nthat he might meet with during the circumnavigatory voyage about to be\nundertaken by Cook. Thinking it probable that Banks might have stowed\nsome parts of this great hook-armed squid in one of these bottles for\nhis anatomical friend, he searched for, and found in a bottle marked\n\"J. B.,\" portions of its arms, the beak with tongue, a heart ventricle,\n&c., and, amongst the dry preparations, the terminal part of the body,\nwith an attached pair of rhomboidal fins. The remainder had furnished\nCook and his companions Banks and Solander with a welcome change of diet\nin the commander's cabin of the _Endeavour_. As the inner surface of the\narms of the squid, as well as the terminals of its tentacles, were\nstudded with hooks, Professor Owen named it _Enoploteuthis Cookii_. He\nestimates the diameter of the tail fin at 15 inches, the length of its\nbody 3 feet, of its head 10 inches, of the shorter arms 16 inches, and\nof the longer tentacles about the same as its body--thus giving a total\nlength of about 6 ft. 9 in. Although individuals of other species, of\nlarger dimensions, are known to have existed, this is the largest\nspecimen of the hook-armed calamaries that has been scientifically\nexamined. It would have been a formidable antagonist to a man under\ncircumstances favourable to the exertion of its strength, and the use of\nits prehensile and lacerating talons.\n\nPeron,[15] the well-known French zoologist, mentions having seen at sea,\nin 1801, not far from Van Diemen's Land, at a very little distance from\nhis ship, _Le Geographe_, a \"Sepia,\" of the size of a barrel, rolling\nwith noise on the waves; its arms, between 6 and 7 feet long, and 6 or 7\ninches in diameter at the base, extended on the surface, and writhing\nabout like great snakes. He recognised in this, and no doubt correctly,\none of the calamaries. The arms that he saw were evidently the animal's\nshorter ones, as under such circumstances, with neither enemy to combat\nnor prey to seize at the moment, the longer tentacles would remain\nconcealed.\n\n [15] 'Voyage de Decouvertes aux Terres Australes.'\n\nQuoy and Gaimard[16] report that in the Atlantic Ocean, near the\nEquator, they found the remains of an enormous calamary, half eaten by\nthe sharks and birds, which could not have weighed less, when entire,\nthan 200 lbs. A portion of this was secured, and is preserved in the\nMuseum of Natural History, Paris.\n\n [16] 'Voyage de l'Uranie: Zoologie,' vol. i., part 2, p. 411. 1824.\n\nCaptain Sander Rang[17] records having fallen in with, in mid-ocean, a\nspecies distinct from the others, of a dark red colour, having short\narms, and a body the size of a hogshead.\n\n [17] 'Manuel des Mollusques,' p. 86.\n\nIn a manuscript by Paulsen (referred to by Professor Steenstrup, at a\nmeeting of Scandinavian naturalists at Copenhagen in 1847) is a\ndescription of a large calamary, cast ashore on the coast of Zeeland,\nwhich the latter named _Architeuthis monachus_. Its body measured 21\nfeet, and its tentacles 18 feet, making a total of 39 feet.\n\nIn 1854 another was stranded at the Skag in Jutland, which Professor\nSteenstrup believed to belong to the same genus as the preceding, but to\nbe of a different species, and called it _Architeuthis dux_. The body\nwas cut in pieces by the fishermen for bait, and furnished many\nwheelbarrow loads. Mr. Gwyn Jeffreys[18] says Dr. Moerch informed him\nthat the beak of this animal was nine inches long. He adds that another\nhuge cephalopod was stranded in 1860 or 1861, between Hillswick and\nScalloway, on the west of Shetland. From a communication received by\nProfessor Allman, it appears that its tentacles were 16 feet long, the\npedal arms about half that length, and the mantle sac 7 feet. The\nlargest suckers examined by Professor Allman were three-quarters of an\ninch in diameter.\n\n [18] 'British Conchology,' vol. v., p. 124.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 8.--GIGANTIC CALAMARY CAUGHT BY THE FRENCH DESPATCH\nVESSEL 'ALECTON,' NEAR TENERIFFE.]\n\nWe have also the statement of the officers and crew of the French\ndespatch steamer, _Alecton_, commanded by Lieutenant Bouyer, describing\ntheir having met with a great calamary on the 30th of November, 1861,\nbetween Madeira and Teneriffe. It was seen about noon on that day\nfloating on the surface of the water, and the vessel was stopped with a\nview to its capture. Many bullets were aimed at it, but they passed\nthrough its soft flesh without doing it much injury, until at length\n\"the waves were observed to be covered with foam and blood.\" It had\nprobably discharged the contents of its ink-bag; for a strong odour of\nmusk immediately became perceptible--a perfume which I have already\nmentioned as appertaining to the ink of many of the cephalopoda, and\nalso as being one of the reputed attributes of the Kraken. Harpoons were\nthrust into it, but would not hold in the yielding flesh; and the animal\nbroke adrift from them, and, diving beneath the vessel, came up on the\nother side. The crew wished to launch a boat that they might attack it\nat closer quarters, but the commander forbade this, not feeling\njustified in risking the lives of his men. A rope with a running knot\nwas, however, slipped over it, and held fast at the junction of the\nbroad caudal fin; but when an attempt was made to hoist it on deck the\nenormous weight caused the rope to cut through the flesh, and all but\nthe hinder part of the body fell back into the sea and disappeared. M.\nBerthelot, the French consul at Teneriffe, saw the fin and posterior\nportion of the animal on board the _Alecton_ ten days afterwards, and\nsent a report of the occurrence to the Paris Academy of Sciences. The\nbody of this great squid, which, like Rang's specimen, was of a deep-red\ncolour, was estimated to have been from 16 feet to 18 feet long, without\nreckoning the length of its formidable arms.[19]\n\n [19] In the accompanying illustration, the size of the squid is\n exaggerated, but not so much as has been supposed.\n\nThese are statements made by men who, by their intelligence, character,\nand position, are entitled to respect and credence; and whose evidence\nwould be accepted without question or hesitation in any court of law.\nThere is, moreover, a remarkable coincidence of particulars in their\nseveral accounts, which gives great importance to their combined\ntestimony.\n\nBut, fortunately, we are not left dependent on documentary evidence\nalone, nor with the option of accepting or rejecting, as caprice or\nprejudice may prompt us, the narratives of those who have told us they\nhave seen what we have not. Portions of cuttles of extraordinary size\nare preserved in several European museums. In the collection of the\nFaculty of Sciences at Montpellier is one six feet long, taken by\nfishermen at Cette, which Professor Steenstrup has identified as\n_Ommastrephes pteropus_. One of the same species, which was formerly in\nthe possession of M. Eschricht, who received it from Marseilles, may be\nseen in the museum at Copenhagen. The body of another, analogous to\nthese, is exhibited in the Museum of Trieste: it was taken on the coast\nof Dalmatia. At the meeting of the British Association at Plymouth in\n1841, Colonel Smith exhibited drawings of the beak and other parts of a\nvery large calamary preserved at Haarlem; and M. P. Harting, in 1860,\ndescribed in the Memoirs of the Royal Scientific Academy of Amsterdam\nportions of two extant in other collections in Holland, one of which he\nbelieves to be Steenstrup's _Architeuthis dux_, a species which he\nregards as identical with _Ommastrephes todarus_ of D'Orbigny.\n\nStill there remained a residuum of doubt in the minds of naturalists\nand the public concerning the existence of gigantic cuttles until,\ntowards the close of the year 1873, two specimens were encountered on\nthe coast of Newfoundland, and a portion of one and the whole of the\nother, were brought ashore, and preserved for examination by competent\nzoologists.\n\nThe circumstances under which the first was seen, as sensationally\ndescribed by the Rev. M. Harvey, Presbyterian minister of St. John's,\nNewfoundland, in a letter to Principal Dawson, of McGill College, were,\nbriefly and soberly, as follows:--Two fishermen were out in a small punt\non the 26th of October, 1873, near the eastern end of Belle Isle,\nConception Bay, about nine miles from St. John's. Observing some object\nfloating on the water at a short distance, they rowed towards it,\nsupposing it to be the _debris_ of a wreck. On reaching it one of them\nstruck it with his \"gaff,\" when immediately it showed signs of life, and\nshot out its two tentacular arms, as if to seize its antagonists. The\nother man, named Theophilus Picot, though naturally alarmed, severed\nboth arms with an axe as they lay on the gunwale of the boat, whereupon\nthe animal moved off, and ejected a quantity of inky fluid which\ndarkened the surrounding water for a considerable distance. The men went\nhome, and, as fishermen will, magnified their lost \"fish.\" They\n\"estimated\" the body to have been 60 feet in length, and 10 feet across\nthe tail fin; and declared that when the \"fish\" attacked them \"it reared\na parrot-like beak which was as big as a six-gallon keg.\"\n\nAll this, in the excitement of the moment, Mr. Harvey appears to have\nbeen willing to believe, and related without the expression of a doubt.\nFortunately, he was able to obtain from the fishermen a portion of one\nof the tentacular arms which they had chopped off with the axe, and by\nso doing rendered good service to science. This fragment (Fig. 9), as\nmeasured by Mr. Alexander Murray, provincial geologist of Newfoundland,\nand Professor Verrill, of Yale College, Connecticut, is 17 feet long and\n3-1/2 feet in circumference. It is now in St. John's Museum. By careful\ncalculation of its girth, the breadth and circumference of the expanded\nsucker-bearing portion at its extremity, and the diameter of the\nsuckers, Professor Verrill has computed its dimensions to have been as\nfollows:--Length of body 10 feet; diameter of body 2 feet 5 inches. Long\ntentacular arms 32 feet; head 2 feet; total length about 44 feet. The\nupper mandible of the beak, instead of being \"as large as a six-gallon\nkeg\" would be about 3 inches long, and the lower mandible 1-1/2 inch\nlong. From the size of the large suckers relatively to those of another\nspecimen to be presently described, he regards it as probable that this\nindividual was a female.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 9.--TENTACLE OF A GREAT CALAMARY (_Architeuthis\nprinceps_) TAKEN IN CONCEPTION BAY, NEWFOUNDLAND, OCT. 26, 1873.]\n\nIn November, 1873--about three weeks after the occurrence in Conception\nBay--another calamary somewhat smaller than the preceding, but of the\nsame species, also came into Mr. Harvey's possession. Three fishermen,\nwhen hauling their herring-net in Logie Bay, about three miles from St.\nJohn's, found the huge animal entangled in its folds. With great\ndifficulty they succeeded in despatching it and bringing it ashore,\nhaving been compelled to cut off its head before they could get it into\ntheir boat.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 10.--HEAD AND TENTACLES OF A GREAT CALAMARY\n(_Architeuthis princeps_) TAKEN IN LOGIE BAY, NEWFOUNDLAND, NOV. 1873.]\n\nThe body of this specimen was over 7 feet long; the caudal fin 22\ninches broad; the two long tentacular arms 24 feet in length; the eight\nshorter arms each 6 feet long, the largest of the latter being 10 inches\nin circumference at the base; total length of this calamary 32 feet.\nProfessor Verrill considers that this and the Conception Bay squid are\nboth referable to one species--Steenstrup's _Architeuthis dux_.\n\nExcellent woodcuts from photographs of these two specimens were given in\nthe _Field_ of December 13th, 1873, and January 31st, 1874,\nrespectively, and I am indebted to the proprietors of that journal for\ntheir kind and courteous permission to copy them in reduced size for the\nillustration of this little work.\n\nFor the preservation of both of the above described specimens we have to\nthank Mr. Harvey, and he produces additional evidence of other gigantic\ncuttles having been previously seen on the coast of Newfoundland. He\nmentions two especially, which, as stated by the Rev. Mr. Gabriel, were\ncast ashore in the winter of 1870-71, near Lamaline on the south coast\nof the island, which measured respectively 40 feet and 47 feet in\nlength; and he also tells of another stranded two years later, the total\nlength of which was 80 feet.\n\nIn the _American Journal of Science and Arts_, of March 1875, Professor\nVerrill gives particulars and authenticated testimony of several other\nexamples of great calamaries, varying in total length from 30 feet to 52\nfeet, which have been taken in the neighbourhood of Newfoundland since\nthe year 1870. One of these was found floating, apparently dead, near\nthe Grand Banks in October 1871, by Captain Campbell, of the schooner\n_B. D. Hoskins_, of Gloucester, Mass. It was taken on board, and part of\nit used for bait. The body is stated to have been 15 feet long, and the\npedal or shorter arms between 9 feet and 10 feet. The beak was forwarded\nto the Smithsonian Institution.\n\nAnother instance given by Professor Verrill is of a great squid found\nalive in shallow water in Coomb's Cove, Fortune Bay, in the year 1872.\nIts measurements, taken by the Hon. T. R. Bennett, of English Harbour,\nNewfoundland, were, length of body 10 feet; length of tentacle 42 feet;\nlength of one of the ordinary arms 6 feet: the cups on the tentacles\nwere serrated. Professor Verrill also mentions a pair of jaws and two\nsuckers in the Smithsonian Institution, as having been received from the\nRev. A. Munn, with a statement that they were taken from a calamary\nwhich went ashore in Bonavista Bay, and which measured 32 feet in total\nlength.\n\nOn the 22nd of September, 1877, another gigantic squid was stranded at\nCatalina, on the north shore of Trinity Bay, Newfoundland, during a\nheavy equinoctial gale. It was alive when first seen, but died soon\nafter the ebbing of the tide, and was left high and dry upon the beach.\nTwo fishermen took possession of it, and the whole settlement gathered\nto gaze in astonishment at the monster. Formerly it would have been\nconverted into manure, or cut up as food for dogs, but, thanks to the\ndiffusion of intelligence, there were some persons in Catalina who knew\nthe importance of preserving such a rarity, and who advised the\nfishermen to take it to St. John's. After being exhibited there for two\ndays, it was packed in half-a-ton of ice in readiness for transmission\nto Professor Verrill, in the hope that it would be placed in the Peabody\nor Smithsonian Museum; but at the last moment its owners violated their\nagreement, and sold it to a higher bidder. The final purchase was made\nfor the New York Aquarium, where it arrived on the 7th of October,\nimmersed in methylated spirit in a large glass tank. Its measurements\nwere as follows:--length of body 10 feet; length of tentacles 30 feet;\nlength of shorter arm 11 feet; circumference of body 7 feet; breadth of\ncaudal fin 2 feet 9 inches; diameter of largest tentacular sucker 1\ninch; number of suckers on each of the shorter arms 250.\n\nThe appearance of so many of these great squids on the shores of\nNewfoundland during the term of seven years, and after so long a period\nof popular uncertainty as to their very existence had previously\nelapsed, might lead one to suppose that the waters of the North Atlantic\nOcean which wash the north-eastern coasts of the American Continent\nwere, at any rate, temporarily, their principal habitat, especially as a\nsmaller member of their family, _Ommastrephes sagittatus_, is there\nfound in such extraordinary numbers that it furnishes the greater part\nof the bait used in the Newfoundland cod fisheries. But that they are by\nno means confined to this locality is proved by recent instances, as\nwell as by those already cited.\n\nDr. F. Hilgendorf records[20] observations of a huge squid exhibited for\nmoney at Yedo, Japan, in 1873, and of another of similar size, which he\nsaw exposed for sale in the Yedo fish market.\n\n [20] 'Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu\n Berlin,' pp. 65-67, quoted by Professor Owen, _op. cit._\n\nWhen the French expedition was sent to the Island of St. Paul, in 1874,\nfor the purpose of observing the transit of Venus, which occurred on the\n9th of December in that year, it was fortunately accompanied by an able\nzoologist, M. Ch. Velain. He reports[21] that on the 2nd of November a\ntidal wave cast upon the north shore of the island a great calamary\nwhich measured in total length nearly 23 feet, namely: length of body 7\nfeet; length of tentacles 16 feet. There are several points of interest\nconnected with its generic characters, and M. Velain's grounds for\nregarding it as being of a previously unknown species, but they are too\ntechnical for discussion here. This specimen was photographed as it lay\nupon the beach by M. Cazin, the photographer to the expedition.\n\n [21] 'Comptes Rendus,' t. 80, 1875, p. 998.\n\nThe following account of the still more recent capture of a large squid\noff the west coast of Ireland was given in the _Zoologist_ of June 1875,\nby Sergeant Thomas O'Connor, of the Royal Irish Constabulary:--\n\n \"On the 26th of April, 1875, a very large calamary was met with on\n the north-west of Boffin Island, Connemara. The crew of a 'curragh'\n (a boat made like the 'coracle,' with wooden ribs covered with\n tarred canvas) observed to seaward a large floating mass,\n surrounded by gulls. They pulled out to it, believing it to be\n wreck, but to their astonishment found it was an enormous\n cuttle-fish, lying perfectly still, as if basking on the surface of\n the water. Paddling up with caution, they lopped off one of its\n arms. The animal immediately set out to sea, rushing through the\n water at a tremendous pace. The men gave chase, and, after a hard\n pull in their frail canvas craft, came up with it, five miles out\n in the open Atlantic, and severed another of its arms and the head.\n These portions are now in the Dublin Museum. The shorter arms\n measure, each, eight feet in length, and fifteen inches round the\n base: the tentacular arms are said to have been thirty feet long.\n The body sank.\"\n\nFinally, there is in our own national collection, preserved in spirit\nin a tall glass jar, a single arm of a huge cephalopod, which, by the\nkindness and courtesy of the officers of the department, I was permitted\nto examine and measure when I first described it, in May, 1873. It is 9\nfeet long, and 12 inches in circumference at the base, tapering\ngradually to a fine point. It has about 300 suckers, pedunculated, or\nset on tubular footstalks, placed alternately in two rows, and having\nserrated, horny rings, but no hooks; the diameter of the largest of\nthese rings is half an inch; the smallest is not larger than a pin's\nhead. This is one of the eight shorter, or pedal, and not one of the\nlong, or tentacular, arms of the calamary to which it belonged. The\nrelative length of the arms to that of the body and tentacles varies in\ndifferent genera of the _Teuthidae_, and it is not impossible that this\nmay be the case even in individuals of the same species. But, judging\nfrom the proportions of known examples, I estimate the length of the\ntentacles at 36 feet, and that of the body at from 10 to 11 feet: total\nlength 47 feet. The beak would probably have been about 5 inches long\nfrom hinge socket to point, and the diameter of the largest suckers of\nthe tentacles about 1 inch. So much for De Montfort's \"suckers as big as\nsaucepan-lids.\" From a well defined fold of skin which spreads out from\neach margin of that surface of the arm over which the suckers are\nsituated, Professor Owen has given to this calamary the generic name of\n_Plectoteuthis_, with the specific title of _grandis_ to indicate its\nenormous size. No history relating to this interesting specimen has been\npreserved. No one knows its origin, nor when it was received, but Dr.\nGray told me that he believed it came from the east coast of South\nAmerica. It has, however, long formed part of the stores of the British\nMuseum, and, although previously open to public view, was more recently\nfor many years kept in the basement chambers of the old building in\nBloomsbury, which were irreverently called by the initiated \"the spirit\nvaults and bottle department,\" because fishes, mollusca, &c., preserved\nin spirits were there deposited. I hope the public will have greater\nfacility of access to it in the new Museum.\n\nHere, then, in our midst, and to be seen by all who ask permission to\ninspect it, is, and has long been, a limb of a great cephalopod capable\nof upsetting a boat, or of hauling a man out of her, or of clutching one\nengaged in scraping a ship's side, and dragging him under water, as\ndescribed by the old master-mariner Magnus Dens. The tough, supple\ntentacles, shot forth with lightning rapidity, would be long enough to\nreach him at a distance of a dozen yards, and strong enough to drag him\nwithin the grasp of the eight shorter arms, a helpless victim to the\nmandibles of a beak sufficiently powerful to tear him in pieces and\ncrush some of his smaller bones. For, once within that dreadful embrace,\nhis escape, unaided, would be impossible. The clinging power of this\n_Plectoteuthis_ is so enormously augmented by the additional surface\ngiven by the expanded folds to the under side of the arms, that I doubt\nif even one of the smaller whales, such as the \"White Whale,\" or the\n\"Pilot Whale,\" could extricate itself from their combined hold, if those\neight supple, clammy, adhesive arms, each 9 feet long, and 5 inches in\ndiameter at the base on the flat under surface, and armed with a battery\nof 2400 suckers, were once fairly lapped around it.\n\nOught it to surprise us, then, that an uneducated seafaring population,\nsuch as the fishermen of Fridrichstad, mentioned by Pontoppidan,\nabsolutely ignorant of the habits and affinities, and even unacquainted\nwith the real external form of such a creature, should exaggerate its\ndimensions and invest it with mystery? All that they knew of it was that\nwhilst their friends and neighbours, whom we will call Eric Paulsen,\nHans Ohlsen, and Olaf Bruhn were out fishing one calm day, a shapeless\n\"something\" rose just above the surface of the tranquil sea not far from\ntheir boat. They could see that there was much more of its bulk under\nwater, but how far it extended they could not ascertain. Mistrusting its\nappearance, and with foreboding of danger, they were about to get up\ntheir anchor, when, suddenly, from thirty feet away, a rope was shot on\nboard which fastened itself on Hans; he was dragged from amongst them\ntowards the strange floating mass; there was a commotion; from the\nfoaming sea upreared themselves, as it seemed to Eric and Olaf, several\nwrithing serpents, which twined themselves around Hans; and as they\ngazed, helpless, in horror and bewilderment, the monster sank, and with\na mighty swirl the waters closed for ever over their unfortunate\ncompanion. The men would naturally hasten home, and describe the\ndreadful incident--their imagination excited by its mysterious nature;\nthe tale would spread through the district, losing nothing by\nrepetition, and within a week the fabled Kraken would be the result.\n\nThe existence, in almost every sea, of calamaries capable of playing\ntheir part in such a scene has been fully proved, and this vexed\nquestion of marine zoology set at rest for ever. The \"much greater light\non this subject,\" which, as Pontoppidan sagaciously foresaw, was\n\"reserved for posterity,\" has been thrown upon it by the discoveries of\nthe last few years; and the \"further experience which is always the best\ninstructor,\" and which he correctly anticipated would be possessed by\nthe \"future writers,\" to whom he bequeathed the completion of his\n\"sketch,\" has been obtained. Viewed by their aid, and seen in the\nclearer atmosphere of our present knowledge, the great sea-monster which\nloomed so indefinitely vast in the mist of ignorance and superstition,\nstands revealed in its true form and proportions--its magnitude reduced,\nits outline distinct, and its mystery gone--and we recognise in the\nsupposed Kraken, as the Norwegian bishop rightly conjectured that we\nshould, an animal \"of the Polypus (or cuttle) kind, and amongst the\nlargest inhabitants of the ocean.\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE GREAT SEA SERPENT.\n\n\nThe belief in the existence of sea-serpents of formidable dimensions is\nof great antiquity. Aristotle, writing about B.C. 340, says[22]:--\"The\nserpents of Libya are of an enormous size. Navigators along that coast\nreport having seen a great quantity of bones of oxen, which they\nbelieve, without doubt, to have been devoured by the serpents. These\nserpents pursued them when they left the shore, and upset one of their\ntriremes\"--a vessel of a large class, having three banks of oars.\n\n [22] 'History of Animals,' book 8, chap. 28.\n\nPliny tells us[23] that a squadron sent by Alexander the Great on a\nvoyage of discovery, under the command of Onesicritus and Nearchus,\nencountered, in the neighbourhood of some islands in the Persian Gulf,\nsea-serpents thirty feet long, which filled the fleet with terror.\n\n [23] 'Naturalis Historiae,' Lib. vi., cap. 23.\n\nValerius Maximus,[24] quoting Livy, describes the alarm into which,\nduring the Punic wars, the Romans, under Attilius Regulus (who was\nafterwards so cruelly put to death by the Carthaginians), were thrown by\nan aquatic, though not marine, serpent which had its lair on the banks\nof the Bagrados, near Ithaca. It is said to have swallowed many of the\nsoldiers, after crushing them in its folds, and to have kept the army\nfrom crossing the river, till at length, being invulnerable by ordinary\nweapons, it was destroyed by heavy stones hurled by balistas, catapults,\nand other military engines used in those days for casting heavy\nmissiles, and battering the walls of fortified towns. According to the\nhistorian, the annoyance caused by it to the army did not cease with its\ndeath, for the water was polluted with its gore, and the air with the\nnoxious fumes from its corrupted carcase, to such a degree that the\nRomans were obliged to remove their camp. They, however secured the\nanimal's skin and skull, which were preserved in a temple at Rome till\nthe time of the Numantine war. This combat has been described, to the\nsame effect, by Florus (lib. ii.), Seneca (litt. 82), Silvius Italicus\n(l. vi.), Aulus Gellius (lib. vi., cap. 3), Orosius, Zonaras, &c., and\nis referred to by Pliny (lib. viii., cap. 14) as an incident known to\nevery one. Diodorus Siculus also tells of a great serpent, sixty feet\nlong, which lived chiefly in the water, but landed at frequent intervals\nto devour the cattle in its neighbourhood. A party was collected to\ncapture it; but their first attempt failed, and the monster killed\ntwenty of them. It was afterwards taken in a strong net, carried alive\nto Alexandria, and presented to King Ptolemy II., the founder of the\nAlexandrian Library and Museum, who was a great collector of zoological\nand other curiosities. This snake was probably one of the great boas.\n\n [24] 'De Factis, Dictisque Memorabilibus,' Lib. i., cap. 8, 1st\n century.\n\nThe \"_Serpens marinus_\" is figured and referred to by many other\nwriters, but as they evidently allude to the Conger and the Murena, we\nwill pass over their descriptions.\n\nThe sea-serpents mentioned by Aristotle, Pliny, and Diodorus were,\ndoubtless, real sea-snakes, true marine ophidians, which are more common\nin tropical seas than is generally supposed. They are found most\nabundantly in the Indian Ocean; but they have an extensive geographical\nrange, and between forty and fifty species of them are known. They are\nall highly poisonous, and some are so ferocious that they more\nfrequently attack than avoid man. The greatest length to which they are\nauthentically known to attain is about twelve feet. The form and\nstructure of these _hydrophides_ are modified from those of land\nserpents, to suit their aquatic habits. The tail is compressed\nvertically, flattened from the sides, so as to form a fin like the tail\nof an eel, by which they propel themselves; but instead of tapering to a\npoint, it is rounded off at the end, like the blade of a paper-knife, or\nthe scabbard of a cavalry sabre. Like other lung-breathing animals which\nlive in water, they are also provided with a respiratory apparatus\nadapted to their circumstances and requirements--their nostrils, which\nare very small, being furnished, like those of the seal, manatee, &c.,\nwith a valve opening at will to admit air, and closing perfectly to\nexclude water.\n\nLeaving these water-snakes of the tropics, we come, next in order of\ndate, upon some very remarkable evidence that there was current amongst\na community where we should little expect to find it, the idea of a\nmarine monster corresponding in many respects with some of the\ndescriptions given several centuries later of the sea-serpent. In an\ninteresting article on the Catacombs of Rome in the _Illustrated London\nNews_ of February 3rd, 1872, allusion is made by the author to the\ncollection of sarcophagi or coffins of the early Christians, removed\nfrom the Catacombs, and preserved in the museum of the Lateran Palace,\nwhere they were arranged by the late Padre Marchi for Pope Pius IX.\nThere are more than twenty of these, sculptured with various\ndesigns--the Father and the Son, Adam and Eve and the Serpent, the\nSacrifice of Abraham, Moses striking the Rock, Daniel and the Lions, and\nother Scripture themes. Amongst them also is Jonah and the \"whale.\" A\nfacsimile of this sculpture (Fig. 11) is one of the illustrations of the\narticle referred to. It will be seen that Jonah is being swallowed feet\nforemost, or possibly being ejected head first, by an enormous sea\nmonster, having the chest and fore-legs of a horse, a long arching neck,\nwith a mane at its base, near the shoulders, a head like nothing in\nnature, but having hair upon and beneath the cheeks, the hinder portion\nof the body being that of a serpent of prodigious length, undulating in\nseveral vertical curves. This sculpture appears to have been cut between\nthe beginning and the middle of the third century, about A.D. 230, but\nit probably represents a tradition of far greater antiquity.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 11.--JONAH AND THE SEA MONSTER.\n\n_From the Catacombs of Rome._]\n\nWe will now consider the accounts given by Scandinavian historians, of\nthe sea-serpent having been seen in northern waters. Here, I suppose, I\nought to indulge in the usual flippant sneer at Bishop Pontoppidan. I\nknow that in abstaining from doing so I am sadly out of the fashion; but\nI venture to think that the dead lion has been kicked at too often\nalready, and undeservedly. Whether there be, or be not, a huge marine\nanimal, not necessarily an ophidian, answering to some of the\ndescriptions of the sea-serpent--so called--Pontoppidan did not invent\nthe stories told of its appearance. Long before he was born the monster\nhad been described and figured; and for centuries previously the\nNorwegians, Swedes, Danes, and Fins had believed in its existence as\nimplicitly as in the tenets of their religious creed. Olaus Magnus,\nArchbishop of Upsala, in Sweden, wrote of it in A.D. 1555 as\nfollows:[25]--\n\n \"They who in works of navigation on the coasts of Norway employ\n themselves in fishing or merchandize do all agree in this strange\n story, that there is a serpent there which is of a vast magnitude,\n namely 200 foot long, and moreover, 20 foot thick; and is wont to\n live in rocks and caves toward the sea-coast about Berge: which\n will go alone from his holes on a clear night in summer, and devour\n calves, lambs, and hogs, or else he goes into the sea to feed on\n polypus (octopus), locusts (lobsters), and all sorts of sea-crabs.\n He hath commonly hair hanging from his neck a cubit long, and sharp\n scales, and is black, and he hath flaming, shining eyes. This snake\n disquiets the shippers; and he puts up his head on high like a\n pillar, and catcheth away men, and he devours them; and this\n happeneth not but it signifies some wonderful change of the kingdom\n near at hand; namely, that the princes shall die, or be banished;\n or some tumultuous wars shall presently follow. There is also\n another serpent of an incredible magnitude in an island called Moos\n in the diocess of Hammer; which, as a comet portends a change in\n all the world, so that portends a change in the kingdom of Norway,\n as it was seen anno 1522; that lifts himself high above the waters,\n and rolls himself round like a sphere.[26] This serpent was thought\n to be fifty cubits long by conjecture, by sight afar off: there\n followed this the banishment of King Christiernus, and a great\n persecution of the Bishops; and it shewed also the destruction of\n the country.\"\n\n [25] 'Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus,' Lib. xxi. cap. 43.\n\n [26] \"Coils itself in spherical convolutions\" is a better\n translation of the original Latin.\n\nThe Gothic Archbishop, amongst other signs and omens, also attributes\nthis power of divination to the small red ants which are sometimes so\ntroublesome in houses, and declares that they also portended the\ndownfall, A.D. 1523, of the abominably cruel Danish king, Christian II.,\nabove mentioned. His curious work is full of wild improbabilities and\nodd superstitions, most of which he states with a calm air of\nunquestioning assent; but as he wrote in the time of our Henry VIII.,\nlong before the belief in witches and warlocks, fairies and banshees,\nhad died out in our own country, we can hardly throw stones at him on\nthat score. It is a most amusing and interesting history, and gives a\nwonderful insight of the habits and customs of the northern nations in\nhis day.\n\nAmongst his illustrations of the sea monsters he describes are the two\nof which I give facsimiles on the next page. In Fig. 12 a sea-serpent is\nseen writhing in many coils upon the surface of the water, and having in\nits mouth a sailor, whom it has seized from the deck of a ship. The poor\nfellow is trying to grasp the ratlins of the shrouds, but is being\ndragged from his hold and lifted over the bulwarks by the monster. His\ncompanions, in terror, are endeavouring to escape in various directions.\nOne is climbing aloft by the stay, in the hope of getting out of reach\nin that way, whilst two others are hurrying aft to obtain the shelter of\na little castle or cabin projecting over the stern. I am strongly of the\nopinion that this is but the fallacious representation of an actual\noccurrence. Read by the light of recent knowledge, these old pictures\nconvey to a practised eye a meaning as clear as that of hieroglyphics to\nan Egyptologist, and my translation of this is the following: The crew\nof a ship have witnessed the dreadful sight of a serpent-like form\nissuing from the sea, rising over the bulwarks of their vessel, seizing\none of their messmates from amongst them, and dragging him overboard and\nunder water. Awe-stricken by the mysterious disappearance of their\ncomrade, and too frightened and anxious for their own safety to be able,\nduring the short space of time occupied by an affair, which all happened\nin a few seconds, to observe accurately their terrible assailant, they\nnaturally conjecture that it must have been a snake. It was probably a\ngigantic calamary, such as we now know exist, and the dead carcases of\nwhich have been found in the locality where the event depicted is\nsupposed to have taken place. The presumed body of the serpent was one\nof the arms of the squid, and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging\nare indicated in the illustration by the medial line traversing its\nwhole length (intended to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row of\ntransverse septa, one on each side of it.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 12.--A SEA SERPENT SEIZING A MAN ON BOARD SHIP.\n\n_After_ OLAUS MAGNUS.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 13.--A GIGANTIC LOBSTER DRAGGING A MAN FROM A SHIP.\n\n_After_ OLAUS MAGNUS.]\n\nIn Fig. 13 an enormous lobster is in the act of similarly dragging\noverboard from a vessel a man whom it has seized by the arm with one of\nits great claws. From the crude image of a lobster having eight minor\nclaws and two larger ones, to that of a cuttle having eight minor arms\nand two longer ones, the transition is not great; and I believe that\nthis also is a pictorial misrepresentation of a casualty by the attack\nof a calamary similar to that above described, possibly another view of\nthe same incident. The idea is that of a sea animal capable of suddenly\nseizing and grasping a man, and we must remember that we have evidence,\nin the writings of Pontoppidan and others, that, even two centuries\nlater than Olaus Magnus, the Norsemen's knowledge of the cuttles was\nexceedingly vague and indistinct. Any one who has seen, as I frequently\nhave at the Brighton Aquarium, and as they doubtless had whilst\nlobster-catching, the threatening and ferocious manner in which a\nlobster will brandish, and, if I may use the term, \"gnash\" its claws at\nan intruding hand, even if held above the surface of the water, can well\nimagine a party of fishermen discussing such a tragic occurrence as the\nforegoing, and differing in opinion as to the identity of the creature\nwhich had caused the catastrophe, some maintaining that it must have\nbeen a sea-serpent, and others shaking their heads and asserting that\nnothing but a colossal lobster could have done it.\n\nPontoppidan, in writing his history of Norway, of course had before him\nthe statements of Olaus Magnus; but, though their author was an\narchbishop, he did not accept them with the childlike simplicity\ngenerally ascribed to him. Quoting, and, singularly enough, misquoting,\nthe Swedish prelate as referring to a sea-serpent, when he is\ndescribing, incorrectly, one of the _Acalephae_, or sea-nettles,\nPontoppidan says:--\n\n \"I have never heard of this sort, and should hardly believe the\n good Olaus if he did not say that he affirmed this from his own\n experience. The disproportion makes me think there must be some\n error of the press.... He mixes truth and fable together according\n to the relations of others; but this was excusable in that dark age\n when that author wrote. Notwithstanding all this, we, in the\n present more enlightened age, are much obliged to him for his\n industry and judicious observations.\"\n\nOf the sea-serpent Pontoppidan writes:--\n\n \"I have questioned its existence myself, till that suspicion was\n removed by full and sufficient evidence from creditable and\n experienced fishermen and sailors in Norway, of which there are\n hundreds who can testify that they have annually seen them. All\n these persons agree very well in the general description; and\n others who acknowledge that they only know it by report or by what\n their neighbours have told them, still relate the same particulars.\n In all my inquiry about these affairs I have hardly spoke with any\n intelligent person born in the manor of Nordland who was not able\n to give a pertinent answer, and strong assurances of the existence\n of this fish; and some of our north traders that come here every\n year with their merchandize think it a very strange question when\n they are seriously asked whether there be any such creature: they\n think it as ridiculous as if the question was put to them whether\n there be such fish as eel or cod.\"\n\nThe worthy Bishop of Bergen did his best to sift truth from fable, but\nhe could not always succeed in separating them. Many stupendous\nfalsehoods were brought to him, and some of them passed through his\nsieve in spite of his care. Of these are the accounts of the \"spawning\ntimes\" of the sea-serpent, its dislike of certain scents, &c. We must\npass over all this, and confine ourselves to the evidence offered by him\nof its having been seen.\n\nThe first witness he adduces is Captain Lawrence de Ferry, of the\nNorwegian navy, and first pilot in Bergen, who, premising that he had\ndoubted a great while whether there were any such creature till he had\nocular demonstration of it, made the following statement, addressed\nformally and officially to the procurator of Bergen:--\n\n \"Mr. JOHN REUTZ--\n\n \"The latter end of August, in the year 1746, as I was on a voyage,\n on my return from Trundhiem, on a very calm and hot day, having a\n mind to put in at Molde, it happened that when we were arrived with\n my vessel within six English miles of the aforesaid Molde, being at\n a place called Jule-Naess, as I was reading in a book, I heard a\n kind of a murmuring voice from amongst the men at the oars, who\n were eight in number, and observed that the man at the helm kept\n off from the land. Upon this I inquired what was the matter, and\n was informed that there was a sea-snake before us. I then ordered\n the man at the helm to keep to the land again, and to come up with\n this creature of which I had heard so many stories. Though the\n fellows were under some apprehension, they were obliged to obey my\n orders. In the meantime the sea-snake passed by us, and we were\n obliged to tack the vessel about in order to get nearer to it. As\n the snake swam faster than we could row, I took my gun, that was\n ready charged, and fired at it; on this he immediately plunged\n under the water. We rowed to the place where it sunk down (which in\n the calm might be easily observed) and lay upon our oars, thinking\n it would come up again to the surface; however it did not. Where\n the snake plunged down, the water appeared thick and red; perhaps\n some of the shot might wound it, the distance being very little.\n The head of this snake, which it held more than two feet above the\n surface of the water, resembled that of a horse. It was of a\n greyish colour, and the mouth was quite black, and very large. It\n had black eyes, and a long white mane, that hung down from the neck\n to the surface of the water. Besides the head and neck, we saw\n seven or eight folds, or coils, of this snake, which were very\n thick, and as far as we could guess there was about a fathom\n distance between each fold. I related this affair in a certain\n company, where there was a person of distinction present who\n desired that I would communicate to him an authentic detail of all\n that happened; and for this reason two of my sailors, who were\n present at the same time and place where I saw this monster,\n namely, Nicholas Pedersen Kopper, and Nicholas Nicholsen\n Anglewigen, shall appear in court, to declare on oath the truth of\n every particular herein set forth; and I desire the favour of an\n attested copy of the said descriptions.\n\n \"I remain, Sir, your obliged servant,\n\n \"L. DE FERRY.\n\n \"Bergen, 21st February, 1751.\n\n \"After this the before-named witnesses gave their corporal oaths,\n and, with their finger held up according to law, witnessed and\n confirmed the aforesaid letter or declaration, and every particular\n set forth therein to be strictly true. A copy of the said\n attestation was made out for the said Procurator Reutz, and granted\n by the Recorder. That this was transacted in our court of justice\n we confirm with our hand and seals. _Actum Bergis die et loco, ut\n supra._\n\n \"A. C. DASS (_Chief Advocate_).\n\n \"H. C. GARTNER (_Recorder_).\"\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 14.--PONTOPPIDAN'S \"SEA SERPENT.\"]\n\nThe figure of the sea-serpent (Fig. 14) given by Pontoppidan was drawn,\nhe tells us, under the inspection of a clergyman, Mr. Hans Strom, from\ndescriptions given of it by two of his neighbours, Messrs. Reutz and\nTeuchsen, of Herroe; and was declared to agree in every particular with\nthat seen by Captain de Ferry, and another subsequently observed by\nGovernor Benstrup. The supposed coils of the serpent's body present\nexactly the appearance of eight porpoises following each other in line.\nThis is a well-known habit of some of the smaller cetacea. They are\noften met with at sea thus proceeding in close single file, part only of\ntheir rotund forms being visible as they raise their backs above the\nsurface of the water to inhale air through their \"blow-holes.\" Under\nthese circumstances they have been described by naturalists and seamen\nas resembling a long string of casks or buoys, often extending for\nsixty, eighty, or a hundred yards. This is just such a spectacle as that\ndescribed by Olaus Magnus--his \"long line of spherical convolutions,\"\nand also as one reported to Pontoppidan as being descriptive of the\nsea-serpent:--\n\n \"'I have been informed,' he says, 'by some of our sea-faring men\n that a cable[27] would not be long enough to measure the length of\n some of them when they are observed on the surface of the water in\n an even line. They say those round lumps or folds sometimes lie one\n after another as far as a man can see. I confess, if this be true,\n that we must suppose most probably that it is not one snake, but\n two or more of these creatures lying in a line that exhibit this\n phenomenon.' In a foot-note he adds: 'If any one enquires how many\n folds may be counted on a sea-snake, the answer is that the number\n is not always the same, but depends upon the various sizes of them:\n five and twenty is the greatest number that I find well attested.'\n Adam Olearius, in his Gottorf Museum, writes of it thus: 'A person\n of distinction from Sweden related here at Gottorf that he had\n heard the burgomaster of Malmoe, a very worthy man, say that as he\n was once standing on the top of a very high hill, towards the North\n Sea, he saw in the water, which was very calm, a snake, which\n appeared at that distance to be as thick as a pipe of wine, and had\n twenty-five folds. Those kind of snakes only appear at certain\n times, and in calm weather.'\"\n\n [27] Six hundred feet.\n\nI believe that in every case so far cited from Pontoppidan, as well as\nthat given by Olaus Magnus, the supposed coils or protuberances of the\nserpent's body, were only so many porpoises swimming in line in\naccordance with their habit before mentioned. If an upraised head, like\nthat of a horse, was seen preceding them, it was either unconnected with\nthem, or it certainly was not that of a snake; for no serpent could\nthrow its body into those vertical undulations. The form of the vertebrae\nin the ophidians renders such a movement impossible. All their flexions\nare horizontal; the curving of their body is from side to side, not up\nand down.\n\nThe sea-monster seen by Egede was of an entirely different kind; and\nhis account of it--let sceptics deride it as they may--is worthy of\nattention and careful consideration. The Rev. Hans Egede, known as \"The\nApostle of Greenland,\" was superintendent of the Christian missions to\nthat country. He was a truthful, pious, and single-minded man,\npossessing considerable powers of observation, and a genuine love of\nnatural history. He wrote two books on the products, people, and natural\nhistory of Greenland,[28] and his statements therein are modest,\naccurate, and free from exaggeration. His illustrations are little, if\nat all, superior in style of art to the two Japanese wood-cuts shown on\npage 29, but they bear the same unmistakable signs of fidelity which\ncharacterise those of the Japanese.\n\n [28] 'Des alten Groenlands neue Perlustration,' 8vo., Frankfurt,\n 1730, and 'Det Gamle Groenlands nye perlustratione eller Naturel\n Historie.' 4to., Copenhagen, 1741.\n\nIn his 'Journal of the Missions to Greenland' this author tell us that--\n\n \"On the 6th of July, 1734, there appeared a very large and\n frightful sea monster, which raised itself so high out of the water\n that its head reached above our main-top. It had a long, sharp\n snout, and spouted water like a whale; and very broad flappers. The\n body seemed to be covered with scales, and the skin was uneven and\n wrinkled, and the lower part was formed like a snake. After some\n time the creature plunged backwards into the water, and then turned\n its tail up above the surface, a whole ship-length from the head.\n The following evening we had very bad weather.\"\n\nThe high character of the narrator would lead us to accept his\nstatement that he had seen something previously unknown to him (he does\nnot say it was a sea-serpent) even if we could not explain or understand\nwhat it was that he saw. Fortunately, however, the sketch made by Mr.\nBing, one of his brother missionaries, has enabled us to do this. We\nmust remember that in his endeavour to portray the incident he was\ndealing with an animal with the nature of which he was unacquainted, and\nwhich was only partially, and for a very short time, within his view. He\ntherefore delineated rather the impression left on his mind than the\nthing itself. But although he invested it with a character that did not\nbelong to it, his drawing is so far correct that we are able to\nrecognise at a glance the distorted portrait of an old acquaintance, and\nto say unhesitatingly that Egede's sea-monster was one of the great\ncalamaries which have since been occasionally met with, but which have\nonly been believed in and recognised within the last few years. That\nwhich Mr. Egede believed to be the creature's head was the tail part of\nthe cuttle, which goes in advance as the animal swims, and the two side\nappendages represent very efficiently the two lobes of the caudal fin.\nIn propelling itself to the surface the squid raised this portion of its\nbody out of the water to a considerable height, an occurrence which I\nhave often witnessed, and which I have elsewhere described (see pp. 23\nand 27). The supposed tail, which was turned up at some distance from\nthe other visible portion of the body, after the latter had sunk back\ninto the sea, was one of the shorter arms of the cuttle, and the suckers\non its under side are clearly and conspicuously marked. Egede was, of\ncourse, in error in making the \"spout\" of water to issue from the mouth\nof his monster. The out-pouring jet, which he, no doubt, saw, came from\nthe locomotor tube, and the puff of spray which would accompany it as\nthe orifice of the tube rose to the surface of the water is sketched\nwith remarkable truthfulness. In quoting Egede, Pontoppidan gives a copy\n(so-called) of this engraving, but his artist embellished it so much as\nto deprive it of its original force and character, and of the honestly\ndrawn points which furnish proofs of its identity.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 15--THE ANIMAL DRAWN BY MR. BING AS HAVING BEEN SEEN\nBY HANS EGEDE.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 16.--THE ANIMAL WHICH EGEDE PROBABLY SAW.]\n\nPontoppidan records other supposed appearances of the sea-serpent, but\nfrom the date of his history I know of no other account of such an\noccurrence until that of an animal \"apparently belonging to this class,\"\nwhich was stranded on the Island of Stronsa, one of the Orkneys, in the\nyear 1808:--\n\n \"According to the narrative, it was first seen entire, and measured\n by respectable individuals. It measured fifty-six feet in length,\n and twelve in circumference. The head was small, not being a foot\n long from the snout to the first vertebra; the neck was slender,\n extending to the length of fifteen feet. All the witnesses agree in\n assigning it blow-holes, though they differ as to the precise\n situation. On the shoulders something like a bristly mane commenced\n which extended to near the extremity of the tail. It had three\n pairs of fins or paws connected with the body; the anterior were\n the largest, measuring more than four feet in length, and their\n extremities were something like toes partially webbed. The skin was\n smooth and of a greyish colour; the eye was of the size of a\n seal's. When the decaying carcass was broken up by the waves,\n portions of it were secured (such as the skull, the upper bones of\n the swimming paws, &c.) by Mr. Laing, a neighbouring proprietor,\n and some of the vertebrae were preserved and deposited in the Royal\n University Museum, Edinburgh, and in the Museum of the Royal\n College of Surgeons, London. An able paper,\" says Dr. Robert\n Hamilton, in his account of it,[29] \"on these latter fragments and\n on the wreck of the animal was read by the late Dr. Barclay to the\n Wernerian Society, and will be found in Vol. I. of its\n Transactions, to which we refer. We have supplied a wood-cut of the\n sketch\" (of which I give a _facsimile_ here) \"which was taken at\n the time, and which, from the many affidavits proffered by\n respectable individuals, as well as from other circumstances\n narrated, leaves no manner of doubt as to the existence of some\n such animal.\"\n\n [29] Jardine's Naturalists' Library: 'Marine Amphibia,' p. 314.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 17.--THE \"SEA SERPENT\" OF THE WERNERIAN SOCIETY.\n(_Facsimile._)]\n\nWell! one would think so. It looks convincing, and there is a savour of\nphilosophy about it that might lull the suspicions of a doubting\nzoologist. What more could be required? We have accurate measurements\nand a sketch taken of the animal as it lay upon the shore, minute\nparticulars of its outward form, characteristic portions of its skeleton\npreserved in well-known museums, and any amount of affidavits\nforthcoming from most respectable individuals if confirmation be\nrequired. And yet,\n\n \"'Tis true, 'tis pity;\n And pity 'tis 'tis true,\"\n\nthe whole fabric of circumstances crumbled at the touch of science.\nWhen the two vertebrae in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons\nwere examined by Sir Everard Home he pronounced them to be those of a\ngreat shark of the genus _Selache_, and as being undistinguishable from\nthose of the species called the \"basking shark,\" of which individuals\nfrom thirty to thirty-five feet in length have been from time to time\ncaptured or stranded on our coasts. Professor Owen has confirmed this.\nAny one who feels inclined to dispute the identification by this\ndistinguished comparative anatomist of a bone which he has seen and\nhandled can examine these vertebrae for himself. If they had not been\npreserved, this incident would have been cited for all time as among the\nmost satisfactorily authenticated instances on record of the appearance\nof the sea-serpent. As it is, it furnishes a valuable warning of the\nnecessity for the most careful scrutiny of the evidence of well-meaning\npersons to whom no intentional deception or exaggeration can be imputed.\n\nIn 1809, Mr. Maclean, the minister of Eigg, in the Western Isles of\nScotland, informed Dr. Neill, the secretary of the Wernerian Society,\nthat he had seen, off the Isle of Canna, a great animal which chased his\nboat as he hurried ashore to escape from it; and that it was also seen\nby the crews of thirteen fishing-boats, who were so terrified by it that\nthey fled from it to the nearest creek for safety. His description of it\nis exceedingly vague, but is strongly indicative of a great calamary.\n\nIn 1817 a large marine animal, supposed to be a serpent, was seen at\nGloucester Harbour, near Cape Ann, Massachusetts, about thirty miles\nfrom Boston. The Linnaean Society of New England investigated the matter,\nand took much trouble to obtain evidence thereon. The depositions of\neleven credible witnesses were certified on oath before magistrates, one\nof whom had himself seen the creature, and who confirmed the statements.\nAll agreed that the animal had the appearance of a serpent, but\nestimated its length, variously, at from fifty to a hundred feet. Its\nhead was in shape like that of a turtle, or snake, but as large as the\nhead of a horse. There was no appearance of a mane. Its mode of\nprogressing was by vertical undulations; and five of the witnesses\ndescribed it as having the hunched protuberances mentioned by Captain de\nFerry and others. Of this, I can offer no zoological explanation. The\ntestimony given was apparently sincere, but it was received with\nmistrust; for, as Mr. Gosse says, \"owing to a habit prevalent in the\nUnited States of supposing that there is somewhat of wit in gross\nexaggeration or hoaxing invention, we do naturally look with a lurking\nsuspicion on American statements when they describe unusual or disputed\nphenomena.\"\n\nOn the 15th of May, 1833, a party of British officers, consisting of\nCaptain Sullivan, Lieutenants Maclachlan and Malcolm of the Rifle\nBrigade, Lieutenant Lister of the Artillery, and Mr. Ince of the\nOrdnance, whilst crossing Margaret's Bay in a small yacht, on their way\nfrom Halifax to Mahone Bay, \"saw, at a distance of a hundred and fifty\nto two hundred yards, the head and neck of some denizen of the deep,\nprecisely like those of a common snake in the act of swimming, the head\nso far elevated and thrown forward by the curve of the neck, as to\nenable them to see the water under and beyond it. The creature rapidly\npassed, leaving a regular wake, from the commencement of which to the\nfore part, which was out of water, they judged its length to be about\neighty feet.\" They \"set down the head at about six feet in length\n(considerably larger than that of a horse), and that portion of the neck\nwhich they saw at the same.\" \"There could be no mistake--no delusion,\"\nthey say; \"and we were all perfectly satisfied that we had been favoured\nwith a view of the true and veritable sea-serpent.\" This account was\npublished in the _Zoologist_, in 1847 (p. 1715), and at that date all\nthe officers above named were still living.\n\nThe next incident of the kind in point of date that we find recorded\ncarries us back to the locality of which Pontoppidan wrote, and in which\nwas seen the animal vouched for by Captain de Ferry. In 1847 there\nappeared in a London daily paper a long account translated from the\nNorse journals of fresh appearances of the sea-serpent. The statement\nmade was, that it had recently been frequently seen in the neighbourhood\nof Christiansand and Molde. In the large bight of the sea at\nChristiansand it had been seen every year, only in the warmest weather,\nand when the sea was perfectly calm, and the surface of the water\nunruffled. The evidence of three respectable persons was taken, namely,\nNils Roe, a workman at Mr. William Knudtzon's, who saw it twice there,\nJohn Johnson, merchant, and Lars Johnoen, fisherman at Smolen. The\nlatter said he had frequently seen it, and that one afternoon in the\ndog-days, as he was sitting in his boat, he saw it twice in the course\nof two hours, and quite close to him. It came, indeed, to within six\nfeet of him, and, becoming alarmed, he commended his soul to God, and\nlay down in the boat, only holding his head high enough to enable him to\nobserve the monster. It passed him, disappeared, and returned; but, a\nbreeze springing up, it sank, and he saw it no more. He described it as\nbeing about six fathoms long, the body (which was as round as a\nserpent's) two feet across, the head as long as a ten-gallon cask, the\neyes large, round, red, sparkling, and about five inches in diameter:\nclose behind the head a mane like a fin commenced along the neck, and\nspread itself out on both sides, right and left, when swimming. The\nmane, as well as the head, was of the colour of mahogany. The body was\nquite smooth, its movements occasionally fast and slow. It was\nserpent-like, and moved up and down. The few undulations which those\nparts of the body and tail that were out of water made, were scarcely a\nfathom in length. These undulations were not so high that he could see\nbetween them and the water.\n\nIn confirmation of this account Mr. Soren Knudtzon, Dr. Hoffmann,\nsurgeon in Molde, Rector Hammer, Mr. Kraft, curate, and several other\npersons, testified that they had seen in the neighbourhood of\nChristiansand a sea-serpent of considerable size.\n\nMr. William Knudtzon, and Mr. Bochlum, a candidate for holy orders, also\ngave their account of it, much to the same purport; but some of these\nremarks are worthy of note for future comment. They say, \"its motions\nwere in undulations, and so strong that white foam appeared before it,\nand at the side, which stretched out several fathoms. It did not appear\nvery high out of the water; the head was long and small in proportion to\nthe throat: as the latter appeared much greater than the former,\nprobably it was furnished with a mane.\"\n\nSheriffe Goettsche testified to a similar effect. \"He could not judge of\nthe animal's entire length; he could not observe its extremity. At the\nback of the head there was a mane, which was the same colour as the rest\nof the body.\"\n\nWe must take one more Norwegian account, for it is a very important\none. The venerable P. W. Deinbolt,[30] Archdeacon of Molde, gives the\nfollowing account of an incident that occurred there on the 28th of\nJuly, 1845:\n\n [30] Hitherto erroneously printed \"Deinboll.\"\n\n \"J. C. Lund, bookseller and printer; G. S. Krogh, merchant;\n Christian Flang, Lund's apprentice, and John Elgenses, labourer,\n were out on Romsdal-fjord, fishing. The sea was, after a warm,\n sunshiny day, quite calm. About seven o'clock in the afternoon, at\n a little distance from the shore, near the ballast place and Molde\n Hooe, they saw a long marine animal, which slowly moved itself\n forward, as it appeared to them, with the help of two fins, on the\n fore-part of the body nearest the head, which they judged by the\n boiling of the water on both sides of it. The visible part of the\n body appeared to be between forty and fifty feet in length, and\n moved in undulations, like a snake. The body was round and of a\n dark colour, and seemed to be several ells in thickness. As they\n discerned a waving motion in the water behind the animal, they\n concluded that part of the body was concealed under water. That it\n was one continuous animal they saw plainly from its movement. When\n the animal was about one hundred yards from the boat, they noticed\n tolerably correctly its fore parts, which ended in a sharp snout;\n its colossal head raised itself above the water in the form of a\n semi-circle; the lower part was not visible. The colour of the head\n was dark-brown and the skin smooth; they did not notice the eyes,\n or any mane or bristles on the throat. When the serpent came about\n a musket-shot near, Lund fired at it, and was certain the shots hit\n it in the head. After the shot it dived, but came up immediately.\n It raised its neck in the air, like a snake preparing to dart on\n his prey. After he had turned and got his body in a straight line,\n which he appeared to do with great difficulty, he darted like an\n arrow against the boat. They reached the shore, and the animal,\n perceiving it had come into shallow water, dived immediately and\n disappeared in the deep. Such is the declaration of these four men,\n and no one has cause to question their veracity, or imagine that\n they were so seized with fear that they could not observe what took\n place so near them. There are not many here, or on other parts of\n the Norwegian coast, who longer doubt the existence of the\n sea-serpent. The writer of this narrative was a long time\n sceptical, as he had not been so fortunate as to see this monster\n of the deep; but after the many accounts he has read, and the\n relations he has received from credible witnesses, he does not dare\n longer to doubt the existence of the sea-serpent.\n\n \"P. W. DEINBOLT.\n\n \"Molde, 29th Nov., 1845.\"\n\nWe may at once accept most fully and frankly the statements of all the\nworthy people mentioned in this series of incidents. There is no room\nfor the shadow of a doubt that they all recounted conscientiously that\nwhich they saw. The last quoted occurrence, especially, is most\naccurately and intelligently described--so clearly, indeed, that it\nfurnishes us with a clue to the identity of the strange visitant.\n\nHere let me say--and I wish it to be distinctly understood--that I do\nnot deny the possibility of the existence of a great sea serpent, or\nother great creatures at present unknown to science, and that I have no\ninclination to explain away that which others have seen, because I\nmyself have not witnessed it. \"Seeing is believing,\" it is said, and it\nis not agreeable to have to tell a person that, in common parlance, he\n\"must not trust his own eyes.\" It seems presumptuous even to hint that\none may know better what was seen than the person who saw it. And yet I\nam obliged to say, reluctantly and courteously, but most firmly and\nassuredly, that these perfectly credible eye-witnesses did not correctly\ninterpret that which they witnessed. In these cases, it is not the eye\nwhich deceives, nor the tongue which is untruthful, but the imagination\nwhich is led astray by the association of the thing seen with an\nerroneous idea. I venture to say this, not with any insolent assumption\nof superior acumen, but because we now possess a key to the mystery\nwhich Archdeacon Deinbolt and his neighbours had not access to, and\nwhich has only within the last few years been placed in our hands. The\nmovements and aspect of their sea monster are those of an animal with\nwhich we are now well acquainted, but of the existence of which the\nnarrators of these occasional visitations were unaware; namely, the\ngreat calamary, the same which gave rise to the stories of the Kraken,\nand which has probably been a denizen of the Scandinavian seas and\nfjords from time immemorial. It must be remembered, as I have elsewhere\nsaid, that until the year 1873, notwithstanding the adventure of the\n_Alecton_ in 1861, a cuttle measuring in total length fifty or sixty\nfeet was generally looked upon as equally mythical with the great\nsea-serpent. Both were popularly scoffed at, and to express belief in\neither was to incur ridicule. But in the year above mentioned, specimens\nof even greater dimensions than those quoted were met with on the coasts\nof Newfoundland, and portions of them were deposited in museums, to\nsilence the incredulous and interest zoologists. When Archdeacon\nDeinbolt published in 1846 the declaration of Mr. Lund and his\ncompanions of the fishing excursion, he and they knew nothing of there\nbeing such an animal. They had formed no conception of it, nor had they\nthe instructive privilege, possessed of late years by the public in\nEngland, of being able to watch attentively, and at leisure, the habits\nand movements of these strangely modified mollusks living in great tanks\nof sea-water in aquaria. If they had been thus acquainted with them, I\nbelieve they would have recognised in their supposed snake the elongated\nbody of a giant squid.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 18.--A CALAMARY SWIMMING AT THE SURFACE OF THE SEA.]\n\nWhen swimming, these squids propel themselves backwards by the\nout-rush of a stream of water from a tube pointed in a direction\ncontrary to that in which the animal is proceeding. The tail part,\ntherefore, goes in advance, and the body tapers towards this, almost to\na blunt point. At a short distance from the actual extremity two flat\nfins project from the body, one on each side, as shown in Figs. 16 and\n18, so that this end of the squid's body somewhat resembles in shape the\ngovernment \"broad arrow.\" It is a habit of these squids, the small\nspecies of which are met with in some localities in teeming abundance,\nto swim on the smooth surface of the water in hot and calm weather. The\narrow-headed tail is then raised out of water, to a height which in a\nlarge individual might be three feet or more; and, as it precedes the\nrest of the body, moving at the rate of several miles an hour, it of\ncourse looks, to a person who has never heard of an animal going tail\nfirst at such a speed, like the creature's head. The appearance of this\n\"head\" varies in accordance with the lateral fins being seen in profile\nor in broad expanse. The elongated, tubular-looking body gives the idea\nof the neck to which the \"head\" is attached; the eight arms trailing\nbehind (the tentacles are always coiled away and concealed) supply the\nsupposed mane floating on each side; the undulating motion in swimming,\nas the water is alternately drawn in and expelled, accords with the\ndescription, and the excurrent stream pouring aft from the locomotor\ntube, causes a long swirl and swell to be left in the animal's wake,\nwhich, as I have often seen, may easily be mistaken for an indefinite\nprolongation of its body. The eyes are very large and prominent, and the\ngeneral tone of colour varies through every tint of brown, purple, pink,\nand grey, as the creature is more or less excited, and the pigmentary\nmatter circulates with more or less vigour through the curiously moving\ncells.\n\nHere we have the \"long marine animal\" with \"two fins on the forepart of\nthe body near the head,\" the \"boiling of the water,\" the \"moving in\nundulations,\" the \"body round, and of a dark colour,\" the \"waving motion\nin the water behind the animal, from which the witnesses concluded that\npart of the body was concealed under water,\" the \"head raised, but the\nlower part not visible,\" \"the sharp snout,\" the \"smooth skin,\" and the\nappearance described by Mr. William Knudtzon, and Candidatus Theologiae\nBochlum, of \"the head being long and small in proportion to the throat,\nthe latter appearing much greater than the former,\" which caused them to\nthink \"it was _probably_ furnished with a mane.\" Not that they _saw_ any\nmane, but as they had been told of it, they thought they _ought to have\nseen it_. Less careful and conscientious persons would have persuaded\nthemselves, and declared on oath, that they _did see it_.\n\nI need scarcely point out how utterly irreconcileable is the\nproverbially smooth, gliding motion of a serpent, with the supposition\nof its passage through the water causing such frictional disturbance\nthat \"white foam appeared before it, and at the side, which stretched\nout several fathoms,\" and of \"the water boiling around it on both sides\nof it.\" The cuttle is the only animal that I know of that would cause\nthis by the effluent current from its \"syphon tube.\" I have seen a\ndeeply laden ship push in front of her a vast hillock of water, which\nfell off on each side in foam as it was parted by her bow; but that was\nof man's construction. Nature builds on better lines. No swimming\ncreature has such unnecessary friction to overcome. Even the seemingly\nunwieldy body of a porpoise enters and passes through the water without\na splash, and nothing can be more easy and graceful than the feathering\naction of the flippers of the awkward-looking turtle.\n\nWe now come to an incident which, from the character of those who\nwitnessed it, immediately commanded attention, and excited popular\ncuriosity. In the _Times_ of the 9th of October, 1848, appeared a\nparagraph stating that a sea-serpent had been met with by the _Daedalus_\nfrigate, on her homeward voyage from the East Indies. The Admiralty\nimmediately inquired of her commander, Captain M'Quhae, as to the truth\nof the report; and his official reply, as follows, addressed to Admiral\nSir W. H. Gage, G.C.H., Devonport, was printed in the _Times_ of the\n13th of October, 1848.\n\n \"H.M.S. _Daedalus_, Hamoaze,\n October 11th, 1848.\n\n \"Sir,--In reply to your letter of this date, requiring information\n as to the truth of the statement published in the _Times_\n newspaper, of a sea-serpent of extraordinary dimensions having been\n seen from H.M.S. _Daedalus_, under my command, on her passage from\n the East Indies, I have the honour to acquaint you, for the\n information of my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that at 5\n o'clock P.M. on the 6th of Aug. last, in lat. 24 deg. 44' S. and long.\n 9 deg. 22' E., the weather dark and cloudy, wind fresh from the N.W.\n with a long ocean swell from the W., the ship on the port tack,\n head being N.E. by N., something very unusual was seen by Mr.\n Sartoris, midshipman, rapidly approaching the ship from before the\n beam. The circumstance was immediately reported by him to the\n officer of the watch, Lieut. Edgar Drummond, with whom and Mr. Wm.\n Barrett, the Master, I was at the time walking the quarter-deck.\n The ship's company were at supper. On our attention being called to\n the object it was discovered to be an enormous serpent, with head\n and shoulders kept about four feet constantly above the surface of\n the sea, and, as nearly as we could approximate by comparing it\n with the length of what our main-topsail yard would show in the\n water, there was at the very least sixty feet of the animal _a\n fleur d'eau_, no portion of which was, to our perception, used in\n propelling it through the water, either by vertical or horizontal\n undulation. It passed rapidly, but so close under our lee quarter\n that had it been a man of my acquaintance I should easily have\n recognised his features with the naked eye; and it did not, either\n in approaching the ship or after it had passed our wake, deviate in\n the slightest degree from its course to the S.W., which it held on\n at the pace of from twelve to fifteen miles per hour, apparently on\n some determined purpose.\n\n \"The diameter of the serpent was about fifteen or sixteen inches\n behind the head, which was without any doubt that of a snake; and\n it was never, during the twenty minutes it continued in sight of\n our glasses, once below the surface of the water; its colour dark\n brown, and yellowish white about the throat. It had no fins, but\n something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of seaweed,\n washed about its back. It was seen by the quartermaster, the\n boatswain's mate, and the man at the wheel, in addition to myself\n and the officers above mentioned.\n\n \"I am having a drawing of the serpent made from a sketch taken\n immediately after it was seen, which I hope to have ready for\n transmission to my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty by\n to-morrow's post.--PETER M'QUHAE, Captain.\"\n\nThe sketches referred to in the captain's letter were made under his\nsupervision, and copies of them, of which he certified his approbation,\nwere published in the _Illustrated London News_ on the 28th of October,\n1848. I am kindly permitted by the proprietors of that journal to\nreproduce two of them, reduced in size to suit these pages--one showing\nthe relative positions of the \"serpent\" and the ship when the former was\nfirst seen (_Frontispiece_), and the other (Fig. 19) representing the\nanimal afterwards passing under the frigate's quarter. An enlarged\ndrawing of its head was also given, which I have not thought it\nnecessary to copy.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 19.--THE \"SEA SERPENT\" PASSING UNDER THE QUARTER OF\nH.M.S. 'DAEDALUS.']\n\nLieutenant Drummond, the officer of the watch mentioned in Captain\nM'Quhae's report, published his memorandum of the impression made on his\nmind by the animal at the time of its appearance. It differs somewhat\nfrom the captain's description, and is the more cautious of the two.\n\n \"I beg to send you the following extract from my journal. H.M.S.\n 'Daedalus,' August 6, 1848, lat. 25 deg. S., long. 9 deg. 37' E., St. Helena\n 1,015 miles. In the 4 to 6 watch, at about 5 o'clock, we observed a\n most remarkable fish on our lee-quarter, crossing the stern in a\n S.W. direction. The appearance of its head, which with the back fin\n was the only portion of the animal visible, was long, pointed and\n flattened at the top, perhaps ten feet in length, the upper jaw\n projecting considerably; the fin was perhaps 20 feet in the rear of\n the head, and visible occasionally; the captain also asserted that\n he saw the tail, or another fin, about the same distance behind it;\n the upper part of the head and shoulders appeared of a dark brown\n colour, and beneath the under-jaw a brownish-white. It pursued a\n steady undeviating course, keeping its head horizontal with the\n surface of the water, and in rather a raised position, disappearing\n occasionally beneath a wave for a very brief interval, and not\n apparently for purposes of respiration. It was going at the rate of\n perhaps from twelve to fourteen miles an hour, and when nearest was\n perhaps one hundred yards distant; in fact it gave one quite the\n idea of a large snake or eel. No one in the ship has ever seen\n anything similar; so it is at least extraordinary. It was visible\n to the naked eye for five minutes, and with a glass for perhaps\n fifteen more. The weather was dark and squally at the time, with\n some sea running.--EDGAR DRUMMOND, Lieut. H.M.S. 'Daedalus;'\n Southampton, Oct. 28, 1848.\"\n\nStatements so interesting and important, of course, elicited much\ncorrespondence and controversy. Mr. J. D. Morries Stirling, a director\nof the Bergen Museum, wrote to the Secretary of the British Admiralty,\nCaptain Hamilton, R.N., saying that while becalmed in a yacht between\nBergen and Sogne, in Norway, he had seen, three years previously, a\nlarge fish or reptile of cylindrical form (he would not say \"sea\nserpent\") ruffling the otherwise smooth surface of the fjord. No head\nwas visible. This appears to have been, like the others from the same\nlocality, a large calamary. Mr. Stirling unaware, doubtless, that Mr.\nEdward Newman, editor of the _Zoologist_, had previously propounded the\nsame idea, suggested that the supposed serpent might be one of the old\nmarine reptiles, hitherto supposed only to exist in the fossil state.\nThis letter was published in the _Illustrated News_ of October 28th, and\nfour days afterwards, November 2nd, a letter signed F.G.S. appeared in\nthe _Times_, in which the same idea was mooted, and the opinion\nexpressed that it might be the _Plesiosaurus_. This brought out that\ngreat master in physiology, Professor Owen, who in a long, and, it is\nneedless to say, most able letter to the _Times_, dated the 9th of\nNovember, 1848, set forth a series of weighty arguments against belief\nin the supposed serpent, which I regret that I am unable, from want of\nspace, to quote _in extenso_. The reasoning of the most eminent of\nliving physiologists of course had its influence on those who could best\nappreciate it; but, as it went against the current of popular opinion,\nit met with little favour from the public, and has been slurred over\nmuch too superciliously by some subsequent writers. He suggested also\nthat the creature seen might have been a great seal, such as the leonine\nseal, or the sea-elephant (the head, as shown in the enlarged drawing,\nwas wonderfully seal-like), but it was generally felt that this\nexplanation was unsatisfactory. The nature of his criticism of the\nofficial statement will be seen from Captain M'Quhae's reply, which was\npromptly given in the _Times_ of the 21st of November, 1848, as\nfollows:--\n\n \"Professor Owen correctly states that I evidently saw a large\n creature moving rapidly through the water very different from\n anything I had before witnessed, neither a whale, a grampus, a\n great shark, an alligator, nor any of the larger surface-swimming\n creatures fallen in with in ordinary voyages. I now assert--neither\n was it a common seal nor a sea-elephant, its great length and its\n totally differing physiognomy precluding the possibility of its\n being a '_Phoca_' of any species. The head was flat, and not a\n 'capacious vaulted cranium;' nor had it a stiff, inflexible\n trunk--a conclusion at which Professor Owen has jumped, most\n certainly not justified by the simple statement, that no portion of\n the sixty feet seen by us was used in propelling it through the\n water either by vertical or horizontal undulation.\n\n \"It is also assumed that the 'calculation of its length was made\n under a strong preconception of the nature of the beast;' another\n conclusion quite contrary to the fact. It was not until after the\n great length was developed by its nearest approach to the ship, and\n until after that most important point had been duly considered and\n debated, as well as such could be in the brief space of time\n allowed for so doing, that it was pronounced to be a serpent by all\n who saw it, and who are too well accustomed to judge of lengths and\n breadths of objects in the sea to mistake a real substance and an\n actual living body, coolly and dispassionately contemplated, at so\n short a distance, too, for the 'eddy caused by the action of the\n deeper immersed fins and tail of a rapidly moving gigantic seal\n raising its head above the surface of the water,' as Professor Owen\n imagines, in quest of its lost iceberg.\n\n \"The creative powers of the human mind may be very limited. On\n this occasion they were not called into requisition; my purpose and\n desire throughout being to furnish eminent naturalists, such as the\n learned Professor, with accurate facts, and not with exaggerated\n representations, nor with what could by any possibility proceed\n from optical illusion; and I beg to assure him that old Pontoppidan\n having clothed his sea-serpent with a mane could not have suggested\n the idea of ornamenting the creature seen from the 'Daedalus' with a\n similar appendage, for the simple reason that I had never seen his\n account, or even heard of his sea-serpent, until my arrival in\n London. Some other solution must therefore be found for the very\n remarkable coincidence between us in that particular, in order to\n unravel the mystery.\n\n \"Finally, I deny the existence of excitement or the possibility of\n optical illusion. I adhere to the statements, as to form, colour,\n and dimensions, contained in my official report to the Admiralty,\n and I leave them as data whereupon the learned and scientific may\n exercise the 'pleasures of imagination' until some more fortunate\n opportunity shall occur of making a closer acquaintance with the\n 'great unknown'--in the present instance most assuredly no ghost.\n\n \"P. M'QUHAE, late Captain of H.M.S. 'Daedalus.'\"\n\nOf course neither Professor Owen, nor any one else, doubted the\nveracity or _bona fides_ of the captain and officers of one of Her\nMajesty's ships; and their testimony was the more important because it\nwas that of men accustomed to the sights of the sea. Their practised\neyes would, probably, be able to detect the true character of anything\nmet with afloat, even if only partially seen, as intuitively as the Red\nIndian reads the signs of the forest or the trail; and therefore they\nwere not likely to be deceived by any of the objects with which sailors\nare familiar. They would not be deluded by seals, porpoises, trunks of\ntrees, or Brobdingnagian stems of algae; but there was one animal with\nwhich they were not familiar, of the existence of which they were\nunaware, and which, as I have said, at that date was generally believed\nto be as unreal as the sea-serpent itself--namely, the great calamary,\nthe elongated form of which has certainly in some other instances been\nmistaken for that of a sea-snake. One of these seen swimming in the\nmanner I have described, and endeavoured to portray (p. 77), would\nfulfil the description given by Lieutenant Drummond, and would in a\ngreat measure account for the appearances reported by Captain M'Quhae.\n\"_The head long, pointed and flat on the top_,\" accords with the pointed\nextremity and caudal fin of the squid. \"_Head kept horizontal with the\nsurface of the water, and in rather a raised position, disappearing\noccasionally beneath a wave for a very brief interval, and not\napparently for purposes of respiration._\" A perfect description of the\nposition and action of a squid swimming. \"_No portion of it perceptibly\nused in propelling it through the water, either by vertical or\nhorizontal undulations._\" The mode of propulsion of a squid--the\noutpouring stream of water from its locomotor tube--would be unseen and\nunsuspected, because submerged. Its effect, the swirl in its wake, would\nsuggest a prolongation of the creature's body. The numerous arms\ntrailing astern at the surface of the water would give the appearance of\na mane. I think it not impossible that if the officers of the _Daedalus_\nhad been acquainted with this great sea creature the impression on their\nmind's eye would not have taken the form of a serpent. I offer this,\nwith much diffidence, as a suggestion arising from recent discoveries;\nand by no means insist on its acceptance; for Captain M'Quhae, who had a\nvery close view of the animal, distinctly says that \"the head was,\nwithout any doubt, that of a serpent,\" and one of his officers\nsubsequently declared that the eye, the mouth, the nostril, the colour,\nand the form were all most distinctly visible.\n\nIn a letter addressed to the Editor of the _Bombay Times_, and dated\n\"Kamptee, January 3rd, 1849,\" Mr. R. Davidson, Superintending Surgeon,\nNagpore Subsidiary Force, describes a great sea animal seen by him\nwhilst on board the ship _Royal Saxon_, on a voyage to India, in 1829.\nThe features of this incident are consistent with his having seen one of\nthe, then unknown, great calamaries.\n\nDr. Scott, of Exeter, sent to the Editor of the _Zoologist_ (p. 2459),\nan extract from the memorandum-book of Lieutenant Sandford, R.N.,\nwritten about the year 1820, when he was in command of the merchant ship\n_Lady Combermere_. In it he mentions his having met with, in lat. 46,\nlong. 3 (Bay of Biscay), an animal unknown to him, an immense body on\nthe surface of the water, spouting, not unlike the blowing of a whale,\nand the raising up of a triangular extremity, and subsequently of a head\nand neck erected six feet above the surface of the water. This was\nevidently a great squid seen under circumstances similar to those\ndescribed by Hans Egede (p. 67).\n\nIn the _Sun_ Newspaper of July 9th, 1849, was published the following\nstatement of Captain Herriman, of the ship _Brazilian_:\n\n \"On the morning of the 24th February, the ship being becalmed in\n lat. 26 deg. S., long. 8 deg. E. (about forty miles from the place where\n Captain M'Quhae is said to have seen the serpent), the captain\n perceived something right astern, stretched along the water to a\n length of twenty five or thirty feet, and perceptibly moving from\n the ship, with a steady sinuous motion. The head, which seemed to\n be lifted several feet above the water, had something resembling a\n mane running down to the floating portion, and within about six\n feet of the tail. Of course Captain Herriman, Mr. Long, his chief\n officer, and the passengers who saw this came to the conclusion\n that it must be the sea-serpent. As the 'Brazilian' was making no\n headway, to bring all doubts to an issue, the captain had a boat\n lowered, and himself standing in the bow, armed with a harpoon,\n approached the monster. It was found to be an immense piece of\n sea-weed, drifting with the current, which sets constantly to the\n westward in this latitude, and which, with the swell left by the\n subsidence of a previous gale, gave it the sinuous snake-like\n motion.\"\n\nCaptain Harrington, of the ship _Castilian_, reported in the _Times_ of\nFebruary 5th, 1858, that:\n\n \"On the 12th of December, 1857, N.E. end of St. Helena distant ten\n miles, he and his officers were startled by the sight of a huge\n marine animal which reared its head out of the water within twenty\n yards of the ship. The head was shaped like a long nun-buoy,[31]\n and they supposed it to have been seven or eight feet in diameter\n in the largest part, with a kind of scroll or tuft of loose skin,\n encircling it about two feet from the top. The water was\n discoloured for several hundred feet from its head, so much so that\n on its first appearance my impression was that the ship was in\n broken water.\"\n\n [31] See illustration, p. 67.\n\nEvidently, again, a large calamary raising its caudal extremity and fin\nabove the surface, and discolouring the water by discharging its ink.\n\nThis was immediately followed by a letter from Captain Frederick Smith,\nof the ship _Pekin_, who stated that:\n\n \"On December 28th, 1848, being then in lat. 26 deg. S., long. 6 deg. E.\n (about half-way between the Cape and St. Helena), he saw a very\n extraordinary-looking thing in the water, of considerable length.\n With the telescope, he could plainly discern a huge head and neck,\n covered with a shaggy-looking kind of mane, which it kept lifting\n at intervals out of water. This was seen by all hands, and was\n declared to be the great sea-serpent. A boat was lowered; a line\n was made fast to the 'snake,' and it was towed alongside and\n hoisted on board. It was a piece of gigantic sea-weed, twenty feet\n long, and completely covered with snaky-looking barnacles. So like\n a huge living monster did this appear, that had circumstances\n prevented my sending a boat to it, I should certainly have believed\n I had seen the great sea-serpent.\"\n\nIn September, 1872, Mr. Frank Buckland published, in _Land and Water_,\nan account by the late Duke of Marlborough, of a \"sea-serpent\" having\nbeen seen several times within a few days, in Loch Hourn, Scotland. A\nsketch of it was given which almost exactly accorded with that of\nPontoppidan's sea-serpent, namely, seven hunches or protuberances like\nso many porpoises swimming in line, preceded by a head and neck raised\nslightly out of water. Many other accounts have been published of the\nappearance of serpent-like sea monsters, but I have only space for two\nor three more of the most remarkable of them.\n\nOn the 10th of January, 1877, the following affidavit was made before\nMr. Raffles, magistrate, at Liverpool:\n\n \"We, the undersigned officers and crew of the barque 'Pauline' (of\n London), of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, in the United\n Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, do solemnly and sincerely\n declare that, on July 8, 1875, in lat. 5 deg. 13' S., long. 35 deg. W., we\n observed three large sperm whales, and one of them was gripped\n round the body with two turns of what appeared to be a huge\n serpent. The head and tail appeared to have a length beyond the\n coils of about thirty feet, and its girth eight feet or nine feet.\n The serpent whirled its victim round and round for about fifteen\n minutes, and then suddenly dragged the whale to the bottom, head\n first.\n\n\"GEO. DREVAR, Master; HORATIO THOMPSON, JOHN HENDERSON\nLANDELLS, OWEN BAKER, and WILLIAM LEWARN.\n\n \"Again, on July 13, a similar serpent was seen, about two hundred\n yards off, shooting itself along the surface, head and neck being\n out of the water several feet. This was seen only by the captain\n and one ordinary seaman.\n\n\"GEORGE DREVAR, Master.\n\n \"A few moments after it was seen some 60 feet elevated\n perpendicularly in the air by the chief officer and the following\n seamen:--Horatio Thompson, Owen Baker, Wm. Lewarn. And we make this\n solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true.\"\n\nIn the _Illustrated London News_, of November 20th, 1875, there had\npreviously appeared a letter from the Rev. E. L. Penny, Chaplain to\nH.M.S. _London_, at Zanzibar, describing this occurrence and also the\nrepresentation of a sketch (which I am kindly permitted to reproduce\nhere), drawn by him from the descriptions given by the captain and crew\nof the _Pauline_. \"The whale,\" he said, \"should have been placed deeper\nin the water, but he would then have been unable to depict so clearly\nthe manner in which the animal was attacked.\" He adds that, \"Captain\nDrevar is a singularly able and observant man, and those of the crew and\nofficers with whom he conversed were singularly intelligent; nor did any\nof their descriptions vary from one another in the least: there were no\ndiscrepancies.\" The event took place whilst their vessel was on her way\nfrom Shields to Zanzibar, with a cargo of coals, for the use of H.M.S.\n_London_, then the guard ship on that station.\n\nIt is impossible to doubt for a moment the genuineness of the\nstatement made by Captain Drevar and his crew, or their honest desire to\ndescribe faithfully that which they believed they had seen; but the\nheight to which the snake is said to have upreared itself is evidently\ngreatly exaggerated; for it is impossible that any serpent could\n\"elevate its body some sixty feet perpendicularly in the air\"--nearly\none-third of the height of the Monument of the Great Fire of London. I\nhave no desire to force this narrative of the master and crew of the\n_Pauline_ into conformity with any preconceived idea. They may have seen\na veritable sea-serpent; or they may have witnessed the amours of two\nwhales, and have seen the great creatures rolling over and over that\nthey might breathe alternately by the blow-hole of each coming to the\nsurface of the water; or the supposed coils of the snake may have been\nthe arms of a great calamary, cast over and around the huge cetacean.\nThe other two appearances--1st, the animal \"seen shooting itself along\nthe surface with head and neck raised\" (p. 77), and 2nd, the elevation\nof the body to a considerable height, as in Egede's sea monster, (p.\n67), would certainly accord with this last hypothesis; but, taking the\nstatement as it stands, it must be left for further elucidation.\n\n[Illustration: FIG 20.--THE \"SEA SERPENT\" AND SPERM WHALE AS SEEN FROM\nTHE 'PAULINE.']\n\nOn the 28th of January, 1879, a \"sea-serpent\" was seen from the s.s.\n_City of Baltimore_, in the Gulf of Aden, by Major H. W. J. Senior, of\nthe Bengal Staff Corps. The narrator \"observed a long, black object\ndarting rapidly in and out of the water, and advancing nearer to the\nvessel. The shape of the head was not unlike pictures of the dragon he\nhad often seen, with a bull-dog expression of the forehead and eyebrows.\nWhen the monster had drawn its head sufficiently out of the water, it\nlet its body drop, as it were a log of wood, prior to darting forward\nunder the water. This motion caused a splash of about fifteen feet in\nlength on either side of the neck much in the 'shape of a pair of\nwings.'\" This last particular of its appearance, as well as its\nmovements, suggest a great calamary; but, as one with \"a bull-dog\nexpression of eyebrow, visible at 500 yards distance,\" does not come\nwithin my ken, I will not claim it as such.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 21.--THE \"SEA SERPENT\" AS SEEN FROM THE 'CITY OF\nBALTIMORE.']\n\nIn June 1877 Commander Pearson reported to the Admiralty, that on the\n2nd of that month, he and other officers of the Royal Yacht _Osborne_,\nhad seen, off Cape Vito, Sicily, a large marine animal, of which the\nfollowing account and sketches were furnished by Lieutenant Haynes, and\nwere confirmed by Commander Pearson, Mr. Douglas Haynes, Mr. Forsyth,\nand Mr. Moore, engineer.\n\n \"Lieutenant Haynes writes, under date, 'Royal Yacht _Osborne_,\n Gibraltar, June 6': On the evening of that day, the sea being\n perfectly smooth, my attention was first called by seeing a ridge\n of fins above the surface of the water, extending about thirty\n feet, and varying from five to six feet in height. On inspecting it\n by means of a telescope, at about one and a-half cables' distance,\n I distinctly saw a head, two flappers, and about thirty feet of an\n animal's shoulder. The head, as nearly as I could judge, was about\n six feet thick, the neck narrower, about four to five feet, the\n shoulder about fifteen feet across, and the flappers each about\n fifteen feet in length. The movements of the flappers were those of\n a turtle, and the animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance\n being strongest about the back of the head. I could not see the\n length of the head, but from its crown or top to just below the\n shoulder (where it became immersed), I should reckon about fifty\n feet. The tail end I did not see, being under water, unless the\n ridge of fins to which my attention was first attracted, and which\n had disappeared by the time I got a telescope, were really the\n continuation of the shoulder to the end of the object's body. The\n animal's head was not always above water, but was thrown upwards,\n remaining above for a few seconds at a time, and then disappearing.\n There was an entire absence of 'blowing,' or 'spouting.' I herewith\n beg to enclose a rough sketch, showing the view of the 'ridge of\n fins,' and also of the animal in the act of propelling itself by\n its two fins.\"\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 22.--THE \"SEA SERPENT\" AS SEEN FROM H.M. YACHT\n'OSBORNE.'\n\nPHASE I.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 23.--THE \"SEA SERPENT\" AS SEEN FROM H.M. YACHT\n'OSBORNE.'\n\nPHASE 2.]\n\nIt seems to me that this description cannot be explained as applicable\nto any one animal yet known. The ridge of dorsal fins might, possibly,\nas was suggested by Mr. Frank Buckland, belong to four basking sharks,\nswimming in line, in close order; but the combination of them with long\nflippers, and the turtle-like mode of swimming, forms a zoological\nenigma which I am unable to solve.\n\nThis brings us face to face with the question: \"Is it then so\nimpossible that there may exist some great sea creature, or creatures,\nwith which zoologists are hitherto unacquainted, that it is necessary in\nevery case to regard the authors of such narratives as wilfully\nuntruthful, or mistaken in their observations, if their descriptions are\nirreconcileable with something already known?\" I, for one, am of the\nopinion that there is no such impossibility. Calamaries or squids of the\nordinary size have, from time immemorial, been amongst the commonest and\nbest known of marine animals in many seas; but only a few years ago any\none who expressed his belief in one formidable enough to capsize a boat,\nor pull a man out of one, was derided for his credulity, although\nvoyagers had constantly reported that in the Indian seas they were so\ndreaded that the natives always carried hatchets with them in their\ncanoes, with which to cut off the arms or tentacles of these creatures,\nif attacked by them. We now know that their existence is no fiction; for\nindividuals have been captured measuring more than fifty feet, and some\nare reported to have measured eighty feet, in total length. As marine\nsnakes some feet in length, and having fin-like tails adapted for\nswimming, abound over an extensive geographical range, and are\nfrequently met with far at sea, I cannot regard it as impossible that\nsome of these also may attain to an abnormal and colossal development.\nDr. Andrew Wilson, who has given much attention to this subject, is of\nthe opinion that \"in this huge development of ordinary forms we discover\nthe true and natural law of the production of the giant serpent of the\nsea.\" It goes far, at any rate, towards accounting for its supposed\nappearance. I am convinced that, whilst naturalists have been searching\namongst the vertebrata for a solution of the problem, the great unknown,\nand therefore unrecognized, calamaries by their elongated, cylindrical\nbodies and peculiar mode of swimming, have played the part of the\nsea-serpent in many a well-authenticated incident. In other cases, such\nas some of those mentioned by Pontoppidan, the supposed \"vertical\nundulations\" of the snake seen out of water have been the burly bodies\nof so many porpoises swimming in line--the connecting undulations\nbeneath the surface have been supplied by the imagination. The dorsal\nfins of basking sharks, as figured by Mr. Buckland, or of ribbon-fishes,\nas suggested by Dr. Andrew Wilson, may have furnished the \"ridge of\nfins;\" an enormous conger is not an impossibility; a giant turtle may\nhave done duty, with its propelling flippers and broad back; or a marine\nsnake of enormous size may, really, have been seen. But if we accept as\naccurate the observations recorded (which I certainly do not in all\ncases, for they are full of errors and mistakes), the difficulty is not\nentirely met, even by this last admission, for the instances are very\nfew in which an ophidian proper--a true serpent--is indicated. There has\nseemed to be wanting an animal having a long snake-like neck, a small\nhead and a slender body, and propelling itself by paddles.[32]\n\n [32] It must be noted, however, that in almost every case, except\n that of the _Osborne_, the paddles were _supposed_, not _seen_, and\n were invented to account for an animal of great length progressing\n at the surface of the water at the rate of twelve to fifteen miles\n an hour without its being possible to perceive, upon the closest\n and most attentive inspection, any undulatory movement to which its\n rapid advance could be ascribed. As the great calamaries were\n unknown, their mode of swift retrograde motion, by means of an\n outflowing current of water, was of course unsuspected.\n\nThe similarity of such an animal to the _Plesiosaurus_ of old was\nremarkable. That curious compound reptile, which has been compared with\n\"a snake threaded through the body of a turtle,\" is described by Dean\nBuckland, in his _Bridgewater Treatise_, as having \"the head of a\nlizard, the teeth of a crocodile, a neck of enormous length resembling\nthe body of a serpent, the ribs of a chameleon, and the paddles of a\nwhale.\" In the number of its cervical vertebrae (about thirty-three) it\nsurpasses that of the longest-necked bird, the swan.\n\nThe form and probable movements of this ancient saurian agree so\nmarkedly with some of the accounts given of the \"great sea-serpent,\"\nthat Mr. Edward Newman advanced the opinion that the closest affinities\nof the latter would be found to be with the _Enaliosauria_, or marine\nlizards, whose fossil remains are so abundant in the oolite and the\nlias. This view has also been taken by other writers, and emphatically\nby Mr. Gosse. Neither he nor Mr. Newman insist that the \"great unknown\"\nmust be the _Plesiosaurus_ itself. Mr. Gosse says, \"I should not look\nfor any species, scarcely even any genus, to be perpetuated from the\noolitic period to the present. Admitting the actual continuation of the\norder _Enaliosauria_, it would be, I think, quite in conformity with\ngeneral analogy to find some salient features of several extinct forms.\"\n\n[Illustration: FIG 24.\n\n_Plesiosaurus Dolichodeirus restored by The Rev. W. D. Canybeare._]\n\nThe form and habits of the recently-recognized gigantic cuttles account\nfor so many appearances which, without knowledge of them, were\ninexplicable when Mr. Gosse and Mr. Newman wrote, that I think this\ntheory is not now forced upon us. Mr. Gosse well and clearly sums up the\nevidence as follows: \"Carefully comparing the independent narratives of\nEnglish witnesses of known character and position, most of them being\nofficers under the crown, we have a creature possessing the following\ncharacteristics: 1st. The general form of a serpent. 2nd. Great length,\nsay above sixty feet. 3rd. Head considered to resemble that of a\nserpent. 4th. Neck from twelve to sixteen inches in diameter. 5th.\nAppendages on the head, neck, or back, resembling a crest or mane.\n(Considerable discrepancy in details.) 6th. Colour dark brown, or green,\nstreaked or spotted with white. 7th. Swims at surface of the water with\na rapid or slow movement, the head and neck projected and elevated above\nthe surface. 8th. Progression, steady and uniform; the body straight,\nbut capable of being thrown into convolutions. 9th. Spouts in the manner\nof a whale. 10th. Like a long nun-buoy.\" He concludes with the\nquestion--\"To which of the recognized classes of created beings can this\nhuge rover of the ocean be referred?\"\n\nI reply: \"To the Cephalopoda. There is not one of the above judiciously\nsummarized characteristics that is not supplied by the great calamary,\nand its ascertained habits and peculiar mode of locomotion.\n\n\"Only a geologist can fully appreciate how enormously the balance of\nprobability is contrary to the supposition that any of the gigantic\nmarine saurians of the secondary deposits should have continued to live\nup to the present time. And yet I am bound to say, that this does not\namount to an impossibility, for the evidence against it is entirely\nnegative. Nor is the conjecture that there may be in existence some\ncongeners of these great reptiles inconsistent with zoological science.\nDr. J. E. Gray, late of the British Museum, a strict zoologist, is cited\nby Mr. Gosse as having long ago expressed his opinion that some\nundescribed form exists which is intermediate between the tortoises and\nthe serpents.\"[33]\n\n [33] Dr. Gray wrote in his 'Synopsis of Genera of Reptiles,' in the\n Annals of Philosophy, 1825: \"There is every reason to believe from\n general structure that there exists an affinity between the\n tortoises and the snakes; but the genus that exactly unites them is\n at present unknown to European naturalists; which is not\n astonishing when we consider the immense number of undescribed\n animals which are daily occurring. If I may be allowed to speculate\n from the peculiarities of structure which I have observed, I am\n inclined to think that the union will most probably take place by\n some newly discovered genera allied to the marine or fluviatile\n soft-skinned turtles and the marine serpent.\"\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 25.--THE \"SEA SERPENT,\" ON THE ENALIOSAURIAN\nHYPOTHESIS.\n\n_After_ Mr. P. H. GOSSE, F.R.S.]\n\nProfessor Agassiz, too, is adduced by a correspondent of the _Zoologist_\n(p. 2395), as having said concerning the present existence of the\n_Enaliosaurian_ type that \"it would be in precise conformity with\nanalogy that such an animal should exist in the American Seas, as he had\nfound numerous instances in which the fossil forms of the Old World were\nrepresented by living types in the New.\"\n\nOn this point, Mr. Newman records, in the _Zoologist_ (p. 2356), an\nactual testimony which he considers, \"in all respects, the most\ninteresting natural-history fact of the present century.\" He writes:\n\n \"Captain the Hon. George Hope states that when in H.M.S. 'Fly,' in\n the Gulf of California, the sea being perfectly calm and\n transparent, he saw at the bottom a large marine animal with the\n head and general figure of the alligator, except that the neck was\n much longer, and that instead of legs the creature had four large\n flappers, somewhat like those of turtles, the anterior pair being\n larger than the posterior; the creature was distinctly visible, and\n all its movements could be observed with ease; it appeared to be\n pursuing its prey at the bottom of the sea; its movements were\n somewhat serpentine, and an appearance of annulations, or ring-like\n divisions of the body, was distinctly perceptible. Captain Hope\n made this relation in company, and as a matter of conversation.\n When I heard it from the gentleman to whom it was narrated, I\n enquired whether Captain Hope was acquainted with those remarkable\n fossil animals _Ichthyosauri_ and _Plesiosauri_, the supposed forms\n of which so nearly correspond with what he describes as having seen\n alive, and I cannot find that he had heard of them; the alligator\n being the only animal he mentioned as bearing a partial similarity\n to the creature in question.\"\n\nUnfortunately, the estimated dimensions of this creature are not given.\n\nThat negative evidence alone is an unsafe basis for argument against the\nexistence of unknown animals, the following illustrations will show:\n\nDuring the deep-sea dredgings of H.M.S. _Lightning_, _Porcupine_, and\n_Challenger_, many new species of mollusca, and others which had been\nsupposed to have been extinct ever since the chalk epoch, were brought\nto light; and by the deep-sea trawlings of the last-mentioned ship,\nthere have been brought up from great depths fishes of unknown species,\nand which could not exist near the surface, owing to the distension and\nrupture of their air-bladder when removed from the pressure of deep\nwater.\n\nMr. Gosse mentions that the ship in which he made the voyage to Jamaica\nwas surrounded in the North Atlantic, for seventeen continuous hours by\na troop of whales of large size of an undescribed species, which on no\nother occasion has fallen under scientific observation. Unique specimens\nof other cetaceans are also recorded.\n\nWe have evidence, to which attention has been directed by Mr. A. D.\nBartlett, that, \"even on land there exists at least one of the largest\nmammals, probably in thousands, of which only one individual has been\nbrought to notice, namely, the hairy-eared, two horned rhinoceros (_R.\nlasiotis_), now in the Zoological Gardens, London. It was captured in\n1868, at Chittagong, in India, where for years collectors and\nnaturalists have worked and published lists of the animals met with, and\nyet no knowledge of this great beast was ever before obtained, nor is\nthere any portion of one in any museum. It remains unique.\"\n\nI arrive, then, at the following conclusions: 1st. That, without\nstraining resemblances, or casting a doubt upon narratives not proved to\nbe erroneous, the various appearances of the supposed \"Great\nSea-serpent\" may now be nearly all accounted for by the forms and habits\nof known animals; especially if we admit, as proposed by Dr. Andrew\nWilson, that some of them, including the marine snakes, may, like the\ncuttles, attain to an extraordinary size.\n\n2nd. That to assume that naturalists have perfect cognizance of every\nexisting marine animal of large size, would be quite unwarrantable. It\nappears to me more than probable that many marine animals, unknown to\nscience, and some of them of gigantic size, may have their ordinary\nhabitat in the great depths of the sea, and only occasionally come to\nthe surface; and I think it not impossible that amongst them may be\nmarine snakes of greater dimensions than we are aware of, and even a\ncreature having close affinities with the old sea-reptiles whose fossil\nskeletons tell of their magnitude and abundance in past ages.\n\nIt is most desirable that every supposed appearance of the \"Great\nSea-serpent\" shall be faithfully noted and described; and I hope that no\ntruthful observer will be deterred from reporting such an occurrence by\nfear of the disbelief of naturalists, or the ridicule of witlings.\n\n\nFINIS.\n\n\n\n\n LONDON:\n PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,\n STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.\n\n[Illustration: A MERMAID.\n\n_From a Picture by Otto Sinding._]\n\n\n\n\n _International Fisheries Exhibition_ LONDON, 1883\n\n SEA FABLES EXPLAINED\n\n BY\n\n HENRY LEE, F.L.S., F.G.S., F.Z.S.\n\n SOMETIME NATURALIST OF THE BRIGHTON AQUARIUM\n AND\n AUTHOR OF 'THE OCTOPUS, OR THE DEVIL-FISH OF FICTION AND FACT;'\n 'SEA MONSTERS UNMASKED,' ETC.\n\n ILLUSTRATED\n\n LONDON\n\n WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED\n INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES EXHIBITION\n AND 13 CHARING CROSS, S.W.\n 1883\n\n\n\n\n LONDON:\n PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,\n STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe little book 'Sea Monsters Unmasked,' recently issued as one of the\nHandbooks in connection with the Great International Fisheries\nExhibition has met with so favourable a reception, that I have been\nhonoured by the request to continue the subject, and to treat also of\nsome of the Fables of the Sea, which once were universally believed, and\neven now are not utterly extinct.\n\nThe topic is not here exhausted. Other sea fables and fallacies might be\nmentioned and explained; but the amount of letter-press, and the number\nof illustrations that can be printed without loss for the small sum of\none shilling--the price at which these Handbooks are uniformly\npublished--is necessarily limited. I have, therefore, thought it better\nto endeavour to make each chapter as complete as possible than to crowd\ninto the space allotted to me a greater variety of subjects less fully\nand carefully discussed.\n\nI have the pleasure of acknowledging the kind assistance I have again\nreceived in the matter of illustrations. I gratefully appreciate Mr.\nMurray's permission to use the woodcut of Hercules slaying the Hydra,\ntaken from Smith's 'Classical Dictionary,' and those of the golden\nornaments found by Dr. Schliemann at Mycenae, and figured in the very\ninteresting book in which his excavations there are described. I have\nalso to thank the proprietors of the _Illustrated London News_, the\n_Leisure Hour_, and _Land and Water_, for the use of illustrations\nespecially mentioned in the text.\n\n HENRY LEE.\n\nSAVAGE CLUB;\n _Sept. 4th, 1883_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n PAGE\n\n THE MERMAID 1\n\n THE LERNEAN HYDRA 48\n\n SCYLLA AND CHARYBDIS 59\n\n THE \"SPOUTING\" OF WHALES 62\n\n THE \"SAILING\" OF THE NAUTILUS 76\n\n BARNACLE GEESE--GOOSE BARNACLES 98\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.\n\n\n FIG. PAGE\n\n A MERMAID. _From a picture by Otto Sinding_ _Frontispiece_\n\n 1. NOAH, HIS WIFE AND THREE SONS, AS FISH-TAILED DEITIES. 2\n _From a gem in the Florentine Gallery. After Calmet_\n\n 2. HEA, OR NOAH, THE GOD OF THE FLOOD. _Khorsabad_ 3\n\n 3. DAGON. _From a bas-relief. Nimroud_ 4\n\n 4. DAGON: HALF MAN, HALF FISH. _From Lamy's 'Apparatus 5\n Biblicus'_\n\n 5. DAGON. _From an agate signet. Nineveh_ \"\n\n 6. FISH AVATAR OF VISHNU. _After Calmet and Maurice_ 6\n\n 7. ATERGATIS, THE GODDESS OF THE SYRIANS. _From a 8\n Phoenician Coin_\n\n 8. VENUS RISING FROM THE SEA, SUPPORTED BY TRITONS. _After 9\n Calmet_\n\n 9. VENUS DRAWN IN HER CHARIOT BY TRITONS. _From two 10\n Corinthian Coins_\n\n 10. DITTO. 11\n\n 11. SEAL, DRAWN AS A FISH. _From the Catacombs at Rome_ \"\n\n 12. MERMAID AND FISHES OF AMBOYNA. _After Valentyn_ 17\n\n 13. A JAPANESE ARTIFICIAL MERMAID 27\n\n 14. AN ARTIFICIAL MERMAID. _Probably Japanese_ 28\n\n 15. PORTRAIT OF A MERMAID SAID TO HAVE BEEN CAPTURED IN JAPAN 29\n\n 16. THE DUGONG. _From Sir J. Emerson Tennent's 'Ceylon'_ 43\n\n 17. THE MANATEE 45\n\n 18. FIGURE OF A CALAMARY, FROM THE TEMPLE OF BAYR-EL-BAHREE 50\n\n 19. FIGURE OF AN OCTOPUS ON A GOLD ORNAMENT FOUND BY DR. 51\n SCHLIEMANN AT MYCENAE\n\n 20. DITTO. 52\n\n 21. DITTO. 53\n\n 22. DITTO. \"\n\n 23. HERCULES SLAYING THE LERNEAN HYDRA 57\n\n 24. THE PHYSETER INUNDATING A SHIP. _After Olaus Magnus_ 64\n\n 25. A WHALE POURING WATER INTO A SHIP FROM ITS BLOW-HOLE. 64\n _After Olaus Magnus_\n\n 26. SPERM WHALES \"SPOUTING\" 65\n\n 27. THE PAPER NAUTILUS (_Argonauta argo_) SAILING 76\n\n 28. DITTO. RETRACTED WITHIN ITS SHELL 81\n\n 29. DITTO. CRAWLING 86\n\n 30. DITTO. SWIMMING 87\n\n 31. SHELL OF THE PAPER NAUTILUS (_Argonauta argo_) 88\n\n 32. SHELL OF THE PEARLY NAUTILUS (_Nautilus pompilius_) 89\n\n 33. THE PEARLY NAUTILUS (_Nautilus Pompilius_) AND SECTION OF 90\n ITS SHELL\n\n 34. THE GOOSE-TREE. _From Gerard's 'Herball'_ 104\n\n 35. DITTO. _Fac-simile from Aldrovandus_ 110\n\n 36. DEVELOPMENT OF BARNACLES INTO GEESE. _Fac-simile from 111\n Aldrovandus_\n\n 37. SECTION OF A SESSILE BARNACLE. _Balanus tintinnabulum_ 113\n\n 38. PEDUNCULATED BARNACLE. _Lepas anatifera_ 115\n\n 39. A SHIP'S FIGURE-HEAD PARTLY COVERED WITH BARNACLES 116\n\n 40. WHALE BARNACLE. _Coronula diadema_ 117\n\n 41. A YOUNG BARNACLE. _Larva of Chthamalus stellatus_ 118\n\n\n\n\nSEA FABLES EXPLAINED.\n\n\n\n\nTHE MERMAID.\n\n\nNext to the pleasure which the earnest zoologist derives from study of\nthe habits and structure of living animals, and his intelligent\nappreciation of their perfect adaptation to their modes of life, and the\ncircumstances in which they are placed, is the interest he feels in\neliminating fiction from truth, whilst comparing the fancies of the past\nwith the facts of the present. As his knowledge increases, he learns\nthat the descriptions by ancient writers of so-called \"fabulous\ncreatures\" are rather distorted portraits than invented falsehoods, and\nthat there is hardly one of the monsters of old which has not its\nprototype in Nature at the present day. The idea of the Lernean Hydra,\nwhose heads grew again when cut off by Hercules, originated, as I have\nshown in another chapter, in a knowledge of the octopus; and in the form\nand movements of other animals with which we are now familiar we may, in\nlike manner, recognise the similitude and archetype of the mermaid.\n\nBut we must search deeply into the history of mankind to discover the\nreal source of a belief that has prevailed in almost all ages, and in\nall parts of the world, in the existence of a race of beings uniting the\nform of man with that of the fish. A rude resemblance between these\ncreatures of imagination and tradition and certain aquatic animals is\nnot sufficient to account for that belief. It probably had its origin in\nancient mythologies, and in the sculptures and pictures connected with\nthem, which were designed to represent certain attributes of the deities\nof various nations. In the course of time the meaning of these was lost;\nand subsequent generations regarded as the portraits of existing beings\neffigies which were at first intended to be merely emblematic and\nsymbolical.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 1.--NOAH, HIS WIFE, AND THREE SONS, AS FISH-TAILED\nDEITIES.\n\n_From a Gem in the Florentine Gallery. After Calmet._]\n\nEarly idolatry consisted, first, in separating the idea of the One\nDivinity into that of his various attributes, and of inventing symbols\nand making images of each separately; secondly, in the worship of the\nsun, moon, stars, and planets, as living existences; thirdly, in the\ndeification of ancestors and early kings; and these three forms were\noften mingled together in strange and tangled confusion.\n\nAmongst the famous personages with whose history men were made\nacquainted by oral tradition was Noah. He was known as the second father\nof the human race, and the preserver and teacher of the arts and\nsciences as they existed before the Great Deluge, of which so many\nseparate traditions exist among the various races of mankind.\nConsequently, he was an object of worship in many countries and under\nmany names; and his wife and sons, as his assistants in the diffusion of\nknowledge, were sometimes associated with him.\n\nAccording to Berosus, of Babylon,--the Chaldean priest and astronomer,\nwho extracted from the sacred books of \"that great city\" much\ninteresting ancient lore, which he introduced into his 'History of\nSyria,' written, about B.C. 260, for the use of the Greeks,--at a time\nwhen men were sunk in barbarism, there came up from the Erythrean Sea\n(the Persian Gulf), and landed on the Babylonian shore, a creature named\nOannes, which had the body and head of a fish. But above the fish's head\nwas the head of a man, and below the tail of the fish were human feet.\nIt had also human arms, a human voice, and human language. This strange\nmonster sojourned among the rude people during the day, taking no food,\nbut retiring to the sea at night; and it continued for some time thus to\nvisit them, teaching them the arts of civilized life, and instructing\nthem in science and religion.[34]\n\n [34] Berosus, lib. i. p. 48.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 2.--HEA, OR NOAH, THE GOD OF THE FLOOD.\n_Khorsabad._]\n\nIn this tale we have a distorted account of the life and occupation of\nNoah after his escape from the deluge which destroyed his home and\ndrowned his neighbours. Oannes was one of the names under which he was\nworshipped in Chaldea, at Erech (\"the place of the ark\"), as the sacred\nand intelligent fish-god, the teacher of mankind, the god of science and\nknowledge. There he was also called Oes, Hoa, Ea, Ana, Anu, Aun, and\nOan. Noah was worshipped, also, in Syria and Mesopotamia, and in Egypt,\nat \"populous No,\"[35] or Thebes--so named from \"Theba,\" \"the ark.\"\n\n [35] Nahum iii. 8.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 3.--DAGON. _From a bas relief. Nimroud._]\n\nThe history of the coffin of Osiris is another version of Noah's ark,\nand the period during which that Egyptian divinity is said to have been\nshut up in it, after it was set afloat upon the waters, was precisely\nthe same as that during which Noah remained in the ark.\n\nDagon, also--sometimes called Odacon--the great fish-god of the\nPhilistines and Babylonians, was another phase of Oannes. \"Dag,\" in\nHebrew, signifies \"a male fish,\" and \"Aun\" and \"Oan\" were two of the\nnames of Noah. \"Dag-aun\" or \"Dag-oan\" therefore means \"the fish Noah.\"\nHe was portrayed in two ways. The more ancient image of him was that of\na man issuing from a fish, as described of Oannes by Berosus; but in\nlater times it was varied to that of a man whose upper half was human,\nand the lower parts those of a fish. The image of Dagon which fell upon\nits face to the ground before \"the ark of the God of Israel,\" was\nprobably of this latter form, for we read[36] that in its fall, \"the\nhead of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the\nthreshold: only the _stump_ (in the margin, \"_the fishy part_\") of Dagon\nwas left to him.\" This was evidently Milton's conception of him:\n\n \"Dagon his name; sea-monster, upward man\n And downward fish.\"[37]\n\n [36] 1 Samuel v. 4.\n\n [37] 'Paradise Lost,' Book i. l. 462.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 4.--DAGON. _After Calmet._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 5.--DAGON. _From an Agate Signet. Nineveh._]\n\nIn some of the Nineveh sculptures of the fish-god, the head of the fish\nforms a kind of mitre on the head of the man, whilst the body of the\nfish appears as a cloak or cape over his shoulders and back. The fish\nvaries in length; in some cases the tail almost touches the ground; in\nothers it reaches but little below the man's waist.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 6.--FISH AVATAR OF VISHNU.\n\n_After Calmet and Maurice._]\n\nIn one of his \"avatars,\" or incarnations, the god Vishnu \"the\nPreserver,\" is represented as issuing from the mouth of a fish. He is\ncelebrated as having miraculously preserved one righteous family, and,\nalso, the Vedas, the sacred records, when the world was drowned. Not\nonly is this legend of the Indian god wrought up with the history of\nNoah, but Vishnu and Noah bear the same name--Vishnu being the Sanscrit\nform of \"Ish-nuh,\" \"the man Noah.\" The word \"avatar\" also means \"out of\nthe boat.\" In fact the whole mythology of Greece and Rome, as well as of\nAsia, is full of the history and deeds of Noah, which it is impossible\nto misunderstand. In all the representations of a deity having a\ncombined human and piscine form, the original idea was that of a person\ncoming out of a fish--not being part of one, but issuing from\nit, as Noah issued from the ark. In all of them the fish denoted\n\"preservation,\" \"fecundity,\" \"plenty,\" and \"diffusion of knowledge.\"[38]\nAs the image was not the effigy of a divine personage, but symbolized\ncertain attributes of Divinity, its sex was comparatively unimportant,\nalthough it is possible that, combined with the fecundity of the fish,\nthe idea of Noah's wife, as the second mother of all subsequent\ngenerations, according to the widely-spread and accepted traditions of\nthe deluge, may have influenced the impersonation.\n\n [38] Some writers are of the opinion that the legend of Oannes\n contains an allusion to the rising and setting of the sun, and that\n his semi-piscine form was the expression of the idea that half his\n time was spent above ground, and half below the waves. The same\n commentators also regard all the \"civilizing\" gods and goddesses\n as, respectively, solar and lunar deities. The attributes\n symbolized in the worship of Noah and the sun are so nearly alike\n that the two interpretations are not incompatible.\n\nAtergatis, the far-famed goddess of the Syrians, was also a\nfish-divinity. Her image, like that of Dagon, had at first a fish's body\nwith human extremities protruding from it; but in the course of\ncenturies it was gradually altered to that of a being the upper portion\nof whose body was that of a woman and the lower half that of a fish.\nGatis was a powerful queen of Sidon, and mother of Semiramis. She\nreceived the title of \"Ater,\" or \"Ader,\" \"the Great,\" for the benefits\nshe conferred on her people; one of these benefits being a strict\nconservation of their fisheries, both from their own imprudent use, and\nfrom foreign interference. She issued an edict that no fish should be\neaten without her consent, and that no one should take fish in the\nneighbouring sea without a licence from herself. It is not improbable\nthat she and her celebrated daughter, who is said by Ovid and others to\nhave been the builder of the walls of Babylon, were worshipped together;\nfor that Atergatis was the same as the fish-goddess Ashteroth, or\nAshtoreth, \"the builder of the encompassing wall,\" we have, amongst\nother proofs, a remarkable one in Biblical history. In the first book of\nMaccabees v. 43, 44, we read that \"all the heathen being discomfited\nbefore him (Judas Maccabeus) cast away their weapons, and fled unto the\ntemple that was at _Carnaim_. But they took the city, and burned the\ntemple with all that were therein. Thus was _Carnaim_ subdued, neither\ncould they stand any longer before Judas.\" In the second book of\nMaccabees xii. 26, we are told that \"Maccabeus marched forth to\n_Carnion_, and to the temple of _Atargatis_, and there he slew five and\ntwenty thousand persons.\" In Genesis xiv. 5, this city and temple are\nreferred to as \"_Ashteroth Karnaim_.\"\n\nFig. 7 is a representation of Atergatis on a medal coined at Marseilles.\nIt shows that when the Phoenician colony from Syria, by whom that city\nwas founded, settled there, they brought with them the worship of the\ngods of their country.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 7.--ATERGATIS.\n\n_From a Phoenician coin._]\n\nAtergatis was worshipped by the Greeks as Derceto and Astarte. Lucian\nwrites[39]:--\"In Phoenicia I saw the image of Derceto, a strange sight,\ntruly! For she had the half of a woman, and from the thighs downwards a\nfish's tail.\" Diodorus Siculus describes (lib. ii.) the same deity, as\nrepresented at Ascalon, as \"having the face of a woman, but all the rest\nof the body a fish's.\" And this very same image at Ascalon, which\nDiodorus calls Derceto, or Atergatis, is denominated by Herodotus[40]\n\"the celestial Aphrodite,\" who was identical with the Cyprian and Roman\nVenus. Of all the sacred buildings erected to the goddess, this temple\nwas by far the most ancient; and the Cyprians themselves acknowledged\nthat their temple was built after the model of it by certain Phoenicians\nwho came from that part of Syria.\n\n [39] 'Opera Omnia,' tom. ii. p. 884, edit. Bened. de Dea. Syr.\n\n [40] Lib. i. cap. cv.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 8.--VENUS RISING FROM THE SEA, SUPPORTED BY TRITONS.\n\n_After Calmet._]\n\nThus the worship of Noah, as the second father of mankind, the\nrepopulator of the earth, passed through various phases and\ntransformations till it merged in that of Venus, who rose from the sea,\nand was regarded as the representative of the reproductive power of\nNature--the goddess whom Lucretius thus addressed:\n\n \"Blest Venus! Thou the sea and fruitful earth\n Peoplest amain; to thee whatever lives\n Its being owes, and that it sees the sun:\"\n\nand to whom refers the passage in the Orphic hymn:\n\n \"From thee are all things--all things thou producest\n Which are in heaven, or in the fertile earth,\n Or in the sea, or in the great abyss.\"\n\nUnder this latter phase--the impersonation of Venus--the fish portion of\nthe body was discarded, and the cast-off form was allotted in popular\ncredence to the Tritons--minor deities, who acknowledged the supremacy\nof the goddess, and were ready to render her homage and service by\nbearing her in their arms, drawing her chariot, etc., but who still\npossessed considerable power as sea-gods, and could calm the waves and\nrule the storm, at pleasure.\n\n[Illustration:\n\nFIG. 9. FIG. 10.\n\nVENUS DRAWN IN HER CHARIOT BY TRITONS. _From two Corinthian coins._]\n\nFigs. 9 and 10 are from two Corinthian medals, each shewing Venus in a\ncar or chariot drawn by Tritons, one male, the other female. On the\nobverse of Fig. 9, is the head of Nero, and on that of Fig. 10, the head\nof his grandmother Agrippina.[41]\n\n [41] It is worthy of note that the fish was also adopted as an\n emblem by the early Christians, and was frequently sculptured on\n their tombs as a private mark or sign of the faith in which the\n person there interred had died. It alluded to the letters which\n composed the Greek word [Greek: Ichthys] (\"a fish\") forming an\n anagram, the initials of words which conveyed the following\n sentiment: [Greek: Iesous], Jesus; [Greek: Christos], Christ;\n [Greek: Theou], of God; [Greek: gios], Son; [Greek: Soter],\n Saviour. But it doubtless bore, also, the older meaning of\n \"preservation\" and \"reproduction,\" of which the fish was the\n symbol, and betokened a belief in a future resurrection, as Noah\n was preserved to dwell in, and populate, a new world. In 'Sea\n Monsters Unmasked,' page 55, I gave a figure, copied by permission\n from the _Illustrated London News_, of a rough sculpture in the\n Roman catacombs, of Jonah being disgorged by a sea-monster. Near to\n it was found, on another Christian tomb, one of these designs of\n the \"fish;\" and it is not a little curious that, whereas the animal\n depicted as casting forth Jonah is not a whale, but a sea-serpent,\n or dragon, the _ichtheus_ in this instance is apparently not a\n fish, but a seal.\n\n [Illustration: FIG. 11.--CHRISTIAN SYMBOL. _From the Catacombs at\n Rome._]\n\n The article referred to appeared in the _Illustrated London News_ of\n February 3rd, 1872, and the woodcut (fig. 11), an electrotype of\n which was most kindly presented to me by the proprietors of that\n paper, was one of the sketches that accompanied it.\n\nFrom the very earliest period of history, then, the conjoined human and\nfish form was known to every generation of men. It was presented to\ntheir sight in childhood by sculptures and pictures, and was a\nconspicuous object in their religious worship. By the lapse of time its\noriginal import was lost and debased; and, from being an emblem and\nsymbol, it came to be accepted as the corporeal shape and structure of\nactually-existent sea-deities, who might present themselves to the view\nof the mariner, in visible and tangible form, at any moment. Thus were\nmen trained and prepared to believe in mermen and mermaids, to expect to\nmeet with them at sea, and to recognise as one of them any animal the\nappearance and movements of which could possibly be brought into\nconformity with their pre-conceived ideas.\n\nAccordingly, and very naturally, we find that from north to south this\nbelief has been entertained. Megasthenes, who was a contemporary of\nAristotle, but his junior, and whose geographical work was probably\nwritten at about the period of the great philosopher's death, reported\nthat the sea which surrounded Taprobana, the ancient Ceylon, was\ninhabited by creatures having the appearance of women. AElian stated that\nthere were \"whales,\" or \"great fishes,\" having the form of satyrs. The\nearly Portuguese settlers in India asserted that true mermen were found\nin the Eastern seas, and old Norse legends tell of submarine beings of\nconjoined human and piscine form, who dwell in a wide territory far\nbelow the region of the fishes, over which the sea, like the cloudy\ncanopy of our sky, loftily rolls, and some of whom have, from time to\ntime, landed on Scandinavian shores, exchanged their fishy extremities\nfor human limbs, and acquired amphibious habits. Not only have poets\nsung of the wondrous and seductive beauty of the maidens of these\naquatic tribes, but many a Jack tar has come home from sea prepared to\naffirm on oath that he has seen a mermaid. To the best of his belief he\nhas told the truth. He has seen some living being which looked\nwonderfully human, and his imagination, aided by an inherited\nsuperstition, has supplied the rest.\n\nBefore endeavouring to identify the object of his delusion, it may be\nwell to mention a few instances of the supposed appearance of mermen and\nmermaidens in various localities.\n\nPliny writes[42]: \"When Tiberius was emperor, an embassy was sent to him\nfrom Olysippo (Lisbon) expressly to inform him that a Triton, which was\nrecognised as such by its form, had shown itself in a certain cave, and\nhad been heard to produce loud sounds on a conch-shell. The Nereid,\nalso, is not imaginary: its body is rough and covered with scales, but\nit has the appearance of a human being. For one was seen upon the same\ncoast; and when it was dying those dwelling near at hand heard it\nmoaning sadly for a long time. And the Governor of Gaul wrote to the\ndivine Augustus that several Nereids had been found dead upon the shore.\nI have many informants--illustrious persons in high positions--who have\nassured me that they saw in the Sea of Cadiz a merman whose whole body\nwas exactly like that of a man, that these mermen mount on board ships\nby night, and weigh down that end of the vessel on which they rest, and\nthat if they are allowed to remain there long they will sink the ship.\"\n\n [42] _Naturalis Historia_, Lib. ix. cap. v.\n\nAElian in one of his short, jerky, disconnected chapters,[43] which\nrarely exceed a page in length, and some of which only contain two\nlines, writes: \"It is reported that the great sea which surrounds the\nisland of Taprobana (Ceylon) contains an immense multitude of fishes and\nwhales, and some of them have the heads of lions, panthers, rams, and\nother animals; and (which is more wonderful still) some of the cetaceans\nhave the form of satyrs. There are others which have the face of a\nwoman, but prickles instead of hair. In addition to these, it is said\nthere are other creatures of so strange and monstrous a kind that it\nwould be impossible exactly to explain their appearance without the aid\nof a skilfully drawn picture: these have elongated and coiled tails,\nand, for feet, have claws[44] or fins. And I hear that in the same sea\nthere are great amphibious beasts which are gregarious, and live on\ngrain, and by night feed on the corn crops and grass, and are also very\nfond of the ripe fruit of the palms. To obtain these they encircle in\ntheir embrace the trees which are young and flexible, and, shaking them\nviolently, enjoy the fruit which they thus cause to fall. When morning\ndawns they return to the sea, and plunge beneath the waves.\"\n\n [43] _De Natura Animalium_, Lib. xvi. cap. xviii.\n\n [44] \"_Forfices_,\" literally \"shears,\" or \"nippers,\" like the claws\n of a lobster.\n\nAElian seems to have derived this information from Megasthenes, already\nreferred to; but in another chapter,[45] he writes with greater\ncertainty concerning these semi-human whales, and claims divine\nauthority for his belief in the existence of tritons. \"Although,\" he\nsays, \"we have no rational explanation nor absolute proof of that which\nfishermen are said to be able to affirm concerning the form of the\ntritons, we have the sworn testimony of many persons that there are in\nthe sea cetaceans which from the head down to the middle of the body\nresemble the human species. Demostratus, in his works on fishing, says\nthat an aged triton was seen near the town of Tanagra, in Boeotia, which\nwas like the drawings and pictures of tritons, but its features were so\nobscured by age, and it disappeared so quickly, that its true character\nwas not easily perceptible. But on the spot where it had rested on the\nshore were found some rough and very hard scales which had become\ndetached from it. A certain senator--one of those selected by lot to\ncarry on the administration of Achaia and the duties of the annual\nmagistracy\" (the mayor, in fact,) \"being anxious to investigate the\nnature of this triton, put a portion of its skin on the fire. It gave\nout a most horrible odour; and those standing by were unable to decide\nwhether it belonged to a terrestrial or marine animal. But the\nmagistrate's curiosity had an evil ending, for very soon afterwards,\nwhilst crossing a narrow creek in a boat, he fell overboard and was\ndrowned; and the Tanagreans all regarded this as a judgment upon him for\nhis crime of impiety towards the triton--an interpretation which was\nconfirmed when his decomposing body was cast ashore, for it emitted\nexactly the same odour as had the burned skin of the triton. The\nTanagreans and Demostratus explain whence the triton had strayed, and\nhow it was stranded in this place. I believe,\" continues AElian, \"that\ntritons exist, and I reverentially produce as my witness a most\nveracious god--namely, Apollo Didymaeus, whom no man in his senses would\npresume to regard as unworthy of credit. He sings thus of the triton,\nwhich he calls the sheep of the sea:\n\n [45] Lib. xiii. cap. xxi.\n\n '_Dum vocale maris monstrum natat aequore triton,\n Neptuni pecus, in funes forte incidit extra\n Demissos navim_';\"\n\nwhich I venture to translate as follows:\n\n A triton, vocal monster of the deep,\n One of a flock of Neptune's scaly sheep,\n Was caught, whilst swimming o'er the watery plain,\n By lines which fishers from their boat had lain.\n\n\"Therefore,\" AElian concludes, \"if he, the omniscient god, pronounces\nthat there are tritons, it does not behove us to doubt their existence.\"\n\nSir J. Emerson Tennent, in his 'Natural History of Ceylon,' quoting\nfrom the _Histoire de la Compagnie de Jesus_, mentions that the annalist\nof the exploits of the Jesuits in India gravely records that seven of\nthese monsters, male and female, were captured at Manaar, in 1560, and\ncarried to Goa, where they were dissected by Demas Bosquez, physician to\nthe Viceroy, \"and their internal structure found to be in all respects\nconformable to the human.\" He also quotes Valentyn, one of the Dutch\ncolonial chaplains, who, in his account of the Natural History of\nAmboyna,[46] embodied in his great work on the Netherlands' possessions\nin India, published in 1727,[47] devoted the first section of his\nchapter on the fishes of that island to a minute description of the\n\"Zee-Menschen,\" \"Zee-Wyven,\" and mermaids, the existence of which he\nwarmly insists on as being beyond cavil. He relates that in 1663, when a\nlieutenant in the Dutch service was leading a party of soldiers along\nthe sea-shore in Amboyna, he and all his company saw the mermen swimming\nat a short distance from the beach. They had long and flowing hair of a\ncolour between grey and green. Six weeks afterwards the creatures were\nagain seen by him and more than fifty witnesses, at the same place, by\nclear daylight. \"If any narrative in the world,\" adds Valentyn,\n\"deserves credit it is this; since not only one, but two mermen together\nwere seen by so many eye-witnesses. Should the stubborn world, however,\nhesitate to believe it, it matters nothing, as there are people who\nwould even deny that such cities as Rome, Constantinople, or Cairo,\nexist, merely because they themselves have not happened to see them. But\nwhat are such incredulous persons,\" he continues, \"to make of the\ncircumstance recorded by Albrecht Herport[48] in his account of India,\nthat a merman was seen in the water near the church of Taquan on the\nmorning of the 29th of April, 1661, and a mermaid at the same spot the\nsame afternoon? Or what do they say to the fact that in 1714 a mermaid\nwas not only seen but captured near the island of Booro, five feet,\nRhineland measure, in height; which lived four days and seven hours,\nbut, refusing all food, died without leaving any intelligible account of\nherself?\" Valentyn, in support of his own faith in the mermaid, cites\nmany other instances in which both \"sea-men and sea-women\" were seen and\ntaken at Amboyna; especially one by a district visitor of the\nchurch, who presented it to the Governor Vanderstel. Of this\n\"well-authenticated\" specimen he gives an elaborate portrait amongst the\nfishes of the island,[49] with a minute description of each for the\nsatisfaction of men of science.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 12.--MERMAID AND FISHES OF AMBOYNA. _After\nValentyn._]\n\n [46] One of the Dutch spice-islands in the Banda Sea, between\n Celebes and Papua.\n\n [47] _Beschrijving van Oud en Nieuw Oost-Indien_, etc., 5 vols.\n folio, Dordrecht and Amsterdam, 1727, vol. iii. p. 330.\n\n [48] _Itinerarium Indicum_, Berne, 1669.\n\n [49] With the permission and assistance of Messrs. Longman, the\n accompanying wood-cut of this picture, and that of the Dugong, on\n page 43, are copied from Sir J. Emerson Tennent's book published in\n 1861.\n\nThe fame of this creature having reached Europe, the British minister in\nHolland wrote to Valentyn on the 28th of December, 1716, whilst the\nEmperor Peter the Great, of Russia, was his guest at Amsterdam, to\ncommunicate the desire of the Czar that the mermaid should be brought\nhome from Amboyna for his inspection. To complete his proofs of the\nexistence of mermen and merwomen, Valentyn points triumphantly to the\nhistorical fact that in Holland, in the year 1404, a mermaid was driven,\nduring a tempest, through a breach in the dyke of Edam, and was taken\nalive in the lake of Purmer. Thence she was carried to Haarlem, where\nthe Dutch women taught her to spin, and where several years after, she\ndied in the Roman Catholic faith;--\"but this,\" says the pious\nCalvinistic chaplain, \"in no way militates against the truth of her\nstory.\" The worthy minister citing the authority of various writers as\nproof that mermaids had in all ages been known in Gaul, Naples, Epirus,\nand the Morea, comes to the conclusion that as there are \"sea-cows,\"\n\"sea-horses,\" \"sea-dogs,\" as well as \"sea-trees,\" and \"sea-flowers,\"\nwhich he himself had seen, there are no reasonable grounds for doubt\nthat there may also be \"sea-maidens\" and \"sea-men.\"\n\nIn an early account of Newfoundland,[50] Whitbourne describes a\n\"maremaid or mareman,\" which he had seen \"within the length of a pike,\"\nand which \"came swimming swiftly towards him, looking cheerfully on his\nface, as it had been a woman. By the face, eyes, nose, mouth, chin,\nears, neck and forehead, it appeared to be so beautiful, and in those\nparts so well proportioned, having round about the head many blue\nstreaks resembling hair, but certainly it was no hair. The shoulders and\nback down to the middle were square, white, and smooth as the back of a\nman, and from the middle to the end it tapered like a broad-hooked\narrow.\" The animal put both its paws on the side of the boat wherein its\nobserver sat, and strove much to get in, but was repelled by a blow.\n\n [50] Whitbourne's 'Discourse of Newfoundland.'\n\nIn 1676, a description was given by an English surgeon named Glover, of\nan animal of this kind. The author did not designate it by any name, but\nthe incident has the honour of being recorded in the _Philosophical\nTransactions_.[51] About three leagues from the mouth of the river\nRappahannock, in America, while alone in a vessel, he observed, at the\ndistance of about half a stone-throw, he says, \"a most prodigious\ncreature, much resembling a man, only somewhat larger, standing right up\nin the water, with his head, neck, shoulders, breast and waist, to the\ncubits of his arms, above water, and his skin was tawny, much like that\nof an Indian; the figure of his head was pyramidal and sleek, without\nhair; his eyes large and black, and so were his eyebrows; his mouth very\nwide, with a broad black streak on the upper lip, which turned upwards\nat each end like mustachios. His countenance was grim and terrible. His\nneck, shoulders, arms, breast and waist, were like unto the neck, arms,\nshoulders, breast and waist of a man. His hands, if he had any, were\nunder water. He seemed to stand with his eyes fixed on me for some time,\nand afterwards dived down, and, a little after, rose at somewhat a\ngreater distance, and turned his head towards me again, and then\nimmediately fell a little under water, that I could discern him throw\nout his arms and gather them in as a man does when he swims. At last, he\nshot with his head downwards, by which means he cast his tail above the\nwater, which exactly resembled the tail of a fish, with a broad fane at\nthe end of it.\"\n\n [51] Glover's 'Account of Virginia,' ap. Phil. Trans. vol. xi. p.\n 625.\n\nThormodus Torfaeus[52] maintains that mermaids are found on the south\ncoast of Iceland, and, according to Olafsen,[53] two have been taken in\nthe surrounding seas, the first in the earlier part of the history of\nthat island, and the second in 1733. The latter was found in the stomach\nof a shark. Its lower parts were consumed, but the upper were entire.\nThey were as large as those of a boy eight or nine years old. Both the\ncutting teeth and grinders were long and shaped like pins, and the\nfingers were connected by a large web. Olafsen was inclined to believe\nthat these were human remains, but the islanders all firmly maintained\nthat they were part of \"a marmennill,\" by which name the mermaid is\nknown among them.\n\n [52] _Historia rerum Norvegicarum._\n\n [53] _Voyage en Islande_, tom. iii. p. 223.\n\nOf course the worthy bishop of Bergen, Pontoppidan, has something to\ntell us about mermaids in his part of the world. \"Amongst the sea\nmonsters,\" he says,[54] \"which are in the North Sea, and are often seen,\nI shall give the first place to the Hav-manden, or merman, whose mate is\ncalled Hav-fruen, or mermaid. The existence of this creature is\nquestioned by many, nor is it at all to be wondered at, because most of\nthe accounts we have had of it are mixed with mere fables, and may be\nlooked upon as idle tales.\" As such he regards the story told by Jonas\nRamus in his 'History of Norway,' of a mermaid taken by fishermen at\nHordeland, near Bergen, and which is said to have sung an unmusical song\nto King Hiorlief. In the same category he places an account given by\nBesenius in his life of Frederic II. (1577), of a mermaid that called\nherself Isbrandt, and held several conversations with a peasant at\nSamsoe, in which she foretold the birth of King Christian IV., \"and made\nthe peasant preach repentance to the courtiers, who were very much given\nto drunkenness.\" Equally \"idle\" with the above stories is, in his\nopinion, another, extracted from an old manuscript still to be seen in\nthe University Library at Copenhagen, and quoted by Andrew Bussaeus\n(1619), of a merman caught by the two senators, Ulf Rosensparre and\nChristian Holch, whilst on their voyage home to Denmark from Norway.\nThis sea-man frightened the two worshipful gentlemen so terribly that\nthey were glad to let him go again; for as he lay upon the deck he spoke\nDanish to them, and threatened that if they did not give him his liberty\n\"the ship should be cast away, and every soul of the crew should\nperish.\"\n\n [54] 'Natural History of Norway,' vol. ii. p. 190.\n\n\"When such fictions as these,\" says Pontoppidan, \"are mixed with the\nhistory of the merman, and when that creature is represented as a\nprophet and an orator; when they give the mermaid a melodious voice, and\ntell us that she is a fine singer, we need not wonder that so few people\nof sense will give credit to such absurdities, or that they even doubt\nthe existence of such a creature.\" The good prelate, however, goes on to\nsay that \"whilst we have no ground to believe all these fables, yet, as\nto the existence of the creature we may safely give our assent to it,\"\nand, \"if this be called in question, it must proceed entirely from the\nfabulous stories usually mixed with the truth.\" Like Valentyn, he argues\nthat as there are \"sea-horses,\" \"sea-cows,\" \"sea-wolves,\" \"sea-dogs,\"\n\"sea-hogs,\" etc., it is probable from analogy, that \"we should find in\nthe ocean a fish or creature which resembles the human species more than\nany other.\" As for the objection \"founded on self-love and respect to\nour own species which is honoured with the image of God, who made man\nlord of all creatures, and that, consequently, we may suppose he is\nentitled to a noble and heavenly form which other creatures must not\npartake of,\" he thinks \"its force vanishes when we consider the form of\napes, and especially of another African creature called 'Quoyas Morrov'\ndescribed by Odoard Dapper\" in his work on Africa, and which appears to\nhave been a chimpanzee. Pontoppidan regarded it as being the Satyr of\nthe ancients. He therefore claims that \"if we will not allow our\nNorwegian Hastromber the honourable name of merman, we may very well\ncall it the 'Sea-ape,' or the 'Sea-Quoyas-Morrov;'\" especially as the\nauthor already quoted says that, \"in the Sea of Angola mermaids are\nfrequently caught which resemble the human species. They are taken in\nnets, and killed by the negroes, and are heard to shriek and cry like\nwomen.\"\n\nThe Bishop adds that in the diocese of Bergen, as well as in the manor\nof Nordland, there were hundreds of persons who affirmed with the\nstrongest assurances that they had seen this kind of creature; sometimes\nat a distance and at other times quite close to their boats, standing\nupright, and formed like a human creature down to the middle--the rest\nthey could not see--but of those who had seen them out of water and\nhandled them he had not been able to find more than one person of credit\nwho could vouch it for truth. This informant, \"the Reverend Mr. Peter\nAngel, minister of Vand-Elvens Gield, on Suderoe,\" assured his bishop,\nwhen he was on a visitation journey, that \"in the year 1719, he (being\nthen about twenty years old) saw what is called a merman lying dead on a\npoint of land near the sea, which had been cast ashore by the waves\nalong with several sea-calves (seals), and other dead fish. The length\nof this creature was much greater than what has been mentioned of any\nbefore, namely, above three fathoms. It was of a dark grey colour all\nover: in the lower part it was like a fish, and had a tail like that of\na porpoise. The face resembled that of a man, with a mouth, forehead,\neyes, etc. The nose was flat, and, as it were, pressed down to the face,\nin which the nostrils were very visible. The breast was not far from the\nhead; the arms seemed to hang to the side, to which they were joined by\na thin skin, or membrane. The hands were, to all appearance, like the\npaws of a sea-calf. The back of this creature was very fat, and a great\npart of it was cut off, which, with the liver, yielded a large quantity\nof train-oil.\" The author then quotes a description by Luke Debes[55] of\na mermaid seen in 1670 at Faroe, westward of Qualboe Eide, by many of\nthe inhabitants, as also by others from different parts of Suderoe. She\nwas close to the shore, and stood there for two hours and a half, and\nwas up to her waist in water. She had long hairs on her head, which hung\ndown to the surface of the water all round about her, and she held a\nfish in her right hand.\n\n [55] _Feroa Reserata_, or Description of the Faroe Islands. 8vo.\n Copenhagen, 1673.\n\nPontoppidan mentions other instances of similar appearances, and says\nthat the latest he had heard of was of a merman seen in Denmark on the\n20th of September, 1723, by three ferrymen who, at some distance from\nthe land, were towing a ship just arrived from the Baltic. Having caught\nsight of something which looked like a dead body floating on the water,\nthey rowed towards it, and there, resting on their oars, allowed it to\ndrift close to them. It sank, but immediately came to the surface again,\nand then they saw that it had the appearance of an old man,\nstrong-limbed, and with broad shoulders, but his arms they could not\nsee. His head was small in proportion to his body, and had short,\ncurled, black hair, which did not reach below his ears; his eyes lay\ndeep in his head, and he had a meagre and pinched face, with a black,\ncoarse beard, that looked as if it had been cut. His skin was coarse,\nand very full of hair. He stood in the same place for half a quarter of\nan hour, and was seen above the water down to his breast: at last the\nmen grew apprehensive of some danger, and began to retire; upon which\nthe monster blew up his cheeks, and made a kind of roaring noise, and\nthen dived under water, so that they did not see him any more. One of\nthem, Peter Gunnersen, related (what the others did not observe) that\nthis merman was, about the body and downwards, quite pointed, like a\nfish. This same Peter Gunnersen likewise deposed that \"about twenty\nyears before, as he was in a boat near Kulleor, the place where he was\nborn, he saw a mermaid with long hair and large breasts.\" He and his two\ncompanions were, by command of the king, examined by the burgomaster of\nElsineur, Andrew Bussaeus, before the privy-councillor, Fridrich von\nGram, and their testimony to the above effect was given on their\nrespective oaths.\n\nBrave old Henry Hudson, the sturdy and renowned navigator, who thrice,\nin three successive years, gave battle to the northern ice, and was each\ntime defeated in his endeavour to discover a north-west or north-east\npassage to China, though he stamped his name on the title-page of a\nmighty nation's history, records the following incident: \"This evening\n(June 15th) one of our company, looking overboard, saw a mermaid, and,\ncalling up some of the company to see her, one more of the crew came up,\nand by that time she was come close to the ship's side, looking\nearnestly on the men. A little after a sea came and overturned her. From\nthe navel upward, her back and breasts were like a woman's, as they say\nthat saw her; her body as big as one of us, her skin very white, and\nlong hair hanging down behind, of colour black. In her going down they\nsaw her tail, which was like the tail of a porpoise and speckled like a\nmackarel's. Their names that saw her were Thomas Hilles and Robert\nRayner.\"\n\nSteller, who was a zoologist of some repute, reports having seen in\nBehrings Straits a strange animal, which he calls a \"sea-ape,\" and in\nwhich one might almost recognise Pontoppidan's \"Sea-Quoyas-Morrov.\" It\nwas about five feet long, had sharp and erect ears and large eyes, and\non its lips a kind of beard. Its body was thick and round, and it\ntapered to the tail, which was bifurcated, with the upper lobe longest.\nIt was covered with thick hair, grey on the back, and red on the belly.\nNo feet nor paws were visible. It was full of frolic, and sported in the\nmanner of a monkey, swimming sometimes on one side of the ship and\nsometimes on the other. It often raised one-third of its body out of the\nwater, and stood upright for a considerable time. It would frequently\nbring up a sea-plant, not unlike a bottle-gourd, which it would toss\nabout and catch in its mouth, playing numberless fantastic tricks with\nit.\n\nSomewhat similar accounts have been brought from the Southern\nHemisphere, two, at least, of which are worth transcribing.\n\nCaptain Colnett, in his 'Voyage to the South Atlantic,' says:--\"A very\nsingular circumstance happened off the coast of Chili, in lat. 24 deg. S.,\nwhich spread some alarm amongst my people, and awakened their\nsuperstitious apprehensions. About 8 o'clock in the evening an animal\nrose alongside the ship, and uttered such shrieks and tones of\nlamentation, so much like those produced by the female human voice when\nexpressing the deepest distress as to occasion no small degree of alarm\namong those who first heard it. These cries continued for upwards of\nthree hours, and seemed to increase as the ship sailed from it. I never\nheard any noise whatever that approached so near those sounds which\nproceed from the organs of utterance in the human species.\"\n\nCaptain Weddell, in his 'Voyage towards the South Pole' (p. 143), writes\nthat one of his men, having been left ashore on Hall's Island to take\ncare of some produce, heard one night about ten o'clock, after he had\nlain down to rest, a noise resembling human cries. As daylight does not\ndisappear in those latitudes at the season in which the incident\noccurred, the sailor rose and searched along the beach, thinking that,\npossibly, a boat might have been upset, and that some of the crew might\nbe clinging to the detached rocks.\n\n \"Roused by that voice of silver sound,\n From the paved floor he lightly sprung,\n And, glaring with his eyes around,\n Where the fair nymph her tresses wrung,\"[56]\n\nguided by occasional sounds, he at length saw an object lying on a rock\na dozen yards from the shore, at which he was somewhat frightened. \"The\nface and shoulders appeared of human form and of a reddish colour; over\nthe shoulders hung long green hair; the tail resembled that of a seal,\nbut the extremities of the arms he could not see distinctly.\"\n\n \"As on the wond'ring youth she smiled,\n Again she raised the melting lay,\"[56]\n\n [56] John Leyden.\n\nfor the creature continued to make a musical noise during the two\nminutes he gazed at it, and, on perceiving him, disappeared in an\ninstant.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 13.--A JAPANESE ARTIFICIAL MERMAID.]\n\nThe universality of the belief in an animal of combined human and\nfish-like form is very remarkable. That it exists amongst the Japanese\nwe have evidence in their curious and ingeniously-constructed models\nwhich are occasionally brought to this country. I have one of these\nwhich is so exactly the counterpart of that which my friend Mr. Frank\nBuckland described, originally in _Land and Water_, and which forms the\nsubject of a chapter in his 'Curiosities of Natural History,'[57] that\nthe portrait of the one (Fig. 13) will equally well represent the other.\nThe lower half of the body is made of the skin and scales of a fish of\nthe carp family, and fastened on to this, so neatly that it is hardly\npossible to detect where the joint is made, is a wooden body, the ribs\nof which are so prominent that the poor mermaid has a miserable and\nhalf-starved appearance. The upper part of the body is in the attitude\nof a Sphinx, leaning upon its elbows and fore-arms. The arms are thin\nand scraggy, and the fingers attenuated and skeleton-like. The nails are\nformed of small pieces of ivory or bone. The head is like that of a\nsmall monkey, and a little wool covers the crown, so thinly and untidily\nthat if the mermaid possessed a crystal mirror she would see the\nnecessity for the vigorous use of her comb of pearl. The teeth are those\nof some fish--apparently of the cat-fish, (_Anarchicas lupus_). These\nJapanese artificial mermaids have brought many a dollar into the pockets\nof Mr. Barnum and other showmen.\n\n [57] Third Series, vol. ii. p. 134, 2nd ed.\n\nSomewhat different in appearance from this, but of the same kind, was an\nartificial mermaid described in the _Saturday Magazine_ of June 4th,\n1836. Fig. 14 is a facsimile of the woodcut which accompanied it. This\ngrotesque composition was exhibited in a glass case, some years\npreviously, \"in a leading street at the west end\" of London. It was\nconstructed \"of the skin of the head and shoulders of a monkey, which\nwas attached to the dried skin of a fish of the salmon kind with the\nhead cut off, and the whole was stuffed and highly varnished, the better\nto deceive the eye.\" It was said to have been \"taken by the crew of a\nDutch vessel from on board a native Malacca boat, and from the reverence\nshown to it, it was supposed to be a representative of one of their idol\ngods.\" I am inclined to think that it was of Japanese origin.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 14.--AN ARTIFICIAL MERMAID, PROBABLY JAPANESE.]\n\nFig. 15 is described in the article above referred to as having been\ncopied from a Japanese drawing, and as being a portrait of one of their\ndeities. Its similarity to one of those of the Assyrians (Fig. 2, page\n3) is remarkable. The inscription, however, does not indicate this. The\nChinese characters in the centre--\"_Nin giyo_\"--signify \"human fish;\"\nthose on the right in Japanese _Hira Kana_, or running-hand, have the\nsame purport, and those on the left, in _Kata Kana_, the characters of\nthe Japanese alphabet, mean \"_Ichi hiru ike_\"--\"one day kept alive.\" The\nwhole legend seems to pretend that this human fish was actually caught,\nand kept alive in water for twenty-four hours, but, as the box on which\nit is inscribed is one of those in which the Japanese showmen keep their\ntoys, it was probably the subject of a \"penny peep-show.\"\n\nWe need not travel from our own country to find the belief in mermaids\nyet existing. It is still credited in the north of Scotland that they\ninhabit the neighbouring seas: and Dr. Robert Hamilton, F.R.S.E.,\nwriting in 1839, expressed emphatically his opinion that there was then\nas much ignorance on this subject as had prevailed at any former\nperiod.[58]\n\n [58] Naturalist's Library, Marine Amphibiae, p. 291.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 15.--A MERMAID. _From a Japanese picture._]\n\nIn the year 1797, Mr. Munro, schoolmaster of Thurso, affirmed that he\nhad seen \"a figure like a naked female, sitting on a rock projecting\ninto the sea, at Sandside Head, in the parish of Reay. Its head was\ncovered with long, thick, light-brown hair, flowing down on the\nshoulders. The forehead was round, the face plump, and the cheeks ruddy.\nThe mouth and lips resembled those of a human being, and the eyes were\nblue. The arms, fingers, breast, and abdomen were as large as those of a\nfull-grown female,\" and, altogether,\n\n \"That sea-nymph's form of pearly light\n Was whiter than the downy spray,\n And round her bosom, heaving bright,\n Her glossy yellow ringlets play.\"[59]\n\n [59] John Leyden.\n\n\"This creature,\" continued Mr. Munro, \"was apparently in the act of\ncombing its hair with its fingers, which seemed to afford it pleasure,\nand it remained thus occupied during some minutes, when it dropped into\nthe sea.\" The Dominie\n\n \"saw the maiden there,\n Just as the daylight faded,\n Braiding her locks of gowden hair\n An' singing as she braided,\"[60]\n\n [60] The Ettrick Shepherd.\n\nbut he did not remark whether the fingers were webbed. On the whole, he\ninfers that this was a marine animal of which he had a distinct and\nsatisfactory view, and that the portion seen by him bore a narrow\nresemblance to the human form. But for the dangerous situation it had\nchosen, and its appearance among the waves, he would have supposed it to\nbe a woman. Twelve years later, several persons observed near the same\nspot an animal which they also supposed to be a mermaid.\n\nA very remarkable story of this kind is one related by Dr. Robert\nHamilton in the volume already referred to, and for the general truth of\nwhich he vouches, from his personal knowledge of some of the persons\nconnected with the occurrence. In 1823 it was reported that some\nfishermen of Yell, one of the Shetland group, had captured a mermaid by\nits being entangled in their lines. The statement was that \"the animal\nwas about three feet long, the upper part of the body resembling the\nhuman, with protuberant mammae, like a woman; the face, forehead, and\nneck were short, and resembled those of a monkey; the arms, which were\nsmall, were kept folded across the breast; the fingers were distinct,\nnot webbed; a few stiff, long bristles were on the top of the head,\nextending down to the shoulders, and these it could erect and depress at\npleasure, something like a crest. The inferior part of the body was like\na fish. The skin was smooth, and of a grey colour. It offered no\nresistance, nor attempted to bite, but uttered a low, plaintive sound.\nThe crew, six in number, took it within their boat, but, superstition\ngetting the better of curiosity, they carefully disentangled it from the\nlines and a hook which had accidentally become fastened in its body, and\nreturned it to its native element. It instantly dived, descending in a\nperpendicular direction.\" Mr. Edmonston, the original narrator of this\nincident, was \"a well-known and intelligent observer,\" says Dr.\nHamilton, and in a communication made by him to the Professor of Natural\nHistory in the Edinburgh University gave the following additional\nparticulars, which he had learned from the skipper and one of the crew\nof the boat. \"They had the animal for three hours within the boat: the\nbody was without scales or hair; it was of a silvery grey colour above,\nand white below; it was like the human skin; no gills were observed, nor\nfins on the back or belly. The tail was like that of a dog-fish; the\nmammae were about as large as those of a woman; the mouth and lips were\nvery distinct, and resembled the human. Not one of the six men dreamed\nof a doubt of its being a mermaid, and it could not be suggested that\nthey were influenced by their fears, for the mermaid is not an object of\nterror to fishermen: it is rather a welcome guest, and danger is\napprehended from its experiencing bad treatment.\" Mr. Edmonston\nconcludes by saying that \"the usual resources of scepticism that the\nseals and other sea-animals appearing under certain circumstances,\noperating upon an excited imagination, and so producing ocular illusion,\ncannot avail here. It is quite impossible that six Shetland fishermen\ncould commit such a mistake.\" It would seem that the narrator demands\nthat his readers shall be silenced, if unconvinced; but\n\n \"He that complies against his will\n Is of his own opinion still.\"\n\nThis incident is well-attested, and merits respectful and careful\nconsideration; but I decline to admit any such impossibility of error in\nobservation or description on the part of the fishermen, or the further\nimpossibility of recognising in the animal captured by them one known to\nnaturalists. The particulars given in this instance, and also of the\nsupposed merman seen cast ashore dead in 1719 by the Rev. Peter Angel\n(p. 22), are sufficiently accurate descriptions of a warm-blooded marine\nanimal, with which the Shetlanders, and probably Mr. Edmonston also,\nwere unacquainted, namely, the rytina, of which I shall have more to say\npresently; and these occurrences afford some slight hope that this\nremarkable beast may not have become extinct in 1768, as has been\nsupposed, but that it may still exist somewhat further south than it was\nmet with by its original describer, Steller.\n\nTurning to Ireland, we find the same credence in the semi-human fish,\nor fish-tailed human being. In the autumn of 1819 it was affirmed that\n\"a creature appeared on the Irish coast, about the size of a girl ten\nyears of age, with a bosom as prominent as one of sixteen, having a\nprofusion of long dark-brown hair, and full, dark eyes. The hands and\narms were formed like those of a man, with a slight web connecting the\nupper part of the fingers, which were frequently employed in throwing\nback and dividing the hair. The tail appeared like that of a dolphin.\"\nThis creature remained basking on the rocks during an hour, in the sight\nof numbers of people, until frightened by the flash of a musket, when\n\n \"Away she went with a sea-gull's scream,\n And a splash of her saucy tail,\"[61]\n\n [61] Tom Hood. 'The Mermaid at Margate.'\n\nfor it instantly plunged with a scream into the sea.\n\nFrom Irish legends we learn that those sea-nereids, the \"Merrows,\" or\n\"Moruachs\" came occasionally from the sea, gained the affections of men,\nand interested themselves in their affairs; and similar traditions of\nthe \"Morgan\" (sea-women) and the \"Morverch\" (sea-daughters) are current\nin Brittany.\n\nIn English poetry the mermaid has been the subject of many charming\nverses, and Shakspeare alludes to it in his plays no less than six\ntimes. The head-quarters of these \"daughters of the sea\" in England, or\nof the belief in their existence, are in Cornwall. There the fisherman,\nmany a time and\n\n \"Oft, beneath the silver moon,[62]\n Has heard, afar, the mermaid sing,\"\n\nand has listened, so they say, to\n\n \"The mermaid's sweet sea-soothing lay\n That charmed the dancing waves to sleep.\"[62]\n\n [62] John Leyden.\n\nMr. Robert Hunt, F.R.S., in his collection of the traditions and\nsuperstitions of old Cornwall,[63] records several curious legends of\nthe \"merrymaids\" and \"merrymen\" (the local name of mermaids), which he\nhad gathered from the fisher-folk and peasants in different parts of\nthat county.\n\n [63] 'Romances and Drolls of the West of England.' London: Hotten,\n 1871.\n\nAnd, in a pleasant article in 'All the Year Round,'[64] 1865, \"A Cornish\nVicar\"[65] mentions some of the superstitions of the people in his\nneighbourhood, and the perplexing questions they occasionally put to\nhim. One of his parishioners, an old man named Anthony Cleverdon, but\nwho was popularly known as \"Uncle Tony,\" having been the seventh son of\nhis parents, in direct succession, was looked upon, in consequence, as a\nsoothsayer. This \"ancient augur\" confided to his pastor many highly\nefficacious charms and formularies, and, in return, sought for\ninformation from him on other subjects. One day he puzzled the parson by\na question which so well illustrates the local ideas concerning\nmermaids, and the sequel of which is, moreover, so humorously related by\nthe vicar, that I venture to quote his own words, as follows:--\n\n [64] Vol. xiii. p. 336.\n\n [65] The \"Cornish Vicar\" was, evidently, the Rev. Robert Stephen\n Hawker, M.A., Vicar of Morwenstow, and author of 'Echoes from Old\n Cornwall,' 'Footprints of Former Men in Cornwall,' etc.\n\n\"Uncle Tony said to me, 'Sir, there is one thing I want to ask you, if\nI may be so free, and it is this: why should a merrymaid, that will ride\nabout upon the waters in such terrible storms, and toss from sea to sea\nin such ruckles as there be upon the coast, why should she never lose\nher looking-glass and comb?' 'Well, I suppose,' said I, 'that if there\nare such creatures, Tony, they must wear their looking-glasses and combs\nfastened on somehow, like fins to a fish.' 'See!' said Tony, chuckling\nwith delight, 'what a thing it is to know the Scriptures, like your\nreverence; I should never have found it out. But there's another point,\nsir, I should like to know, if you please; I've been bothered about it\nin my mind hundreds of times. Here be I, that have gone up and down\nHolacombe cliffs and streams fifty years come next Candlemas, and I've\ngone and watched the water by moonlight and sunlight, days and nights,\non purpose, in rough weather and smooth (even Sundays, too, saving your\npresence), and my sight as good as most men's, and yet I never could\ncome to see a merrymaid in all my life: how's that, sir?' 'Are you sure,\nTony,' I rejoined, 'that there are such things in existence at all?'\n'Oh, sir, my old father seen her twice! He was out one night for wreck\n(my father watched the coast, like most of the old people formerly), and\nit came to pass that he was down at the duck-pool on the sand at\nlow-water tide, and all to once he heard music in the sea. Well, he\ncroped on behind a rock, like a coastguardsman watching a boat, and got\nvery near the music ... and there was the merrymaid, very plain to be\nseen, swimming about upon the waves like a woman bathing--and singing\naway. But my father said it was very sad and solemn to hear--more like\nthe tune of a funeral hymn than a Christmas carol, by far--but it was so\nsweet that it was as much as he could do to hold back from plunging into\nthe tide after her. And he an old man of sixty-seven, with a wife and a\nhouseful of children at home. The second time was down here by Holacombe\nPits. He had been looking out for spars--there was a ship breaking up in\nthe Channel--and he saw some one move just at half-tide mark, so he went\non very softly, step by step, till he got nigh the place, and there was\nthe merrymaid sitting on a rock, the bootyfullest merrymaid that eye\ncould behold, and she was twisting about her long hair, and dressing it,\njust like one of our girls getting ready for her sweetheart on the\nSabbath-day. The old man made sure he should greep hold of her before\never she found him out, and he had got so near that a couple of paces\nmore and he would have caught her by the hair, as sure as tithe or tax,\nwhen, lo and behold, she looked back and glimpsed him! So, in one moment\nshe dived head-foremost off the rock, and then tumbled herself\ntopsy-turvy about in the water, and cast a look at my poor father, and\ngrinned like a seal.'\" And a seal it probably was that Tony's \"poor\nfather\" saw.\n\nWhat, then, are these mermaids and mermen, a belief in whose existence\nhas prevailed in all ages, and amongst all the nations of the earth?\nHave they, really, some of the parts and proportions of man, or do they\nbelong to another order of mammals on which credulity and inaccurate\nobservation have bestowed a false character?\n\nMr. Swainson, a naturalist of deserved eminence, has maintained on\npurely scientific grounds, that there must exist a marine animal uniting\nthe general form of a fish with that of a man; that by the laws of\nNature the natatorial type of the _Quadrumana_ is most assuredly\nwanting, and that, apart from man, a being connecting the seals with the\nmonkeys is required to complete the circle of quadrumanous animals.[66]\n\n [66] 'Geography and Distribution of Animals.'\n\nMr. Gosse[67] argues that all the characters which Mr. Swainson selects\nas marking the natatorial type of animals belong to man, and that he\nbeing, in his savage state, a great swimmer, is the true aquatic\nprimate, which Mr. Swainson regards as absent. Mr. Gosse admits,\nhowever, that \"nature has an odd way of mocking at our impossibilities,\nand\" that \"it _may be_ that green-haired maidens with oary tails, lurk\nin the ocean caves, and keep mirrors and combs upon their rocky\nshelves;\" and the conclusion he arrives at is that the combined evidence\n\"induces a strong suspicion that the northern seas may hold forms of\nlife as yet uncatalogued by science.\"\n\n [67] 'Romance of Natural History,' 2nd Series.\n\nThat there are animals in the northern and other seas with which we are\nunacquainted, is more than probable: discoveries of animals of new\nspecies are constantly being made, especially in the life of the deep\nsea. But I venture to think that the production of an animal at present\nunknown is quite unnecessary to account for the supposed appearances of\nmermaids.\n\nWe have in the form and habits of the _Phocidae_, or earless seals, a\nsufficient interpretation of almost every incident of the kind that has\noccurred north of the Equator--of those in which protuberant _mammae_ are\ndescribed, we must presently seek another explanation. The round, plump,\nexpressive face of a seal, the beautiful, limpid eyes, the hand-like\nfore-paws, the sleek body, tapering towards the flattened hinder fins,\nwhich are directed backwards, and spread out in the form of a broad fin,\nlike the tail of a fish, might well give the idea of an animal having\nthe anterior part of its body human and the posterior half piscine.\n\nIn the habits of the seals, also, we may trace those of the supposed\nmermaid, and the more easily the better we are acquainted with them. All\nseals are fond of leaving the water frequently. They always select the\nflattest and most shelving rocks which have been covered at high tide,\nand prefer those that are separated from the mainland. They generally go\nashore at half-tide, and invariably lie with their heads towards the\nwater, and seldom more than a yard or two from it. There they will often\nremain, if undisturbed, for six hours; that is, until the returning tide\nfloats them off the rock. As for the sweet melody, \"so melting soft,\"\nthat must depend much on the ear and musical taste of the listener. I\nhave never heard a seal utter any vocal sounds but a porcine grunt, a\nplaintive moan, and a pitiful whine. But another habit of the seals has,\nprobably more than anything else, caused them to be mistaken for\nsemi-human beings--namely, that of poising themselves upright in the\nwater with the head and the upper third part of the body above the\nsurface.\n\nOne calm sunny morning in August, 1881, a fine schooner-yacht, on board\nof which I was a guest, was slowly gliding out of the mouth of the river\nMaas, past the Hook of Holland, into the North Sea, when a seal rose\njust ahead of us, and assumed the attitude above described. It waited\nwhilst we passed it, inspecting us apparently with the greatest\ninterest; then dived, swam in the direction in which we were sailing, so\nas to intercept our course, and came up again, sitting upright as\nbefore. This it repeated three times, and so easily might it have been\ntaken for a mermaid, that one of the party, who was called on deck to\nsee it, thought, at first, that it was a boy who had swam off from the\nshore to the vessel on a begging expedition.\n\nLaing, in his account of a voyage to the North, mentions having seen a\nseal under similar circumstances.\n\nA young seal which was brought from Yarmouth to the Brighton Aquarium\nin 1873, habitually sat thus, showing his head and a considerable\nportion of his body out of water. His bath was so shallow in some parts\nthat he was able to touch the bottom, and, with his after-flippers\ntucked under him, like a lobster's tail, and spread out in front, he\nwould balance himself on his hind quarters, and look inquisitively at\neverybody, and listen attentively to everything within sight and\nhearing. When he was satisfied that no one was likely to interfere with\nhim, and that it was unnecessary to be on the alert, he would half-close\nhis beautiful, soft eyes, and either contentedly pat, stroke, and\nscratch his little fat stomach with his right paw, or flap both of them\nacross his breast in a most ludicrous manner, exactly as a cabman warms\nthe tips of his fingers on a wintry day, by swinging his arms vigorously\nacross his chest, and striking his hands against his body on either\nside. He was very sensitive to musical sounds, as many dogs are, and\nwhen a concert took place in the building a high note from one of the\nvocalists would cause him to utter a mournful wail, and to dive with a\nsplash that made the water fly, the audience smile, and the singer\nfrown.\n\nCaptain Scoresby tells us that he had seen the walrus with its head\nabove water, and in such a position that it required little stretch of\nimagination to mistake it for a human being, and that on one occasion of\nthis kind the surgeon of his ship actually reported to him that he had\nseen a man with his head above water.\n\nPeter Gunnersen's merman (p. 24), who \"blew up his cheeks and made a\nkind of roaring noise\" before diving, was probably a \"bladder-nose\"\nseal. The males of that species have on the head a peculiar pad, which\nthey can dilate at pleasure, and their voice is loud and discordant.\n\nThe appearance and behaviour of Steller's \"sea-ape,\" described on p.\n25, may, I think, be attributed to one of the eared seals, the so-called\nsea-lions, or sea-bears. Every one who has seen these animals fed must\nhave noticed the rapidity with which they will dive and swim to any part\nof their pond where they expect to receive food, and how, like a dog\nafter a pebble, they will keenly watch their keeper's movements, and\nstart in the direction to which he is apparently about to throw a fish,\neven before the latter has left his hand. This may be seen at the\nZoological Gardens, Regent's Park, and, better than anywhere else in\nEurope, at the Jardin d'Acclimatation, Paris. It would be quite in\naccordance with their habits that one of these _Otaria_ should dive\nunder a ship, and rise above the surface on either side, eagerly\nsurveying those on board, in hope of obtaining food, or from mere\ncuriosity.\n\nThe seals and their movements account for so many mermaid stories, that\nall accounts of sea-women with prominent bosoms were ridiculed and\ndiscredited until competent observers recognised in the form and habits\nof certain aquatic animals met with in the bays and estuaries of the\nIndian Ocean, the Red Sea, the west coast of Africa, and sub-tropical\nAmerica, the originals of these \"travellers' tales.\" These were--first,\nthe _manatee_, which is found in the West Indian Islands, Florida, the\nGulf of Mexico, and Brazil, and in Africa in the River Congo,\nSenegambia, and the Mozambique Channel; second, the _dugong_, or\n_halicore_, which ranges along the east coast of Africa, Southern Asia,\nthe Bornean Archipelago, and Australia; and, third, the _rytina_, seen\non Behring's Island in the Kamschatkan Sea by Steller, the Russian\nzoologist and voyager, in 1741, and which is supposed to have become\nextinct within twenty-seven years after its discovery, by its having\nbeen recklessly and indiscriminately slaughtered.[68] Then science, in\nthe person of Illeger, made the _amende honorable_, and frankly\naccepting Jack's introduction to his fish-tailed _innamorata_, classed\nthese three animals together as a sub-order of the animal kingdom, and\nbestowed on them the name of the _Sirenia_. This was, of course, in\nallusion to the Sirens of classical mythology, who, in later art, were\nrepresented as having the body of a woman above the waist, and that of a\nfish below, although the lower portion of their body was originally\ndescribed as being in the form of a bird.\n\n [68] Almost all that is known of the living rytina is from an\n account published in 1751, in St. Petersburg, by Steller, who was\n one of an exploring party wrecked on Behring's Island in 1741.\n During the ten months the crew remained on the island they pursued\n this easily-captured animal so persistently, for food, that it was\n all but annihilated at the time. The last one there was killed in\n 1768.\n\nIt has been found difficult to determine to which order these _Manatidae_\nare most nearly allied. In shape they most closely resemble the whales\nand seals. But the cetacea are all carnivorous, whereas the manatee and\nits relatives live entirely on vegetable food. Although, therefore, Dr.\nJ. E. Gray, following Cuvier, classed them with the cetacea in his\nBritish Museum catalogue, other anatomists, as Professor Agassiz,\nProfessor Owen, and Dr. Murie, regard their resemblance to the whales as\nrather superficial than real, and conclude from their organisation and\ndentition that they ought either to form a group apart or be classed\nwith the pachyderms--the hippopotamus, tapir, etc.--with which they have\nthe nearest affinities, and to which they seem to have been more\nimmediately linked by the now lost genera, _Dinotherium_ and\n_Halitherium_. With the opinion of those last-named authorities I\nentirely agree. I regard the manatee as exhibiting a wonderful\nmodification and adaptation of the structure of a warm-blooded land\nanimal which enables it to pass its whole life in water, and as a\nconnecting link between the hippopotamus, elephant, etc., on the one\nside, and the whales and seals on the other.\n\nThe _Halitherium_ was a Sirenian with which we are only acquainted by\nits fossil remains found in the Miocene formation of Central and\nSouthern Europe. These indicate that it had short hind limbs, and,\nconsequently, approached more nearly the terrestrial type than either\nthe manatee, the rytina, or the dugong, in which the hind limbs are\nabsent. The two last named tend more than does the manatee to the marine\nmammals; but there is a strong likeness between these three recent\nforms. They all have a cylindrical body, like that of a seal, but\ninstead of hind limbs there is in all a broad tail flattened\nhorizontally; and the chief difference in their outward appearance is in\nthe shape of this organ. In the manatee it is rounded, in the dugong\nforked like that of a whale, in the rytina crescent-shaped. The tail of\nthe _Halitherium_ appears to have been shaped somewhat like that of the\nbeaver. The body of the manatee is broader in proportion to its length\nand depth than that of the dugong. In a paper read before the Royal\nSociety, July 12th, 1821, on a manatee sent to London in spirits by the\nDuke of Manchester, then Governor of Jamaica, Sir Everard Home remarked\nof this greater lateral expansion that, as the manatee feeds on plants\nthat grow at the mouths of great rivers, and the dugong upon those met\nwith in the shallows amongst small islands in the Eastern seas, the\ndifference of form would make the manatee more buoyant and better fitted\nto float in fresh water.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 16.--THE DUGONG. _From Sir J. Emerson Tennent's\n'Ceylon.'_]\n\nIn all the _Manatidae_ the mammae of the female, which are greatly\ndistended during the period of lactation, are situated very differently\nfrom those of the whales, being just beneath the pectoral fins. These\nfins or paws are much more flexible and free in their movements than\nthose of the cetae, and are sufficiently prehensile to enable the animal\nto gather food between the palms or inner surfaces of both, and the\nfemale to hold her young one to her breast with one of them. Like the\nwhales, they are warm-blooded mammals, breathing by lungs, and are\ntherefore obliged to come to the surface at frequent intervals for\nrespiration. As they breathe through nostrils at the end of the muzzle,\ninstead of, like most of the whales, through a blow-hole on the top of\nthe head, their habit is to rise, sometimes vertically, in the water,\nwith the head and fore part of the body exposed above the surface, and\noften to remain in this position for some minutes. When seen thus, with\nhead and breast bare, and clasping its young one to its body, the female\npresents a certain resemblance to a woman from the waist upward. When\napproached or disturbed it dives; the tail and hinder portion of the\nbody come into view, and we see that if there was little of the \"_mulier\nformosa superne_,\" at any rate \"_desinit in piscem_.\" The manatee has\nthence been called by the Spaniards and Portuguese the \"woman-fish,\" and\nby the Dutch the \"manetje,\" or mannikin. The dugong, having the muzzle\nbristly, is named by the latter the \"baardmanetje,\" or \"little bearded\nman.\" There are no bristles or whiskers on the muzzle of the manatee;\nall the portraits of it in which these are shown are in that respect\nerroneous. The origin of the word \"manatee\" has by some been traced to\nthe Spanish, as indicating \"an animal with hands.\" On the west coast of\nAfrica it is called by the natives \"Ne-hoo-le.\" By old writers it was\ndescribed as the \"sea-cow.\" Gesner depicts it in the act of bellowing;\nand Mr. Bates, in his work, \"The Naturalist on the Amazon,\" says that\nits voice is something like the bellowing of an ox. The Florida\n\"crackers\" or \"mean whites,\" make the same statement. Although I have\nhad opportunities of prolonged observation of it in captivity, I have\nnot heard it give utterance to any sound--not even a grunt--and Mr.\nBartlett, of the Zoological Gardens, tells me that his experience of it\nis the same. His son, Mr. Clarence Bartlett, says that a young one he\nhad in Surinam used to make a feeble cry, or bleat, very much like the\nvoice of a young seal. This is the only sound he ever heard from a\nmanatee.[69]\n\n [69] For a full description of the habits of this animal in\n captivity, see an article by the present writer in the 'Leisure\n Hour' of September 28, 1878; from which the illustration, Fig. 17,\n is borrowed by the kind consent of the Editor of that publication.\n\nI believe the dugong to be more especially the animal referred to by\nAElian as the semi-human whale, and that which has led to this group\nhaving been supposed by southern voyagers to be aquatic human beings. In\nthe first place, the dugong is a denizen of the sea, whereas the manatee\nis chiefly found in rivers and fresh-water lagoons; and secondly, the\ndugong accords with AElian's description of the creature with a woman's\nface in that it has \"prickles instead of hairs,\" whilst the manatee has\nno such stiff bristles.\n\nIn the case of either of these two animals being mistaken for a\nmermaid, however, \"distance\" must \"lend enchantment to the view,\" and a\nsailor must be very impressible and imaginative who, even after having\nbeen deprived for many months of the pleasure of females' society, could\nbe allured by the charms of a bristly-muzzled dugong, or mistake the\nsnorting of a wallowing manatee for the love-song of a beauteous\nsea-maiden.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 17.--THE MANATEE. ITS USUAL POSITION.]\n\nUnfortunately both the dugong and the manatee are being hunted to\nextinction.\n\nThe flesh of the manatee is considered a great delicacy. Humboldt\ncompares it with ham. Unlike that of the whales, which is of a deep and\ndark red hue, it is as white as veal, and, it is said, tastes very like\nit. It is remarkable for retaining its freshness much longer than other\nmeat, which in a tropical climate generally putrefies in twenty-eight\nhours. It is therefore well adapted for pickling, as the salt has time\nto penetrate the flesh before it is tainted. The Catholic clergy of\nSouth America do not object to its being eaten on fast days, on the\nsupposition that, with whales, seals, and other aquatic mammals, it may\nbe liberally regarded as \"fish.\" The \"Indians\" of the Amazon and Orinoco\nare so fond of it that they will spend many days, if necessary, in\nhunting for a manatee, and having killed one will cut it into slabs and\nslices on the spot, and cook these on stakes thrust into the ground\naslant over a great fire, and heavily gorge themselves as long as the\nprovision lasts. The milk of this animal is said to be rich and good,\nand the skin is valuable for its toughness, and is much in request for\nmaking leathern articles in which great strength and durability are\nrequired. The tail contains a great deal of oil, which is believed to be\nextremely nutritious, and has also the property of not becoming rancid.\nUnhappily for the dugong, its oil is in similarly high repute, and is\ngreatly preferred as a nutrient medicine to cod-liver oil. As its flesh\nalso is much esteemed, it is so persistently hunted on the Australian\ncoasts that it will probably soon become extinct, like the rytina of\nSteller. The same fate apparently awaits the manatee, which is becoming\nperceptibly more and more scarce.\n\nI fear that before many years have elapsed the Sirens of the\nNaturalist will have disappeared from our earth, before the advance of\ncivilization, as completely as the fables and superstitions with which\nthey have been connected, before the increase of knowledge; and that the\nmermaid of fact will have become as much a creature of the past as the\nmermaid of fiction. With regard to the latter--the Siren of the\npoets,--the water-maiden of the pearly comb, the crystal mirror, and the\nsea-green tresses,--there are few persons I suppose, at the present day\nwho would not be content to be classed with Banks, the fine old\nnaturalist and formerly ship-mate of Captain Cook. Sir Humphry Davy in\nhis _Salmonia_ relates an anecdote of a baronet, a profound believer in\nthese fish-tailed ladies, who on hearing some one praise very highly Sir\nJoseph Banks, said that \"Sir Joseph was an excellent man, but he had his\nprejudices--he did not believe in the mermaid.\" I confess to having a\nsimilar \"prejudice;\" and am willing to adopt the further remark of Sir\nHumphry Davy:--\"I am too much of the school of Izaac Walton to talk of\nimpossibility. It doubtless might please God to make a mermaid, but I\ndon't believe God ever did make one.\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE LERNEAN HYDRA.\n\n\nThe mystery of the Kraken, of which I treated in a companion volume to\nthe present, recently published, is not difficult to unravel. The clue\nto it is plain, and when properly taken up is as easily unwound, to\narrive at the truth, as a cocoon of silk, to get at the chrysalis within\nit. It was a boorish exaggeration, a legend of ignorance, superstition,\nand wonder. But when such a skein of facts has passed through the hands\nof the poets, it is sure to be found in a much more intricate tangle;\nand many a knot of pure invention may have to be cut before it is made\nclear.\n\nNevertheless, we shall be able to discern that more than one of the most\nfamous and hideous monsters of old classical lore originated, like the\nKraken, in a knowledge by their authors of the form and habits of those\nstrange sea-creatures, the head-footed mollusks. There can be little\ndoubt that the octopus was the model from which the old poets and\nartists formed their ideas, and drew their pictures of the Lernean\nHydra, whose heads grew again when cut off by Hercules; and also of the\nmonster Scylla, who, with six heads and six long writhing necks,\nsnatched men off the decks of passing ships and devoured them in the\nrecesses of her gloomy cavern.\n\nOf the Hydra Diodorus relates that it had a hundred heads; Simonides\nsays fifty; but the generally received opinion was that of Apollodorus,\nHyginus, and others, that it had only nine.\n\nApollodorus of Athens, son of Asclepiades, who wrote in stiff, quaint\nGreek about 120 B.C., gives in his 'Bibliotheca' (book ii. chapter 5,\nsection 2) the following account of the many-headed monster. \"This\nHydra,\" he says, \"nourished in the marshes of Lerne, went forth into the\nopen country and destroyed the herds of the land. It had a huge body and\nnine heads, eight mortal, but the ninth immortal. Having mounted his\nchariot, which was driven by Iolaus, Hercules got to Lerne and stopped\nhis horses. Finding the Hydra on a certain raised ground near the source\nof the Amymon, where its lair was, he made it come out by pelting it\nwith burning missiles. He seized and stopped it, but having twisted\nitself round one of his feet, it struggled with him. He broke its head\nwith his club: but that was useless; for when one head was broken two\nsprang up, and a huge crab helped the Hydra by biting the foot of\nHercules. This he killed, and called Iolaus, who, setting on fire part\nof the adjoining forest, burned with torches the germs of the growing\nheads, and stopped their development. Having thus out-manoeuvred the\ngrowing heads, he cut off the immortal head, buried it, and put a heavy\nstone upon it, beside the road going from Lerne to Eleonta, and having\nopened the Hydra, dipped his arrows in its gall.\"\n\nIf we wish to find in nature the counterpart of this Hydra, we must\nseek, firstly, for an animal with eight out-growths from its trunk,\nwhich it can develop afresh, or replace by new ones, in case of any or\nall of them being amputated or injured. We must also show that this\nanimal, so strange in form and possessing such remarkable attributes,\nwas well known in the locality where the legend was believed. We have it\nin the octopus, which abounded in the Mediterranean and AEgean seas, and\nwhose eight prehensile arms, or tentacles, spring from its central body,\nthe immortal head, and which, if lost or mutilated by misadventure, are\ncapable of reproduction.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 18.--FIGURE OF A CALAMARY. _From the temple of\nBayr-el-Bahree_.]\n\nThat a knowledge of the octopus existed at a very early period of man's\nhistory we have abundant evidence. The ancient Egyptians figured it\namongst their hieroglyphics, and an interesting proof that they were\nalso acquainted with other cephalopods was given to me by the late Mr.\nE. W. Cooke, R.A. Whilst on a trip up the Nile, in January, 1875, he\nvisited the temple of Bayr-el-Bahree, Thebes (date 1700 B.C.), the\nentrance to which had been deeply buried beneath the light, wind-drifted\nsand, accumulated during many centuries. By order of the Khedive, access\nhad just at that time been obtained to its interior, by the excavation\nand removal of this deep deposit, and, amongst the hieroglyphics on the\nwalls, were found, between the zig-zag lines which represent water,\nfigures of various fishes, copies of which Mr. Cooke kindly gave me, and\nwhich are so accurately portrayed as to be easily identified. With them\nwas the outline of a squid fourteen inches long, a figure of which, from\nMr. Cooke's drawing, is here shown. As this temple is five hundred miles\nfrom the delta of the Nile, it is remarkable that nearly all the fishes\nthere represented are of marine species.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 19.--FIGURE OF AN OCTOPUS ON A GOLD ORNAMENT, FOUND\nBY DR. SCHLIEMANN AT MYCENAE.]\n\nThat the octopus was a familiar object with the ancient Greeks, we know\nby the frequency with which its portrait is found on their coins, gems,\nand ornaments. Aldrovandus describes \"very ancient coins\" found at\nSyracuse and Tarentum bearing the figure of an octopus. He says the\nSyracusans had two coins, one of bronze, the other of gold, both of\nwhich had an octopus alone on one side. On the reverse of the bronze one\nwas a veiled female face in profile, with the inscription [Greek: SURA].\nI have one of these bronze Syracusan coins; it was kindly given to me,\nsome years ago, by my friend, Dr. John Millar, F.L.S. The octopus is\nreally well depicted. On the gold coin the female head was differently\nveiled, and at the back of the neck was a fish. The inscription on this\ncoin was [Greek: SURAKOSION]. Goltzius was of the opinion that the head\nwas that of Arethusa. The coins found at Tarentum had on one side a\nfigure of Neptune seated on a dolphin, and holding an octopus in one\nhand and a trident in the other.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 20.--GOLDEN ORNAMENT IN FORM OF AN OCTOPUS, FOUND BY\nDR. SCHLIEMANN AT MYCENAE.]\n\nLerne, or Lerna, the reputed home of the Hydra, was a port of Southern\nGreece, situated at the head of the Gulf of Nauplia, and between the\nexisting towns of Argos and Tripolitza. Within a few miles of it was\nMycenae; and it is remarkable that Dr. Schliemann, during his excavations\nthere in 1876, found in a tomb a gold plate, or button, two and a half\ninches in diameter (Fig. 19), on which is figured an octopus, the eight\narms of which are converted into spirals, the head and the two eyes\nbeing distinctly visible. In another sepulchre he discovered fifty-three\ngolden models of the octopus (Fig. 20), all exactly alike, and\napparently cast in the same mould. The arms are very naturally carved.\nBy the kindness of Mr. Murray, his publisher, I am enabled to give\nillustrations of these and two other handsome ornaments.\n\nHaving ascertained that the octopus was a familiar object in the very\nlocality where the combat between Hercules and the Hydra is supposed to\nhave taken place, let us compare the animal as it exists with the\nmonstrous offspring of Typhon and Echidna.\n\n[Illustration:\n\nFIG. 21. FIG. 22.\n\nFIGURES OF THE OCTOPUS ON GOLD ORNAMENTS FOUND BY DR. SCHLIEMANN AT\nMYCENAE.]\n\nIt is a not uncommon occurrence that when an octopus is caught it is\nfound to have one or more of its arms shorter than the rest, and showing\nmarks of having been amputated, and of the formation of a new growth\nfrom the old cicatrix. Several such specimens were brought to the\nBrighton Aquarium whilst I had charge of its Natural History Department.\nOne of them was particularly interesting. Two of its arms had evidently\nbeen bitten off about four inches from the base: and out from the end of\neach healed stump (which in proportion to the length of the limb was as\nif a man's arm had been amputated halfway between the shoulder and the\nelbow), grew a slender little piece of newly-formed arm, about as large\nas a lady's stiletto, or a small button-hook--in fact just the\nequivalent of worthy Captain Cuttle's iron hook, which did duty for his\nlost hand. It was an illustrative example of the commencement of the\nrepair and restoration of mutilated limbs.\n\nThis mutilation is so common in some localities, that Professor\nSteenstrup says[70] that almost every octopus he has examined has had\none or two arms reproduced; and that he has seen females in which all\nthe eight arms had been lost, but were more or less restored. He also\nmentions a male in which this was the case as to seven of its arms. He\nadds that whilst the _Octopoda_ possess the power of reproducing with\ngreat facility and rapidity their arms, which are exposed to so many\nenemies, the _Decapoda_--the _Sepiidae_ and Squids--appear to be\nincapable of thus repairing and replacing accidental injuries. This is\nentirely in accord with my own observations.\n\n [70] Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. August, 1857.\n\nThis reparative power is possessed by some other animals, of which the\nstarfishes and crustacea are the most familiar instances. In the case of\nthe lobster or crab, however, the only joint from which new growth can\nstart is that connected with the body, so that if a limb be injured in\nany part, the whole of it must be got rid of, and the animal has,\ntherefore, the power of casting it off at will. The octopus, on the\ncontrary, is incapable of voluntary dismemberment, but reproduces the\nlost portion of an injured arm, as an out-growth from the old stump.\n\nThe ancients were well acquainted with this reparative faculty of the\noctopus: but of course the simple fact was insufficient for an\nimaginative people: and they therefore embellished it with some fancies\nof their own. There lingers still amongst the fishermen of the\nMediterranean a very old belief that the octopus when pushed by hunger\nwill gnaw and devour portions of its arms. Aristotle knew of this\nbelief, and positively contradicted it; but a fallacy once planted is\nhard to eradicate. You may cut it down, and apparently destroy it, root\nand branch, but its seeds are scattered abroad, and spring up elsewhere,\nand in unexpected places. Accordingly, we find Oppian, more than five\ncenturies later, disseminating the same old notion, and comparing this\nhabit of the animal with that of the bear obtaining nutriment from his\npaws by sucking them during his hybernation.\n\n \"When wintry skies o'er the black ocean frown,\n And clouds hang low with ripen'd storms o'ergrown,\n Close in the shelter of some vaulted cave\n The soft-skinn'd prekes[71] their porous bodies save.\n But forc'd by want, while rougher seas they dread,\n On their own feet, necessitous, are fed.\n But when returning spring serenes the skies,\n Nature the growing parts anew supplies.\n Again on breezy sands the roamers creep,\n Twine to the rocks, or paddle in the deep.\n Doubtless the God whose will commands the seas,\n Whom liquid worlds and wat'ry natives please,\n Has taught the fish by tedious wants opprest\n Life to preserve and be himself the feast.\"\n\n [71] The octopus is still called the \"preke\" in some parts of\n England, notably in Sussex. The translation of Oppian's\n 'Halieutics,' from which this passage and others are quoted is that\n by Messrs. Jones and Diaper, of Baliol College, Oxford, and was\n published in 1722.\n\nThe fact is, that the larger predatory fishes regard an octopus as very\nacceptable food, and there is no better bait for many of them than a\nportion of one of its arms. Some of the cetacea also are very fond of\nthem, and whalers have often reported that when a \"fish\" (as they call\nit) is struck it disgorges the contents of its stomach, amongst which\nthey have noticed parts of the arms of cuttles which, judging from the\nsize of their limbs, must have been very large specimens. The food of\nthe sperm whale consists largely of the gregarious squids, and the\npresence in spermaceti of their undigested beaks is accepted as a test\nof its being genuine. That old fish-reptile, the Ichthyosaurus, also,\npreyed upon them; and portions of the horny rings of their suckers were\ndiscovered in its coprolites by Dean Buckland. Amongst the worst enemies\nof the octopus is the conger. They are both rock-dwellers, and if the\nvoracious fish come upon his cephalopod neighbour unseen, he makes a\nmeal of him, or, failing to drag him from his hold, bites off as much of\none or two of his arms as he can conveniently obtain. The conger,\ntherefore, is generally the author of the injury which the octopus has\nbeen unfairly accused of inflicting on itself.\n\nContinuing our comparison with the hydra, we have in the octopus an\nanimal capable of quitting its rocky lurking-place in the sea, and going\non a buccaneering expedition on dry land. Many incidents have been\nrelated in connection with this; but I can attest it from my own\nobservation. I have seen an octopus travel over the floor of a room at a\nvery fair rate of speed, toppling and sprawling along in its own\nungainly fashion; and in May, 1873, we had one at the Brighton Aquarium\nwhich used regularly every night to quit its tank, and make its way\nalong the wall to another tank at some distance from it, in which were\nsome young lump-fishes. Day after day, one of these was missing, until,\nat last, the marauder was discovered. Many days elapsed, however, before\nhe was detected, for after helping himself to, and devouring a young\n\"lump-sucker,\" he demurely returned before daylight to his own quarters.\n\nOf this habit of the octopus the ancients were, also, fully aware.\nAristotle wrote that it left the water and walked in stony places, and\nPliny and AElian related tales of this animal stealing barrels of salt\nfish from the wharves, and crushing their staves to get at the contents.\nAn octopus that could do this would be as formidable a predatory monster\nas the Lernean Hydra, which had the evil reputation of devouring the\nPeloponnesian cattle.\n\nWhoever first described the counter-attack of the Hydra on Hercules must\nhave had the octopus in his thoughts. \"It twisted itself round one of\nhis feet\"--exactly that which an octopus would do.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 23.--HERCULES SLAYING THE LERNEAN HYDRA.\n\n_From Smith's 'Classical Dictionary.'_]\n\nFinally, according to the legend, Hercules dipped his arrow-heads in the\ngall of the Hydra, and, from its poisonous nature, all the wounds he\ninflicted with them upon his enemies proved fatal. It is worthy of\nnotice that the ancients attributed to the octopus the possession of a\nsimilarly venomous secretion. Thus Oppian writes:\n\n \"The crawling preke a deadly juice contains\n Injected poison fires the wounded veins.\"\n\nThe accompanying illustration (Fig. 23) of Hercules slaying the Hydra\nis taken from a marble tablet in the Vatican. It will be immediately\nseen how closely the Hydra, as there depicted, resembles an octopus. The\nbody is elongated, but the eight necks with small heads on them bear\nabout the same proportion to the body as the arms to the body of an\noctopus.\n\nThe Reverend James Spence, in his 'Polymetis,' published in 1755, gives\na figure, almost the counterpart of this, copied from an antique gem, a\ncarnelian, in the collection of the Grand Duke of Tuscany at Florence.\nOnly seven necks of the hydra are, however, there visible, and there are\ntwo coils in the elongated body. On the upper part are two spots which\nhave been supposed to represent breasts. This was probably intended by\nthe artificer; but that the idea originated from a duplication of the\nsyphon tube is evident from the figures (Figs. 21, 22) of the octopus on\nthe smaller gold ornaments found by Dr. Schliemann at Mycenae. In the\nsame work is also an engraving from a picture in the Vatican Virgil,\nentitled 'The River, or Hateful Passage into the Kingdom of Ades,'\nwherein an octopus-hydra, of which only six heads and necks are shown,\nis one of the monsters called by the author \"Terrors of the\nImagination.\"\n\n\n\n\nSCYLLA AND CHARYBDIS.\n\n\nIn the description given by Homer, in the twelfth book of the 'Odyssey,'\nof the unfortunate nymph Scylla, transformed by the arts of Circe into a\nfrightful monster, the same typical idea as in the case of the Hydra is\nperceptible. The lurking octopus, having its lair in the cranny of a\nrock, watching in ambush for passing prey, seizing anything coming\nwithin its reach with one or more of its prehensile arms, even\nbrandishing these fear-inspiring weapons out of water in a threatening\nmanner, and known in some localities to be dangerous to boats and their\noccupants, is transformed into a many-headed sea monster, seizing in its\nmouths, instead of by the adhesive suckers of its numerous arms, the\nhelpless sailors from passing vessels, and devouring them in the abysses\nof its cavernous den.\n\nCirce, prophesying to Ulysses the dangers he had still to encounter,\nwarned him especially of Scylla and Charybdis, within the power of one\nof whom he must fall in passing through the narrow strait (between Italy\nand Sicily) where they had their horrid abode. Describing the lofty rock\nof Scylla, she tells him:\n\n \"Full in the centre of this rock displayed\n A yawning cavern casts a dreadful shade,\n Nor the fleet arrow from the twanging bow\n Sent with full force, could reach the depth below.\n Wide to the west the horrid gulf extends,\n And the dire passage down to hell descends.\n O fly the dreadful sight! expand thy sails,\n Ply the strong oar, and catch the nimble gales;\n Here Scylla bellows from her dire abodes;\n Tremendous pest! abhorred by man and gods!\n Hideous her voice, and with less terrors roar\n The whelps of lions in the midnight hour.\n Twelve feet deformed and foul the fiend dispreads;\n Six horrid necks she rears, and six terrific heads;\n\n * * * * *\n\n When stung with hunger she embroils the flood,\n The sea-dog and the dolphin are her food;\n She makes the huge leviathan her prey,\n And all the monsters of the wat'ry way;\n The swiftest racer of the azure plain\n Here fills her sails and spreads her oars in vain;\n Fell Scylla rises, in her fury roars,\n At once six mouths expands, at once six men devours.\"[72]\n\n [72] Homer's 'Odyssey,' Pope's Translation, Book XII.\n\nCirce then describes the perils of the whirling waters of Charybdis as\nstill more dreadful; and, admonishing Ulysses that once in her power all\nmust perish, she advises him to choose the lesser of the two evils, and\nto\n\n \"shun the horrid gulf, by Scylla fly;\n 'Tis better six to lose than all to die.\"\n\nUlysses continues his voyage; and as his ship enters the ominous strait,\n\n \"Struck with despair, with trembling hearts we viewed\n The yawning dungeon, and the tumbling flood;\n When, lo! fierce Scylla stooped to seize her prey,\n Stretched her dire jaws, and swept six men away.\n Chiefs of renown! loud echoing shrieks arise;\n I turn, and view them quivering in the skies;\n They call, and aid, with outstretched arms, implore,\n In vain they call! those arms are stretched no more.\n As from some rock that overhangs the flood,\n The silent fisher casts th' insidious food;\n With fraudful care he waits the finny prize,\n And sudden lifts it quivering to the skies;\n So the foul monster lifts her prey on high,\n So pant the wretches, struggling in the sky;\n In the wide dungeon she devours her food,\n And the flesh trembles while she churns the blood.\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE \"SPOUTING\" OF WHALES.\n\n\nOne of the sea-fallacies still generally believed, and accepted as true,\nis that whales take in water by the mouth, and eject it from the\nspiracle, or blow-hole.\n\nThe popular ideas on this subject are still those which existed hundreds\nof years ago, and which are expressed by Oppian in two passages in his\n'Halieutics':\n\n \"Uncouth the sight when they in dreadful play\n Discharge their nostrils and refund a sea,\"\n\nand\n\n \"While noisy fin-fish let their fountains fly\n And spout the curling torrent to the sky.\"\n\nEminent zoologists and intelligent observers, who have had full\nopportunities of obtaining practical knowledge of the habits of these\ngreat marine mammals, have forcibly combated and repeatedly contradicted\nthis erroneous idea; but their sensible remarks have been read by few,\nin comparison with the numbers of those to whom a wrong impression has\nbeen conveyed by sensational pictures in which whales are represented\n_with their heads above the surface_, and throwing up from their\nnostrils columns of water, like the fountains in Trafalgar Square. One\ncan hardly be surprised that the old writers on Natural History were\nunacquainted with the real composition of the whale's \"spout.\" Those of\nthem who sought for any original information on marine zoology, obtained\nit chiefly from uninstructed and superstitious fishermen; but they\ngenerally contented themselves with diligent compilation, and thus\ncopied and transmitted the errors of their predecessors, with the\naddition of some slight embellishments of their own. Accordingly, we\nfind Olaus Magnus[73] describing, as follows, the _Physeter_, or, as his\ntranslator, Streater, calls it, the _Whirlpool_. \"The _Physeter_ or\n_Pristis_,\" he says, \"is a kind of whale, two hundred cubits long, and\nis very cruel. For, to the danger of seamen, he will sometimes raise\nhimself above the sail-yards, and casts such floods of waters above his\nhead, which he had sucked in, that with a cloud of them he will often\nsink the strongest ships, or expose the mariners to extreme danger. This\nbeast hath also a large round mouth, like a lamprey, whereby he sucks in\nhis meat or water, and by his weight cast upon the fore or hinder deck,\nhe sinks and drowns a ship.\"\n\n [73] 'Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus,' lib. xxi. cap. vi.\n A.D. 1555.\n\nFigures 24 and 25 (p. 64) are facsimiles of the illustrations which\naccompany the above description. It will be seen that, in the first, the\n_Physeter_ is depicted as uprearing a maned neck and head, like that of\na fabled dragon; whilst in Fig. 25 it is shown as a whale flinging\nitself on board a ship, which is sinking under its ponderous weight. In\nboth, torrents of water are issuing from its head, and it is evident\nthat they are merely exaggerated misrepresentations of the \"spouting\" of\nwhales.\n\nGesner copies many of Olaus Magnus's illustrations, and improves upon\nFig. 25 by putting a numerous crew on board the ship. The unfortunate\nsailors are depicted in every attitude of terror and despair, and seem\nto be incapacitated from any attempt to save themselves by the flood of\nwater which the whale is deliberately pouring upon them from its\nblow-holes.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 24.--THE PHYSETER INUNDATING A SHIP. _After Olaus\nMagnus._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 25.--A WHALE POURING WATER INTO A SHIP FROM ITS\nBLOW-HOLE. _After Olaus Magnus._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 26--SPERM WHALES SPOUTING.]\n\nThese old pictures appear, no doubt, ridiculous, but they are, really,\nvery little more absurd and untrue to nature than many of those which\ndisfigure some otherwise useful books on Natural History of the present\nday. I could refer to several, in which whales are represented as\nspouting from their blow-holes one or more columns of water, which,\nafter ascending skyward to a considerable distance, fall over gracefully\nas if issuing from the nozzle of an ornamental fountain. I select one\nfrom amongst them (Fig. 26), not with any disrespect for the artist,\nauthor, or publisher of the work from which it is taken, but because,\nwhilst it shows correctly the position of the blow-hole of the sperm\nwhale, it also exhibits exactly that which I wish to confute. The\npublishers of the valuable work in which this picture appeared have\ngenerously consented to my reproducing it here.\n\nWhen, in describing, in 1877, the White Whale then exhibited at the\nWestminster Aquarium, I said that whales do not spout water out of their\nblow-holes, and that the idea that they do so is a popular error, the\nstatement was so contrary to generally-accepted notions that I was not\nsurprised by receiving more than one letter on the subject. One very\nreasonable suggestion made to me was that, although the lesser whales,\nsuch as the porpoises, which I had had opportunities of watching in\nconfinement at Brighton for two years, and the _Beluga_, which had been\nobserved for a similar period at the New York Aquarium, and also at\nWestminster, did not \"spout,\" the respiratory apparatus of the larger\nwhales might be so modified as to permit them to do so. Let us consider\nthe construction of the breathing apparatus which would have to be thus\nmodified, as shown in the porpoise.\n\nIn the first place, there is a pair of lungs as perfect as those of any\nland mammal, fitted to receive air, and to bring the hot blood into\ncontact with the air, that it may absorb the oxygen of the air, and so\nbe purified. But this air cannot well be breathed through the mouth of\nan animal which has to take its food from and in water; so it has to be\ninhaled only by the nostrils. If these were situated as they are in land\nmammals, near the extremity of the nose, the porpoise would be obliged\nto stop when pursuing its prey, or, escaping from its enemies, to put\nthe tip of its nose above the surface of the water every time it\nrequired to breathe. A much more convenient arrangement has, therefore,\nbeen provided for it, and for almost all whales, by which that\ndifficulty is removed. Instead of running along the bones of the nose,\nthe nostrils are placed on the top of the head, and the windpipe is\nturned up to them without having any connection with the palate. The\nupper jaw is quite solid. Thus the mouth is solely devoted to the\nreception of food, and the animal is enabled to continue its course when\nswimming, however rapidly, by rising obliquely to the surface, and\nexposing the top of its head above it. On the blow-hole being opened,\nthe air, from which the oxygen has been absorbed, is expelled in a\nsudden puff, another supply is instantaneously inhaled, and rushes into\nthe lungs with extreme velocity, and then the porpoise can either\ndescend into the depths, or remain with its spiracle exposed to the air,\nas it may prefer. In this act of breathing the spiracle is normally\nbrought above the water, the breath escapes, and the immediate\ninhalation is effected almost in silence. But frequently, and in some\nwhales habitually, the blow-hole is opened just below the surface, and\nthen the outrush of air causes a splash upwards of the water overlying\nit.\n\nI may here mention that I have frequently seen the porpoises at the\nBrighton Aquarium lying asleep at the surface, with the blow-hole\nexposed above it, breathing automatically, and without conscious effort.\nAristotle was acquainted with this habit of the cetacea 2,200 years ago,\nfor he wrote: \"They sleep with the blow-hole, their organ of\nrespiration, elevated above the water.\"\n\nThe apparatus for closing the blow-hole, so that not a drop of water\nshall enter the windpipe, even under great pressure, is a beautiful\ncontrivance, complex in its structure, yet most simple in its working.\nThe external aperture is covered by a continuation of the skin, locally\nthickened, and connected with a conical stopper, of a texture as tough\nas india-rubber, which fits perfectly into a cone or funnel formed by\nthe extremity of the windpipe, and closes more and more firmly as the\npressure upon it is increased. Whilst the orifice is thus guarded, the\nlower end of the tube is surrounded by a strong compressing muscle,\nwhich clasps also the glottis, and thus the passage from the blow-hole\nto the lungs is completely stopped.\n\nThere is nothing in this which indicates the possibility of the spouting\nof water from the nostrils; but as assertions that water had been seen\nto issue from them were positive and persistent, anatomists seem to have\nfelt themselves obliged to try to account for it somehow. Accordingly\nthe theory was propounded by F. Cuvier that the water taken into the\nmouth is reserved in two pouches (one on each side), until the whale\nrises to blow, when, the gullet being closed, it is forced by the action\nof the tongue and jaws through the nasal passages, somewhat as a smoker\noccasionally expels the smoke of his cigar through his nostrils.\nAlthough these pouches, or sacs analogous to them, are found at the base\nof the nostrils of the horse, tapir, etc.,--animals which do not \"spout\"\nfrom the nostrils water taken in by the mouth--the explanation was\naccepted for a time.\n\nMr. Bell held this opinion when the first edition of his 'British\nQuadrupeds' was published in 1837, but before the issue of the second\nedition, in 1874, he had found reasons for taking a different view of\nthe matter; and, under the advice of his judicious editors, Mr. Alston,\nand Professor Flower (the latter of whom supervised the proofs of the\nchapters on the Cetacea) his sanction of the illusion was withdrawn as\nfollows:--\"The results of more recent and careful observations, amongst\nwhich we may notice those of Bennett, Von Baer, Sars and Burmeister, are\ndirectly opposed to the statement that water is thus ejected; and there\ncan now be no doubt that the appearance which has given rise to the idea\nis caused by the moisture with which the expelled breath is\nsupercharged, which condenses at once in the cold outer air, and forms a\ncloud or column of white vapour. It is possible indeed that if the\nanimal begins to 'blow' before its head is actually at the surface, the\nforce of the rushing air may drive up some little spray along with it,\nbut this is quite different from the notion that water is really\nexpelled from the nasal passages. We may add that on the only occasion\nwhen we ourselves witnessed the 'spouting' of a large whale we were much\nstruck with its resemblance to the column of white spray which is dashed\nup by the ricochetting ball fired from one of the great guns of a\nman-of-war.\"\n\nThe simile is admirable, and nothing could better describe the\nappearance of a whale's \"spout\"; but, in the previous portion of the\npassage (except with reference to the sperm whale, the nostrils of which\nare not on the top of the head), I think sufficient importance is not\nconceded to the volume of water propelled into the air by the outrush of\nbreath from the submerged blow-hole. I do not know how many cubic feet\nof air the lungs of a great whale are capable of containing, but the\nquantity is sufficient to force up to a height of several feet the water\nabove the valve when the latter is opened, not only in \"some little\nspray,\" but, for some distance in a good solid jet--enough, in fact, to\ngive the appearance of its actually issuing from the blow-hole, and to\naccount for the erroneous belief of sailors that it does so. It must be\nremembered that the escape of air is not by a prolonged wheeze, but by a\nsudden blast, and thus when the spiracle is opened just beneath the\nsurface, an instant before it is uncovered to take in a fresh supply of\nair, the water above its orifice is thrown up as by a slight subaqueous\nexplosion, or as by the momentary opening under water of the\nsafety-valve of a steam boiler. Some idea of the force and volume of the\nblast of air from the lungs of even the common porpoise may be formed\nwhen I mention that one of the porpoises at the Brighton Aquarium,\nhappening to open its spiracle just beneath an illuminating gas jet\nfixed over its tank, blew out the light.\n\nIn the sperm whale the nostrils are placed near the extremity of the\nnose, and therefore this whale has to raise its snout above the surface\nwhen it requires to breathe; but instead of this being necessary, as in\nthe case of the porpoise twice or thrice in a minute, the sperm whale\nonly rises to \"blow\" at intervals of from an hour to an hour and twenty\nminutes. Mr. Beale says[74] that in a large bull sperm whale the time\nconsumed in making one expiration and one inspiration is ten seconds,\nduring six of which the nostril is beneath the surface of the water--the\nexpiration occupying three seconds, and the inspiration one second. At\neach breathing time this whale makes from sixty to seventy expirations,\nand remains, therefore, at the surface ten or eleven minutes, and then,\nraising its tail, it descends perpendicularly, head first. In different\nindividuals the time required for performing these several acts varies;\nbut in each they are minutely regular, and this well-known regularity is\nof considerable use to the fishers, for when a whaler has once noticed\nthe periods of any particular whale which is not alarmed, he knows to a\nminute when to expect it to come to the surface, and how long it will\nremain there. The \"spout\" of the sperm whale differs much from that of\nother whales. Unlike, for instance, the straight perpendicular twin jets\nof the \"right whale,\" the single, forward-slanting \"spout\" of the sperm\nwhale presents a thick curled bush of white mist. Each whale has a\ndifferent mode and time of breathing, and the form of the \"spout\"\ndiffers accordingly.\n\n [74] 'Natural History of the Sperm Whale.' Van Voorst, 1839.\n\nIt is said that the blowing of the _Beluga_, or \"White Whale,\" is not\nunmusical at sea, and that when it takes place under water it often\nmakes a peculiar sound which might be mistaken for the whistling of a\nbird. Hence is derived one of the names given to this whale by\nsailors--the \"Sea-canary.\" Though I have had opportunities of\nattentively watching the breathing and other actions in captivity of two\nspecimens of this whale I have never been able to detect the sound\nalluded to.\n\nBesides the opinions cited by Mr. Bell concerning whales spouting water\nfrom their blow-holes, we have other evidence which is most clear and\ndefinite, and which ought to be convincing.\n\nWe will take first that of Mr. Beale, who as surgeon on board the\n\"Kent\" and \"Sarah and Elizabeth,\" South Sea whalers, passed several\nseasons amongst sperm whales. He says:--\"I can truly say when I find\nmyself in opposition to these old and received notions, that out of the\nthousands of sperm whales which I have seen during my wanderings in the\nSouth and North Pacific Oceans, I have never observed one of them to\neject a column of water from the nostril. I have seen them at a\ndistance, and I have been within a few yards of several hundreds of\nthem, and I never saw water pass from the spout-hole. But the column of\nthick and dense vapour which is certainly ejected is exceedingly likely\nto mislead the judgment of the casual observer in these matters; and\nthis column does indeed appear very much like a jet of water when seen\nat the distance of one or two miles on a clear day, because of the\ncondensation of the vapour which takes place the moment it escapes from\nthe nostril, and its consequent opacity, which makes it appear of a\nwhite colour, and which is not observed when the whale is close to the\nspectator. It then appears only like a jet of white steam. The only\nwater in addition is the small quantity that may be lodged in the\nexternal fissure of the spout hole, when the animal raises it above the\nsurface to breathe, and which is blown up into the air with the 'spout,'\nand may probably assist in condensing the vapour of which it is\nformed.... I have been also very close to the _Balaena mysticetus_ (the\nGreenland, or Right whale) when it has been feeding and breathing, and\nyet I never saw even that animal differ in the latter respect from the\nsperm whale in the nature of the spout.... If the weather is fine and\nclear, and there is a gentle breeze at the time, the spout may be seen\nfrom the masthead of a moderate-sized vessel at the distance of four or\nfive miles.\"\n\nCaptain Scoresby, who was a veteran and successful whaler, a good\nzoologist, and a highly intelligent observer, says:--\"A moist vapour\nmixed with mucus is discharged from the nostrils when the animal\nbreathes; but no water accompanies it unless an expiration of the breath\nbe made under the surface.\"\n\nDr. Robert Brown, who communicated to the Zoological Society, in May,\n1868, a valuable series of observations on the mammals of Greenland,\nmade during his voyages to the Spitzbergen, Iceland, and Jan Mayen Seas,\nand along the eastern and western shores of Davis's Strait and Baffin's\nBay to near the mouth of Smith's Sound, remarks, in a chapter on the\nRight whale (_Balaena mysticetus_):--\"The 'blowing,' so familiar a\nfeature of the _Cetacea_, but especially of the _Mysticetus_ is, quite\nanalogous to the breathing of the higher mammals, and the blow-holes are\nthe homologues of the nostrils. It is most erroneously stated that the\nwhale ejects water from the blow-holes. I have been many times only a\nfew feet from a whale when 'blowing,' and, though purposely observing\nit, could never see that it ejected from its nostrils anything but the\nordinary breath--a fact which might almost have been deduced from\nanalogy. In the cold arctic air this breath is generally condensed, and\nfalls upon those close at hand in the form of a dense spray which may\nhave led seamen to suppose that this vapour was originally ejected in\nthe form of water. Occasionally, when the whale blows just as it is\nrising out of or sinking in the sea, a little of the superincumbent\nwater may be forced upwards by the column of breath. When the whale is\nwounded in the lungs, or in any of the blood-vessels immediately\nsupplying them, blood, as might be expected, is ejected in the\ndeath-throes along with the breath. When the whaleman sees his prey\n'spouting red,' he concludes that its end is not far distant; it is then\nmortally wounded.\"\n\nCaptain F. C. Hall, the commander of the unfortunate \"Polaris\"\nExpedition, thus describes, in his 'Life with the Esquimaux,' the spout\nof a whale:--\"What this blowing is like,\" he says, \"may be described by\nasking if the reader has ever seen the smoke produced by the firing of\nan old-fashioned flint-lock. If so, then he may understand the 'blow' of\na whale--a flash in the pan and all is over.\"\n\nCaptain Scammon, an experienced American whaling captain, who, like\nScoresby, could wield well both harpoon and pen, in his fine work on\n'The Marine Mammals of the North-Western Coast of America,' writes to\nthe same effect.\n\nMr. Herman Melville, who is not a naturalist, but has served before the\nmast in a sperm-whaler and borne his part in all the hardships and\ndangers of the chase, writes, in his remarkable book, 'The Whale':--\"As\nfor this 'whale-spout' you might almost stand in it, and yet be\nundecided as to what it is precisely. Nor is it at all prudent for the\nhunter to be over curious respecting it. For, even when coming into\nslight contact with the outer vapoury shreds of the jet, which will\noften happen, your skin will feverishly smart from the acrimony of the\nthing so touching you. And I know one who, coming into still closer\ncontact with the spout--whether with some scientific object in view or\notherwise I cannot say--the skin peeled off from his cheek and arm.\nWherefore, among whalemen, the spout is deemed poisonous; they try to\nevade it. I have heard it said, and I do not much doubt it, that if the\njet were fairly spouted into your eyes it would blind you.\"\n\nThe only other eye-witness I will cite is Mr. Bartlett, of the\nZoological Gardens, whose experience and accuracy as an observer of the\nhabits of animals is unsurpassed. He spent an autumn holiday in\naccompanying the late Mr. Frank Buckland and his colleagues, Messrs.\nWalpole and Young, in a tour of inquiry into the condition of the\nherring fishery in Scotland. When the commissioners left Peterhead, he\nremained there for a few days as the guest of Captain David Gray, of the\nsteam whaler, \"Eclipse,\" and as it was reported that large whales had\nbeen seen in the offing, his host invited him to go in search of them,\nand pay them a visit in his steam-launch. When about twelve miles out,\nthey saw the whales, which were \"finners,\" at a distance of four or five\nmiles. Fourteen were counted--all large ones--some of which were seventy\nfeet in length. On approaching them the captain shut off steam, and the\nlaunch was allowed to float in amongst them. So close were they to the\nboat that it would not have been difficult to jump upon the back of one\nof them had that been desirable. Mr. Bartlett tells me that he was\ngreatly astonished by the immense force of the sudden outrush of air\nfrom their blow-holes, and the noise by which it was accompanied. He\nbelieves that the blast was strong enough to blow a man off the spiracle\nif he were seated on it. He authorizes me to say that having seen and\nwatched these whales under such favourable circumstances, he entirely\nagrees with all that I have here written concerning the so-called\n\"spout.\" The volume of hot, vaporous breath expelled is enormous, and\nthis is accompanied by no small quantity of water, forced up by it when\nthe blow-hole is opened below the surface.\n\nAn effect similar in appearance to the whale's spout is produced by the\nbreathing of the hippopotamus. When this great beast opens its nostrils\nbeneath the surface, water and spray are driven and scattered upward by\nthe force of the air, but, of course, do not issue from the nasal\npassages. I have, also, seen this effect produced, though in a less\ndegree, by the breathing of sea-lions.\n\nI repeat, therefore, that not a drop of sea-water enters or passes out\nof the blow-hole of a whale. If the spiracle valve were in a condition\nto allow it to do so the animal would soon be drowned. Everyone knows\nthe extreme irritation and the horrible feeling of suffocation caused to\na human being, whilst eating or drinking, by a crumb or a little liquid\n\"going the wrong way\"--that is, being accidentally drawn to the\nair-passages instead of passing to the oesophagus. If water were to\nenter the bronchi of a whale it would instantly produce similar\ndiscomfort.\n\nThe neck of a popular error is hard to break; but it is time that one\nso palpable as that concerning the \"spouting\" of whales should cease to\nbe promulgated and disseminated by fanciful illustrations of instructive\nbooks.\n\n\n\n\nTHE \"SAILING\" OF THE NAUTILUS.\n\n\nOne of the prettiest fables of the sea is that relating to the Paper\nNautilus, the constructor and inhabitant of the delicate and beautiful\nshell which looks as if it were made of ivory no thicker than a sheet of\nwriting paper.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 27.--THE PAPER NAUTILUS (_Argonauta argo_) SAILING.]\n\nIt is an old belief that in calm weather it rises from the bottom of\nthe sea, and, elevating its two broadly-expanded arms, spreads to the\ngentle air, as a sail, the membrane, light as a spider's web, by which\nthey are united; and that, seated in its boat-like shell, it thus floats\nover the smooth surface of the ocean, steering and paddling with its\nother arms. Should storm arise or danger threaten, its masts and sail\nare lowered, its oars laid in, and the frail craft, filling with water,\nsinks gently beneath the waves.\n\nWhen and where this picturesque idea originated I am unable to discover.\nIt dates far back beyond the range of history; for Aristotle mentions\nit, and, unfortunately, sanctioned it. With the weight of his honoured\nname in its favour, this fallacy has maintained its place in popular\nbelief, even to our own times; for the mantle of the great father of\nnatural history, who was generally so marvellously correct, fell on none\nof his successors; Pliny, and AElian, and the tribe of compilers who\nsucceeded them, having been more concerned to make their histories\nsensational than to verify their statements.\n\nNaturally, the Paper Nautilus has been the subject of many a poet's\nverses. Oppian wrote of it in his 'Halieutics':--\n\n \"Sail-fish in secret, silent deeps reside,\n In shape and nature to the preke[75] allied;\n Close in their concave shells their bodies wrap,\n Avoid the waves and every storm escape.\n But not to mirksome depths alone confined;\n When pleasing calms have stilled the sighing wind,\n Curious to know what seas above contain,\n They leave the dark recesses of the main;\n Now, wanton, to the changing surface haste,\n View clearer skies, and the pure welkin taste.\n But slow they, cautious, rise, and, prudent, fear\n The upper region of the watery sphere;\n Backward they mount, and as the stream o'erflows,\n Their convex shells to pressing floods oppose.\n Conscious, they know that, should they forward move,\n O'erwhelming waves would sink them from above,\n Fill the void space, and with the rushing weight,\n Force down th' inconstants to their former seat.\n When, first arrived, they feel the stronger blast,\n They lie supine and skim the liquid waste.\n The natural barks out-do all human art\n When skilful floaters play the sailor's part.\n Two feet they upward raise, and steady keep;\n These are the masts and rigging of the ship:\n A membrane stretch'd between supplies the sail,\n Bends from the masts, and swells before the gale.\n Two other feet hang paddling on each side,\n And serve for oars to row and helm to guide.\n 'Tis thus they sail, pleased with the wanton game,\n The fish, the sailor, and the ship, the same.\n But when the swimmers dread some dangers near\n The sportive pleasure yields to stronger fear.\n No more they, wanton, drive before the blasts,\n But strike the sails, and bring down all the masts;\n The rolling waves their sinking shells o'erflow,\n And dash them down again to sands below.\"\n\n [75] The octopus.\n\nMontgomery also thus exquisitely paraphrases the same idea in his\n'Pelican Island':--\n\n \"Light as a flake of foam upon the wind,\n Keel upwards, from the deep emerged a shell,\n Shaped like the moon ere half her orb is filled.\n Fraught with young life, it righted as it rose,\n And moved at will along the yielding water.\n The native pilot of this little bark\n Put out a tier of oars on either side,\n Spread to the wafting breeze a twofold sail,\n And mounted up, and glided down, the billows\n In happy freedom, pleased to feel the air,\n And wander in the luxury of light.\"\n\nByron mentions the Nautilus in his 'Mutiny of the Bounty' as follows:--\n\n \"The tender Nautilus, who steers his prow,\n The sea-born sailor of his shell canoe,\n The ocean Mab--the fairy of the sea,\n Seems far less fragile, and alas! more free.\n He, when the lightning-winged tornadoes sweep\n The surge, is safe: his port is in the deep;\n And triumphs o'er the armadas of mankind\n Which shake the world, yet crumble in the wind.\"\n\nThe very names by which this animal is known to the science which some\npersons erroneously think must be so hard and dry are poetic. In\nAristotle's day it was called the _Nautilus_ or _Nauticus_, \"the\nmariner,\" and though two thousand two hundred years have passed since\nthe great master wrote, the name still clings to it. As the Pearly\nNautilus, a very different animal, also bears that name, Gualtieri\nperceived the necessity of distinguishing the Paper Nautilus from it,\nand was followed by Linnaeus, who therefore entitled the genus to which\nthe latter belongs, _Argonauta_, after the ship _Argo_, in which Jason\nand his companions sailed to Colchis to carry off the \"Golden Fleece\"\nsuspended there in the temple of Mars, and guarded by brazen-hoofed\nbulls, whose nostrils breathed out fire and death, and by a watchful\ndragon that never slept. According to the Greek legend, the _Argo_ was\nnamed after its builder Argus, the son of Danaus, and was the first ship\nthat ever was built. Oppian ('Halieutics,' book I.) expresses his\nopinion that the Nautilus served as a model for the man who first\nconceived the idea of constructing a ship, and embarking on the\nwaters:--\n\n \"Ye Powers! when man first felled the stately trees,\n And passed to distant shores on wafting seas,\n Whether some god inspired the wondrous thought,\n Or chance found out, or careful study sought;\n If humble guess may probably divine,\n And trace th' improvement to the first design,\n Some wight of prying search, who wond'ring stood\n When softer gales had smoothed the dimpled flood,\n Observed these careless swimmers floating move,\n And how each blast the easy sailor drove;\n Hence took the hint, hence formed th' imperfect draught,\n And ship-like fish the future seaman taught.\n Then mortals tried the shelving hull to slope,\n To raise the mast, and twist the stronger rope,\n To fix the yards, let fly the crowded sails,\n Sweep through the curling waves, and court auspicious gales.\"\n\nPope, too, in his 'Essay on Man' (Ep. 3), adopted the idea in his\nexhortation--\n\n \"Learn of the little Nautilus to sail,\n Spread the thin oar, and catch the driving gale.\"\n\nPoetry, like the wizard's spell, can make\n\n \"A nutshell seem a gilded barge,\n A sheeling seem a palace large,\"\n\nbut the equally enchanting wand of science is able by a touch to dispel\nthe illusion, and cause the object to appear in its true proportions. So\nwith the fiction of the \"Paper Sailor.\"\n\nI have elsewhere described the affinities of the Nautili and their place\nin nature, therefore it will only be necessary for me here to allude to\nthese very briefly, to explain the great and essential difference that\nexists between the two kinds of Nautilus which are popularly regarded as\nbeing one and the same animal.\n\nThe _Pearly_ Nautilus (_Nautilus pompilius_) and the Argonaut, which\nfrom having a fragile shell of somewhat similar external form is called\nthe _Paper_ Nautilus, both belong to that great primary group of animals\nknown as the _Mollusca_, and to the class of it called the\n_Cephalopoda_, from their having their head in the middle of that which\nis the foot in other mollusks. In the Cephalopoda the foot is split or\ndivided into eight segments in some families, and in others into ten\nsegments, which radiate from the central head, like so many rays. These\nrays are not only used as feet, but, being highly flexible, are adapted\nfor employment also as prehensile arms, with which their owner captures\nits prey, and they are rendered more perfect for this purpose by being\nfurnished with suckers which hold firmly to any surface to which they\nare applied. The Cephalopods which have the foot divided into ten of\nthese segments or arms are called the _Decapoda_, those which have only\neight of them are called the _Octopoda_. All of these have _two_\nplume-like gills--one on each side--and so are called _Dibranchiata_;\nand in the eight-armed section of these is the argonaut or Paper\nNautilus. Of the Pearly Nautilus and the four-gilled order I shall have\nmore to say by-and-by: at present we will follow the history of the\nargonaut.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 28--THE PAPER NAUTILUS (_Argonauta argo_) RETRACTED\nWITHIN ITS SHELL.]\n\nNotwithstanding all that has been written of it, it is only within the\nlast fifty years that this has been correctly understood. An eight-armed\ncuttle was recognised and named _Ocythoe_, which, instead of having,\nlike the common octopus, all of its eight arms thong-like and tapering\nto a point, had the two dorsal limbs flattened into a broad thin\nmembrane. Although this animal was sometimes seen dead without any\ncovering, it was generally found contained in a thin and slightly\nelastic univalve shell of graceful form, and bearing some resemblance to\nan elegantly shaped boat. It did not penetrate to the bottom of this\nshell; it was not attached to it by any muscular ligament, nor was the\nshell moulded on its body, nor apparently made to fit it. Hence it was\nlong regarded as doubtful, and even by naturalists so recent and eminent\nas Dumeril and De Blainville, whether the octopod really secreted the\nshell, or whether, like the hermit-crab, it borrowed for its protection\nthe shell of some other mollusk. Aristotle left the subject with the\nfaithful acknowledgment: \"As to the origin and growth of this shell\nnothing is yet exactly determined. It appears to be produced like other\nshells; but even this is not evident, any more than it is whether the\nanimal can live without it.\" Pliny, as usual, instead of throwing light\non the matter, obscured it. He regarded the shell as the property of a\ngasteropod like the snail, and the octopod as an amateur yachtsman who\noccasionally went on board and took a trip in the frail craft, and\nassisted its owner to navigate it for the fun of the thing. This is what\nhe says about it[76]: \"Mutianus reports that he saw in the Propontis a\nshell formed like a little ship, having the poop turned up and the prow\npointed. An animal called the _Nauplius_, resembling an octopus, was\nenclosed in the shell with its owner, for its amusement in the following\nmanner. When the sea is calm the guest lowers his arms, and uses them as\noars and a helm, whilst the owner of the shell expands himself to catch\nthe wind; so that one has the pleasure of carrying and sailing, and the\nother of steering. Thus, these two otherwise senseless animals take\ntheir pleasure together; but the meeting them sailing in their shell is\na bad omen for mariners, and foretells some great calamity.\"\n\n [76] Naturalis Historia, lib. ix. cap. 30.\n\nAlthough the animal was never found in any other shell, and the shell\nwas never known to contain any other animal, and though, when the shell\nand the animal were found together they were always of proportionate\nsize, this octopod, as I have said, was looked upon by some\nconchologists as a pirate who had taken possession of a ship which did\nnot belong to him, until Madame Jeannette Power, a French lady then\nresiding in Messina, having succeeded in keeping alive for a time an\nargonaut the shell of which had been broken in its capture, discovered\nthat the animal quickly repaired the fracture, and reproduced the\nportions that had been broken off. Induced by this to make further\nexperiments, she kept a number of living argonauts in cages sunk in the\nsea near the citadel of Messina, and in 1836 laid before the \"Academy\"\nat Catania the following results of her observations of them:--\n\n1st. That the argonaut constructs the shell which it inhabits.\n\n2nd. That it quits the egg entirely naked, and forms the shell after its\nbirth.\n\n3rd. That it can repair its shell, if necessary, by a fresh deposit of\nmaterial having the same chemical composition as its original shell.\n\n4th. That this material is secreted by the palmate, or sail, arms, and\nis laid on the outside of the shell, to the exterior of which these\nmembranous arms are closely applied.\n\nMadame Power was mistaken on two points. Firstly, the construction of\nthe shell does not commence after the birth of the animal, but, as has\nbeen shown by M. Duvernoy, its rudimentary form is distinctly visible by\nthe aid of the microscope in the embryo, whilst still in the egg; and\nsecondly, she continued to believe in the use of the membranous arms as\nsails, and of the others as oars. This fallacy was exploded by Captain\nSander Rang, an officer of the French navy, and \"port-captain\" at\nAlgiers, who carefully followed up Madame Power's experiments, and\nconfirmed the more important of them. Thus were set at rest questions\nwhich for centuries had divided the opinions of zoologists.\n\nThe \"Paper Nautilus\" is, in fact, a female octopod provided with a\nportable nest, in which to carry about and protect her eggs, instead of\nbrooding over them in some cranny of a rock, or within the recesses of a\npile of shells, as does her cousin the octopus. From the membranes of\nthe two flattened and expanded arms she secretes and, if necessary,\nrepairs her shell, and by applying them closely to its outer surface on\neach side, holds herself within it, for it is not fastened to her body\nby any attaching muscles. When disturbed or in danger she can loosen her\nhold, and, leaving her cradle, swim away independently of it. It has\nbeen said that, having once left it, she has not the ability nor perhaps\nthe sagacity to re-enter her nest, and resume the guardianship of her\neggs.[77] From my own observations of the breeding habits of other\noctopods I think this most improbable. The use and purpose of the shell\nof the argonaut will be better understood if I briefly describe what I\nhave witnessed of the treatment of its eggs by its near relative, the\noctopus.\n\n [77] Appendix to Sir Edward Belcher's 'Voyage of the \"Samarang,\"'\n by Mr. Arthur Adams, assistant surgeon to the expedition.\n\n\"The eggs of the octopus,\" as I have elsewhere said, \"when first laid,\nare small, oval, translucent granules, resembling little grains of rice,\nnot quite an eighth of an inch long. They grow along and around a common\nstalk, to which every egg is separately attached, as grapes form part of\na bunch. Each of the elongated bunches is affixed by a glutinous\nsecretion to the surface of a rock or stone (never to seaweed, as has\nbeen erroneously stated), and hangs pendent by its stalk in a long white\ncluster, like a magnified catkin of the filbert, or, to use Aristotle's\nsimile, like the fruit of the white alder. The length and number of\nthese bunches varies according to the size and condition of the parent.\nThose produced by a small octopus are seldom more than about three\ninches long, and from twelve to twenty in number; but a full-grown\nfemale will deposit from forty to fifty of such clusters, each about\nfive inches in length. I have counted the eggs of which these clusters\nare composed, and find that there are about a thousand in each: so that\na large octopus produces in one laying, usually extended over three\ndays, a progeny of from 40,000 to 50,000. I have seen an octopus, when\nundisturbed, pass one of her arms beneath the hanging bunches of her\neggs, and, dilating the membrane on each side of it into a boat-shaped\nhollow, gather and receive them in it as in a trough or cradle which\nexhibited in its general shape and outline a remarkable similarity to\nthe shell of the argonaut, with the eggs of which octopod its own are\nalmost identical in form and appearance. Then she would caress and\ngently rub them, occasionally turning towards them the mouth of her\nflexible exhalent and locomotor tube, like the nozzle of a fireman's\nhose-pipe, so as to direct upon them a jet of the excurrent water. I\nbelieve that the object of this syringing process is to free the eggs\nfrom parasitic animalcules, and possibly to prevent the growth of\nconferva, which, I have found, rapidly overspreads those removed from\nher attention.\"[78]\n\n [78] 'The Octopus,' 1873, p. 57.\n\nIt has been suggested that the syringing may be for the purpose of\nkeeping the water surrounding the eggs well aerated; but this is\nevidently erroneous, for the water ejected from the tube has been\npreviously deprived of its oxygen, and consequently of its health-giving\nproperties, whilst passing over the gills of the parent. Week after\nweek, for fifty days, a brooding octopus will continue to attend to her\neggs with the most watchful and assiduous care, seldom leaving them for\nan instant except to take food, which, without a brief abandonment of\nher position, would be beyond her reach. Aristotle asserted that while\nthe female is incubating she takes no food. This is incorrect; but in\nevery case of the kind that has come under my observation the mother\noctopod, whenever she has been obliged to leave her nest, has returned\nto it as quickly as possible; and so I believe can, and does, the female\nargonaut to her shell, and that, too, without any difficulty. In her\ncase the numerous clusters of eggs are all united at their origin to one\nslender and tapering stalk which is fixed by a spot of glutinous matter\nto the body-whorl of the spiral shell.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 29.--THE PAPER NAUTILUS (_Argonauta argo_)\nCRAWLING.]\n\nThis \"paper-sailor,\" then, whom the poets have regarded as endowed with\nso much grace and beauty, and living in luxurious ease, is but a fine\nlady octopus after all. Turn her out of her handsome residence, and,\ninstead of the fairy skimmer of the seas, you have before you an object\napparently as free from loveliness and romance as her sprawling,\nuncanny-looking, relative. Instead of floating in her pleasure boat over\nthe surface of the sea, the argonaut ordinarily crawls along the bottom,\ncarrying her shell above her, keel uppermost; and the broad extremities\nof the two arms are not hoisted as sails, nor allowed when at rest to\ndangle over the side of the \"boat;\" but are used as a kind of hood by\nwhich the animal retains the shell in its proper position, as a man\nbearing a load on his shoulders holds it with his hands. When she comes\nto the surface, or progresses by swimming instead of walking, she does\nso in the same manner as the octopus: namely, by the forcible expulsion\nof water from her funnel-like tube.\n\nBut if truth compels us to deprive her of the counterfeit halo conferred\non her by poets, we can award her, on behalf of science, a far nobler\ncrown; namely, that of the Queen of the whole great Invertebrate Animal\nKingdom. For, the _Cephalopoda_, of which the argonaut is a highly\norganised member, are not only the highest in their own division, the\n_Mollusca_, but they are as far superior to all other animals which have\nno backbones, as man stands lord and king over all created beings that\npossess them.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 30.--THE PAPER NAUTILUS (_Argonauta argo_)\nSWIMMING.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 31.--SHELL OF THE PAPER NAUTILUS (_Argonauta\nargo_).]\n\nAlthough in outward shape the spiral shell of the Pearly Nautilus\n(_Nautilus pompilius_) somewhat resembles that of the argonaut, its\ninternal structure is very different. A section of it shows that it is\ndivided into several chambers, each of which is partitioned off from the\nadjoining ones, the last formed or external one, in which the animal\nlives, being much larger than the rest. The object and mode of\nconstruction of these chambers is as follows. As the animal grows, a\nconstant secretion of new material takes place on the edge of the shell.\nBy this unceasing process of the addition of new shell in the form of a\ncircular curve or coil around the older portion, the whole rapidly\nincreases in size, both in diameter, and in the length of the chamber.\nThe Nautilus, requiring to keep the secreting portion of its mantle\napplied to the lip of the shell, finds the chamber in which it dwells\ngradually becoming inconveniently long for it, and therefore builds up a\nwall behind itself, and continues its work of enlarging its premises in\nfront. Each of these walls, concave in front, towards the mouth of the\nshell, and concave behind, acts as a strong girder and support of the\narch of the shell against the inward pressure of deep water: and it was\nformerly supposed that each successive chamber so constructed and\nvacated remained filled with air, and _thus_ became an additional float\nby which the constantly increasing weight of the growing shell was\ncounter-balanced. By this beautiful adjustment of augmented floating\npower to increased weight, the buoyancy of the shell would be secured\nand its specific gravity maintained as nearly as possible equal to that\nof the surrounding water. This adjustment does probably take place, but\nin a somewhat different manner. As the Nautilus inhabits a depth of from\ntwenty to forty fathoms, it is evident that the air within its shell\nwould be displaced by the pressure of such a column of water.[79]\nAccordingly, in every instance of the capture of a Nautilus the chambers\nof its shell have been found filled with water. It is not improbable\nthat the fluid they contain may be less compressed, and exert less\npressure from within outwards than that of the external superincumbent\ncolumn of water, and that by this unbalanced pressure--under the same\nhydro-dynamic law which governs its mode of self-propulsion when\nswimming, and possibly in some degree within the control of the\nanimal--the latter is relieved of much of the weight of its shell. When\nthe Nautilus is at the bottom of the sea its movement is like that of a\nsnail crawling along upon the ground with its shell above it. The shell,\nin proportion to the size of the animal that inhabits it, is a heavy\none, and unless it were rendered semi-buoyant, its owner's strength\nwould be severely taxed by the effort to drag it along. By the means\nindicated this portable domicile is borne lightly above the body of the\nNautilus, without in any way impeding its progress.\n\n [79] \"At 100 fathoms the pressure exceeds 265 lbs. to the square\n inch. Empty bottles, securely corked, and sunk with weights beyond\n 100 fathoms, are always crushed. If filled with liquid the cork is\n driven in, and the liquid replaced by salt water; and in drawing\n the bottle up again the cork is returned to the neck of the bottle,\n generally in a reversed position.\"--Sir F. Beaufort, quoted by Dr.\n S. P. Woodward in his 'Manual of the Mollusca.'\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 32.--SHELL OF THE PEARLY NAUTILUS (_Nautilus\npompilius_).]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 33.--THE PEARLY NAUTILUS (_Nautilus pompilius_), AND\nSECTION OF ITS SHELL. _After Professor Owen._\n\n_a a_, Partitions; _b b_, chambers; _b'_, the last-formed chamber, in\nwhich the animal lives; _c c_, the siphuncle; _d_, attaching muscle; _e\ne_, the hollow arms; _f f_, retractile tentacles; _g_, muscular disk, or\nfoot; _h_, the eye; _i_, position of funnel.]\n\nThe chambers are all connected by a membranous tube slightly coated with\nnacre, which is connected with a large sac in the body of the animal,\nnear the heart, and passes through a circular orifice and a short\nprojecting tube in the centre of each partition wall, till it ends in\nthe smallest chamber at the inner extremity of the shell. Dean Buckland\nbelieved this \"syphon\" to be an hydraulic apparatus acting as a \"fine\nadjustment\" of the specific gravity of the shell, by admitting water\nwithin it when expanded, and excluding it when contracted. As it\ncontains an artery and vein near its origin at the mantle, Professor\nOwen has regarded it as subservient to the maintenance of a low vitality\nin the vacated portion of the shell. Dr. Henry Woodward is of the\nopinion that, whilst in the early life of the Nautilus this siphuncle\nforms the main point of attachment between the animal and its shell, it\nis in the adult \"simply an aborted embryonal organ whose function is now\nfilled by the shell-muscles, but which in the more ancient and\nstraight-shelled representatives of the group (the Orthoceratites) was\nnot merely an embryonal but an important organ in the adult.\"\n\nEvery one knows the shell of the Pearly Nautilus. It may be purchased\nat any shell-shop in a seaside watering-place, and is imported by\nhundreds every year from Singapore.[80] It is abundant in the waters of\nthe Indian Archipelago, especially about the Molucca and Philippine\nIslands, and on the shores of New Caledonia and the Fiji and Solomon\nIslands. It has also been found alive on Pemba Island, near Zanzibar. It\nseems strange, therefore, that until about half a century ago hardly\nanything was known of the animal that secretes and inhabits it.\nRumphius, a Dutch naturalist, in his 'Rarities of Amboyna,' published,\nin 1705, a description of one with an engraving, incorrect in drawing,\nand deficient in detail; and until 1832 this was the only information\nwhich existed concerning it. The great Cuvier never saw one, and being\nacquainted only with the two-gilled cephalopods, he regarded the\nhead-footed mollusks as absolutely isolated from all other animals in\nthe kingdom of nature, even from the other classes of the mollusca. It\nseemed, however, to Professor Owen, then only nineteen years of age,\nthat in the only living representative of the four-gilled order,\n_Nautilus pompilius_, might be found the \"missing link.\" When,\ntherefore, in the year 1824, his fellow-student, Mr. George Bennett, was\nabout to sail from England to the Polynesian Islands, young Richard Owen\nearnestly charged his friend to do his utmost to obtain, and bring home\nin alcohol, a specimen of the much-coveted Pearly Nautilus. The\nopportunity did not occur till one warm and calm Monday evening, the\n24th of August, 1829, when a living Nautilus was seen at the surface of\nthe water not far distant from the ship, in Marekini Bay, on the\nsouth-west coast of the Island of Erromango, New Hebrides, in the South\nPacific Ocean. It looked like a dead tortoise-shell cat, as the sailors\nsaid. As it began to sink as soon as it was observed, it was struck at\nwith a boat-hook, and was thus so much injured that it died shortly\nafter being taken on board the ship. The shell was destroyed, but the\nsoft body of the animal was preserved in spirits, and great was the joy\nof Mr. Owen when, in July, 1831, Mr. Bennett arrived with it in England,\nand presented it to the Royal College of Surgeons. Mr. Owen was then\nAssistant-Conservator of the Museum of the College under Mr. Clift, who\nwas afterwards his father-in-law. He immediately commenced to anatomise,\ndescribe, and figure his rare acquisition, and in the early part of 1832\npublished the result of his work in the form of a masterly treatise,\nwhich proved to be the foundation of his future fame.[81]\n\n [80] I need hardly say that before the nacreous layer of the shell\n from which this animal takes its name is made visible, an outer\n deposit of dense calcareous matter has to be removed by\n hydrochloric acid: the pearly surface thus exposed is then easily\n polished.\n\n [81] It is so interesting to most of us to know something of the\n early work of our greatest men, and of the tide in their affairs,\n which, taken at the flood, led on to fortune, that I hope I may be\n excused for referring to the period when the distinguished chief of\n the Natural History Department of the British Museum, the great\n comparative anatomist, the unrivalled palaeontologist, the\n illustrious physiologist, the venerable and venerated friend of all\n earnest students, was beginning to attract the attention, and to\n receive the approbation of his seniors as a promising young worker.\n In Messrs. Griffith and Pidgeon's Supplement to Cuvier's 'Mollusca\n and Radiata,' published in 1834, the treatise in question is thus\n mentioned: \"We have much pleasure in referring to a most excellent\n memoir on _Nautilus pompilius_, by Mr. Owen, with elaborate figures\n of the animal, its shell, and various parts, published by direction\n of the Council of the College of Surgeons. The reader will find the\n most satisfactory information on the subject, and the scientific\n public will earnestly hope that the present volume will be the\n first of a similar series.\" This hope has been more than fulfilled.\n Dean Buckland, in his 'Bridgewater Treatise,' wrote of this work:\n \"I rejoice in the present opportunity of bearing testimony to the\n value of Professor Owen's highly philosophical and most admirable\n memoir--a work not less creditable to the author than honourable to\n the Royal College of Surgeons, under whose auspices the publication\n has been so handsomely conducted.\"\n\nMr. Owen's investigations confirmed his previous supposition that the\nPearly Nautilus is inferior in its organisation to octopus, sepia, or\nany other known cephalopod; that it is not isolated, but that it recedes\ntowards the gasteropods, to which belong the snail, the periwinkle, &c.,\nand that in some of its characters its structure is analogously related\nto the still lower _annulosa_, or worms. Mr. Owen was just about to\nstart for Paris with the intention of presenting a copy of his book to\nhis celebrated contemporary and friend, and of showing him his\ndissections of the Nautilus which had been the subject of his research,\nwhen he heard of Baron Cuvier's death. It must have been to him a great\nsorrow and a grievous disappointment.\n\nThe Pearly Nautilus, then, is a true cephalopod, in that it has its foot\ndivided and arranged in segments around its head, but the form and\nnumber of these segments are very different from those of any other of\nits class. Instead of there being eight, as in the argonaut and octopus,\nor ten, as in sepia and the calamaries, the Nautilus has about ninety\nprojecting in every direction from around the mouth. They are short,\nround, and tapering, of about the length and thickness of the fingers of\na child. Some of them are retractile into sheaths, and they are attached\nto fleshy processes (which might represent the child's hand), overlying\neach other, and covering the mouth on each side. They have none of the\nsuckers with which the arms and tentacles of all the other cuttles are\nfurnished, but their annulose structure, like the rings of an\nearthworm's body, gives them some little prehensile power. None of these\nnumerous finger-like segments of the foot are flattened out like the\nbroad membranous expansions of the argonaut, and, in fact, the Nautilus\nis without any members which can possibly be regarded as sails to hoist,\nor as oars with which to row. It has a strong beak, like the rest of the\ncuttles; but it has no ink-sac, for its shell is strong enough to afford\nit the protection which its two-gilled relatives have to seek in\nconcealment.\n\nThe Pearly Nautilus usually creeps, like a snail, along the bed of the\nsea. It lives at the bottom, and feeds at the bottom, principally on\ncrabs; and, as Dr. S. P. Woodward says, in his 'Manual of the Mollusca,'\n\"perhaps often lies in wait for them, like some gigantic sea-anemone,\nwith outspread tentacles.\" The shape of its shell is not well adapted\nfor swimming, but it can ascend to the surface, if it so please, in the\nsame manner as can all the cuttles--namely, by the outflow of water from\nits locomotor tube. The statement that it visits the surface of the sea\nof its own accord is at present, however, unconfirmed by observation.\n\nBut, if the Pearly Nautilus is the inferior and poor relation of the\nargonaut, it lives in a handsome house, and comes of an ancient lineage.\nThe Ammonites, whose beautiful whorled and chambered shells, and the\ncasts of them, are so abundant in every stratum, especially in the lias,\nthe chalk, and the oolite, had four gills also. These Ammonites and the\nNautili were amongst the earliest occupants of the ancient deep; and,\nwith the Hamites, Turrilites, and others, lived upon our earth during a\ngreat portion of the incalculable period which has elapsed since it\nbecame fitted for animal existence, and in their time witnessed the rise\nand fall of many an animal dynasty. But they are gone now; and only the\nfossil relics of more than two thousand species (of which 188 were\nNautili) remain to tell how important a race they were amongst the\ninhabitants of the old world seas. They and their congeners of the\nchambered shells, however, left one representative which has lived on\nthrough all the changes that have taken place on the surface of this\nglobe since they became extinct--namely, _Nautilus pompilius_, the\nNautilus of the pearly shell--the last of the Tetrabranchs.\n\nI need offer no apology for endeavouring to explain the difference\nbetween the Nautilus of the chambered shell and the argonaut with the\nmembranous arms which it was supposed to use as sails, when Webster, in\nhis great standard dictionary, describes the one and figures the other\nas one and the same animal; and when a writer of the celebrity of Dr.\nOliver Wendell Holmes also blends the two in the following poem,\ncontaining a sentiment as exquisite as its science is erroneous. I hope\nthe latter distinguished and accomplished author, whose delightful\nwritings I enjoy and highly appreciate, will pardon my criticism. I\nadmit that the beauty of the thought might well atone for its\ninaccuracy, (of which the author is conscious,) were it not that the\nlatter is made so attractive that truth appears harsh in disturbing it.\n\n \"THE CHAMBERED NAUTILUS.\"\n\n \"This is the ship of pearl, which poets feign\n Sails the unshadowed main,\n The venturous bark that flings\n On the sweet summer wind its purpled wings,\n In gulfs enchanted, where the siren sings,\n And coral reefs lie bare,\n Where the cold sea-maids rise to sun their streaming hair.\n\n Its webs of living gauze no more unfurl,\n Wrecked is the ship of pearl!\n And every chambered cell,\n Where its dim, dreaming life was wont to dwell,\n As the frail tenant shaped his growing shell,\n Before thee lies revealed,\n Its irised ceiling rent, its sunless crypt unsealed!\n\n Year after year beheld the silent toil\n That spread his lustrous coil;\n Still, as the spiral grew,\n He left the past year's dwelling for the new,\n Stole with soft step its shining archway through,\n Built up its idle door,\n Stretched in his last-found home, and knew the old no more.\n\n Thanks for the heavenly message brought by thee,\n Child of the wandering sea,\n Cast from her lap forlorn!\n From the dead lips a clearer note is born\n Than ever Triton blew from wreathed horn!\n While on mine ear it rings,\n Through the deep caves of thought I hear a voice that sings:--\n\n 'Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul,\n As the swift seasons roll!\n Leave thy low vaulted past;\n Let each new temple, nobler than the last,\n Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast,\n Till thou at length art free,\n Leaving thine outgrown shell by life's unresting sea.'\"\n\n\n\n\nBARNACLE GEESE--GOOSE BARNACLES.\n\n\nThe belief that some wild geese, instead of being hatched from eggs,\nlike other birds, grew on trees and rotten wood has never been surpassed\nas a specimen of ignorant credulity and persistent error.\n\nThere are two principal versions of this absurd notion. One is that\ncertain trees, resembling willows, and growing always close to the sea,\nproduced at the ends of their branches fruit in form like apples, and\neach containing the embryo of a goose, which, when the fruit was ripe,\nfell into the water and flew away. The other is that the geese were bred\nfrom a fungus growing on rotten timber floating at sea, and were first\ndeveloped in the form of worms in the substance of the wood.\n\nWhen and whence this improbable theory had its origin is uncertain.\nAristotle does not mention it, and consequently Pliny and AElian were\ndeprived of the pleasure they would have felt in handing down to\nposterity, without investigation or correction, a statement so\nsurprising. It is, comparatively, a modern myth; although we find that\nit was firmly established in the middle of the twelfth century, for\nGerald de Barri, known in literature as Giraldus Cambrensis, mentions it\nin his 'Topographia Hiberniae,' published in 1187. Giraldus, who was\nArchdeacon of Brecknock in the reign of Henry II., and tried hard, more\nthan once, for the bishopric of St. David's, the functions of which he\nhad temporarily administered without obtaining the title, was a vigorous\nand zealous reformer of Church abuses. Amongst the laxities of\ndiscipline against which he found it necessary to protest was the custom\nthen prevailing of eating these Barnacle geese during Lent, under the\nplea that their flesh was not that of birds, but of fishes. He writes:--\n\n \"There are here many birds which are called Bernacae, which nature\n produces in a manner contrary to nature, and very wonderful. They\n are like marsh-geese but smaller. They are produced from fir-timber\n tossed about at sea, and are at first like geese upon it.\n Afterwards they hang down by their beaks, as if from a sea-weed\n attached to the wood, and are enclosed in shells that they may grow\n the more freely. Having thus, in course of time, been clothed with\n a strong covering of feathers, they either fall into the water, or\n seek their liberty in the air by flight. The embryo geese derive\n their growth and nutriment from the moisture of the wood or of the\n sea, in a secret and most marvellous manner. I have seen with my\n own eyes more than a thousand minute bodies of these birds hanging\n from one piece of timber on the shore, enclosed in shells and\n already formed. Their eggs are not impregnated _in coitu_, like\n those of other birds, nor does the bird sit upon its eggs to hatch\n them, and in no corner of the world have they been known to build a\n nest. Hence the bishops and clergy in some parts of Ireland are in\n the habit of partaking of these birds on fast days, without\n scruple. But in doing so they are led into sin. For, if any one\n were to eat of the leg of our first parent, although he (Adam) was\n not born of flesh, that person could not be adjudged innocent of\n eating flesh.\"\n\nThis fable of the geese appears, however, to have been current at least\na hundred years before Giraldus wrote, for Professor Max Muller, who\ntreats of it in one of his \"Lectures on the Science of Language,\"\namongst many interesting references there given, quotes a Cardinal of\nthe eleventh century, Petrus Damianus, who clearly describes, that\nversion of it which represents the birds as bursting, when fully\nfledged, from fruit resembling apples.\n\nIt is a curious fact that these Barnacle geese have troubled the\npriesthood of more than one creed as to the instructions they should\ngive to the laity concerning the use of them as food. The Jews--all\nthose, at least, who maintain a strict observance of the Hebrew Law--eat\nno meat but that of animals which have been slaughtered in a certain\nprescribed manner; and a doubt arose amongst them at the period we refer\nto, whether these geese should be killed as flesh or as fish. Professor\nMax Muller cites Mordechai,[82] as asking whether these birds are\nfruits, fish, or flesh; that is, whether they must be killed in the\nJewish way, as if they were flesh. Mordechai describes them as birds\nwhich grow on trees, and says, \"the Rabbi Jehuda, of Worms (who died\n1216) used to say that he had heard from his father, Rabbi Samuel, of\nSpeyer (about 1150), that Rabbi Jacob Tham, of Rameru (who died 1171),\nthe grandson of the great Rabbi Rashi (about 1140), had decided that\nthey must be killed as flesh.\"\n\n [82] Riva, 1559, leaf 142.\n\nPope Innocent III. took the same view; for at the Lateran Council, in\n1215, he prohibited the eating of Barnacle geese during Lent. In 1277,\nRabbi Izaak, of Corbeil, determined to be on the safe side, forbade\naltogether the eating of these birds by the Jews, \"because they were\nneither flesh nor fish.\"\n\nMichael Bernhard Valentine,[83] quoting Wormius, says that this\nquestion caused much perplexity and disputation amongst the doctors of\nthe Sorbonne; but that they passed an ordinance that these geese should\nbe classed as fishes, and not as birds; and he adds, that in consequence\nof this decision large numbers of these birds were annually sent to\nParis from England and Scotland, for consumption in Lent. Sir Robert\nSibbald[84] refers to this, and says that Normandy was the locality from\nwhich the French capital was reported to be principally supplied; but\nthat in fact the greater number of these geese came from Holland. The\ndate of this edict is not given.\n\n [83] 'Historia Simplicium,' lib. iii. p. 327.\n\n [84] Prodrom. Hist. Nat. Scot. parts 2, lib. iii. p. 21, 1684.\n\nProfessor Max Muller says that in Brittany, Barnacle geese are still\nallowed to be eaten on Fridays, and that the Roman Catholic Bishop of\nFerns may give permission to people out of his diocese to eat these\nbirds at his table.\n\nIn Bombay, also, where fish is prohibited as food to some classes of the\npopulation, the priests call this goose a \"sea-vegetable,\" under which\nname it is allowed to be eaten.\n\nVarious localities were mentioned as the breeding-places of these\narboreal geese. Gervasius of Tilbury,[85] writing about 1211, describes\nthe process of their generation in full detail, and says that great\nnumbers of them grew in his time upon the young willow trees which\nabounded in the neighbourhood of the Abbey of Faversham, in the county\nof Kent, and within the Archiepiscopate of Canterbury. The bird was\nthere commonly called the _Barneta_.\n\n [85] Otia Imperialia, iii. 123.\n\nHector Boethius, or Boece, the old Scottish historian, combats this\nversion of the story. His work, written in Latin, in 1527, was\ntranslated into quaint Scottish in 1540, by John Bellenden, Archdeacon\nof Murray. In his fourteenth chapter, \"Of the nature of claik geis, and\nof the syndry maner of thair procreatioun, and of the ile of Thule,\" he\nsays:--\n\n \"Restis now to speik of the geis generit of the see namit clakis.\n Sum men belevis that thir clakis growis on treis be the nebbis. Bot\n thair opinioun is vane. And becaus the nature and procreatioun of\n thir clakis is strange we have maid na lytyll laubore and deligence\n to serche ye treuth and verite yairof, we have salit throw ye seis\n quhare thir clakis ar bred, and I fynd be gret experience, that the\n nature of the seis is mair relevant caus of thir procreatioun than\n ony uther thyng.\"\n\nFrom the circumstances attending the finding of \"ane gret tree that was\nbrocht be alluvion and flux of the see to land, in secht of money pepyll\nbesyde the castell of Petslego, in the yeir of God ane thousand iiii.\nhundred lxxxx, and of a see tangle hyngand full of mussill schellis,\"\nbrought to him by \"Maister Alexander Galloway, person of Kynkell,\" who\nknowing him to be \"richt desirus of sic uncouth thingis came haistely\nwith the said tangle,\" he arrives at the conclusion, by a process of\nreasoning highly satisfactory and convincing to himself, that,\n\n \"Be thir and mony othir resorcis and examplis we can not beleif\n that thir clakis ar producit be ony nature of treis or rutis\n thairof, but allanerly be the nature of the Oceane see, quhilk is\n the caus and production of mony wonderful thingis. And becaus the\n rude and ignorant pepyl saw oftymes the fruitis that fel of the\n treis (quhilkis stude neir the see) convertit within schort tyme in\n geis, thai belevit that thir geis grew apon the treis hingand be\n thair nebbis sic lik as appillis and uthir frutis hingis be thair\n stalkis, bot thair opinioun is nocht to be sustenit. For als sone\n as thir appillis or frutis fallis of the tre in the see flude thay\n grow first wormeetin. And be schort process of tyme are alterat in\n geis.\"\n\nIn describing the bird thus produced, Boethius declares that the male\nhas a sharp, pointed beak, like the gallinaceous birds, but that in the\nfemale the beak is obtuse as in other geese and ducks.\n\nAccording to other authors, this wonderful production of birds from\nliving or dead timber was not confined to England and Scotland.\nVincentius Bellovacensis[86] (1190-1264) in his 'Speculum Naturae,' xvii.\n40, states that it took place in Germany, and Jacob de Vitriaco (who\ndied 1244) mentions its occurrence in certain parts of Flanders.\n\n [86] For this quotation and the following one I am indebted to\n Professor Max Muller's Lecture before referred to.\n\nJonas Ramus gives a somewhat different version of the process as it\noccurs in Norway. He writes:[87] \"It is said that a particular sort of\ngeese is found in Nordland, which leave their seed on old trees, and\nstumps and blocks lying in the sea; and that from that seed there grows\na shell fast to the trees, from which shell, as from an egg, by the heat\nof the sun, young geese are hatched, and afterwards grow up; which gave\nrise to the fable that geese grow upon trees.\"\n\n [87] 'Chorographical Description of Norway,' p. 244.\n\nBut, strange to say, if any painstaking enquirer, wishing to investigate\nthe matter for himself, went to a locality where it was said the\nphenomenon regularly occurred, he was sure to find that he had\nliterally, \"started on a wild-goose chase,\" and had come to the wrong\nplace. This was the experience of AEneas Sylvius Piccolomini, afterwards\nPope Pius II., who complained that miracles will always flee farther and\nfarther away; for when he was on a visit (about 1430) to King James I.,\nof Scotland,[88] and enquired after the tree which he most eagerly\ndesired to see, he was told that it grew much farther north, in the\nOrkney Islands.\n\n [88] AEneas Sylvius gives us information concerning the personal\n appearance of his royal host, whom he describes as, \"_hominem\n quadratum et multa pinguedine gravem_,\"--literally, \"a square-built\n man, heavy with much fat.\"\n\nNotwithstanding the suspicious fact that the prodigy receded like Will\no' the Wisp, whenever it was persistently followed up, Sebastian\nMunster, who relates[89] the foregoing anecdote of AEneas Sylvius,\nappears to have entertained no doubt of the truth of the report, for he\nwrites:--\n\n [89] 'Cosmographia Universalis,' p. 49, 1572.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 34.--THE GOOSE TREE. _Copied from Gerard's\n'Herball,' 1st edition._[90]]\n\n [90] The original of this picture is a small wood-cut in Matthias\n de Lobel's 'Stirpium Historia,' published in 1870. The birds within\n the shells were added by Gerard. Aldrovandus, in copying it, gave\n leaves to the tree, as shown on page 110.\n\n \"In Scotland there are trees which produce fruit, conglomerated of\n their leaves; and this fruit, when in due time it falls into the\n water beneath it, is endowed with new life, and is converted into a\n living bird, which they call the 'tree-goose.' This tree grows in\n the Island of Pomonia, which is not far from Scotland, towards the\n north. Several old cosmographers, especially Saxo Grammaticus,\n mention the tree, and it must not be regarded as fictitious, as\n some new writers suppose.\"\n\nJulius Caesar Scaliger[91] (1540) gives another reading of the legend, in\nwhich it is asserted that the leaves which fall from the tree into the\nwater are converted into fishes, and those which fall upon the land\nbecome birds.\n\n [91] Exercit. 59, sect. 2.\n\nThus this extraordinary belief held sway, and remained strong and\ninvincible, although from time to time some man of sense and independent\nthought attempted to turn the tide of popular error. Albertus Magnus\n(who died 1280) showed its absurdity, and declared that he had seen the\nbird referred to lay its eggs and hatch them in the ordinary way. Roger\nBacon (who died in 1294) also contradicted it, and Belon, in 1551,\ntreated it with ridicule and contempt. Olaus Wormius[92] seems to have\nbelieved in it, though he wrote cautiously about it. Olaus Magnus (1553)\nmentions it, and apparently accepts it as a fact, occurring in the\nOrkneys, on the authority of \"a Scotch historian who diligently sets\ndown the secrets of things,\" and then dismisses it in three lines.\n\n [92] 'Museum,' p. 257.\n\nPassing over many other writers on the subject, we come to the time of\nthe reign of Queen Elizabeth, when (in 1597) \"John Gerarde, Master in\nChirurgerie, London,\" published his \"Herball, or Generall Historie of\nPlants gathered by him,\" and in the last chapter thereof solemnly\ndeclared, that he had actually witnessed the transformation of \"certaine\nshell fish\" into Barnacle Geese, as follows.\n\n\n _Of the Goose tree, Barnacle tree, or the tree bearing Geese._\n\n _Britanicae Conchae anatiferae._\n\n THE BREED OF BARNACLES.\n\n \u00b6 _The Description._\n\n Hauing trauelled from the Grasses growing in the bottome of the\n fenny waters, the Woods, and mountaines, euen vnto Libanus itselfe;\n and also the sea, and bowels of the same, wee are arriued at the\n end of our History; thinking it not impertinent to the conclusion\n of the same, to end with one of the maruels of this land (we may\n say of the World). The history whereof to set forth according to\n the worthinesse and raritie thereof, would not only require a large\n and peculiar volume, but also a deeper search into the bowels of\n Nature, then my intended purpose will suffer me to wade into, my\n sufficiencie also considered; leauing the History thereof rough\n hewen, vnto some excellent man, learned in the secrets of nature,\n to be both fined and refined; in the meane space take it as it\n falleth out, the naked and bare truth, though vnpolished. There are\n found in the North parts of Scotland and the Islands adjacent,\n called Orchades, certaine trees whereon do grow certaine shells of\n a white colour tending to russet, wherein are contained little\n liuing creatures: which shells in time of maturity doe open, and\n out of them grow those little liuing things, which falling into the\n water do become fowles, which we call Barnacles; in the North of\n England, brant Geese; and in Lancashire, tree Geese: but the other\n that do fall vpon the land perish and come to nothing. Thus much by\n the writings of others, and also from the mouthes of people of\n those parts, which may very well accord with truth.\n\n But what our eies haue seene, and hands haue touched we shall\n declare. There is a small Island in Lancashire, called the Pile of\n Foulders, wherein are found the broken pieces of old and bruised\n ships some whereof haue beene cast thither by shipwracke, and also\n the trunks and bodies with the branches of old and rotten trees,\n cast vp there likewise; whereon is found a certaine spume or froth\n that in time breedeth vnto certaine shells, in shape like those of\n the Muskle, but sharper pointed, and of a whitish colour; wherein\n is contained a thing in forme like a lace of silke finely wouen as\n it were together, of a whitish colour, one end whereof is fastened\n vnto the inside of the shell, euen as the fish of Oisters and\n Muskles are: the other end is made fast vnto the belly of a rude\n masse or lumpe, which in time commeth to the shape and forme of a\n Bird: when it is perfectly formed the shell gapeth open, and the\n first thing that appeareth is the foresaid lace or string; next\n come the legs of the bird hanging out, and as it groweth greater it\n openeth the shell by degrees, til at length it is all come forth,\n and hangeth onely by the bill: in short space after it commeth to\n full maturitie, and falleth into the sea, where it gathereth\n feathers, and groweth to a fowle bigger than a Mallard, and lesser\n than a Goose, hauing blacke legs and bill or beake, and feathers\n blacke and white, spotted in such manner as is our Magpie, called\n in some places a Pie-Annet, which the people of Lancashire call by\n no other name than a tree Goose: which place aforesaid, and all\n those parts adjoyning do so much abound therewith, that one of the\n best is bought for three pence. For the truth hereof, if any doubt,\n may it please them to repaire vnto me, and I shall satisfie them by\n the testimonie of good witnesses.\n\n Moreover, it should seeme that there is another sort hereof; the\n History of which is true, and of mine owne knowledge; for\n trauelling vpon the shore of our English coast betweene Douer and\n Rumney, I found the trunke of an old rotten tree, which (with some\n helpe that I procured by Fishermen's wiues that were there\n attending their husbands' returne from the sea) we drew out of the\n water vpon dry land; vpon this rotten tree I found growing many\n thousands of long crimson bladders, in shape like vnto puddings\n newly filled, before they be sodden, which were very cleere and\n shining; at the nether end whereof did grow a shell fish, fashioned\n somewhat like a small Muskle, but much whiter, resembling a shell\n fish that groweth vpon the rockes about Garnsey and Garsey, called\n a Lympit: many of these shells I brought with me to London, which\n after I had opened I found in them liuing things without forme or\n shape; in others which were neerer come to ripenesse I found liuing\n things that were very naked, in shape like a Bird: in others, the\n Birds couered with soft downe, the shell halfe open, and the Bird\n ready to fall out, which no doubt were the Fowles called Barnacles.\n I dare not absolutely auouch euery circumstance of the first part\n of this history, concerning the tree that beareth those buds\n aforesaid, but will leaue it to a further consideration; howbeit,\n that which I haue seene with mine eies, and handled with mine\n hands, I dare confidently auouch, and boldly put downe for verity.\n Now if any will object that this tree which I saw might be one of\n those before mentioned, which either by the waues of the sea or\n some violent wind had beene ouerturned as many other trees are; or\n that any trees falling into those seas about the Orchades, will of\n themselves bear the like Fowles, by reason of those seas and\n waters, these being so probable conjectures, and likely to be true,\n I may not without prejudice gainsay, or endeauour to confute.\n\n \u00b6 _The Place._\n\n The bordes and rotten plankes whereon are found these shels\n breeding the Barnakle, are taken vp in a small Island adioyning to\n Lancashire, halfe a mile from the main land, called the Pile of\n Foulders.\n\n \u00b6 _The Time._\n\n They spawn as it were in March and Aprill; the Geese are formed in\n May and June, and come to fulnesse of feathers in the moneth after.\n\n And thus hauing through God's assistance discoursed somewhat at\n large of Grasses, Herbes, Shrubs, Trees, and Mosses, and certaine\n Excrescenses of the Earth, with other things moe, incident to the\n historie thereof, we conclude and end our present Volume, with this\n wonder of England. For the which God's name be euer honored and\n praised.\n\nGerard was probably a good botanist and herbalist; but Thomas Johnson,\nthe editor of a subsequent issue of his book, tells us that\n\n \"He, out of a propense good will to the publique advancement of\n this knowledge, endeavoured to performe therein more than he could\n well accomplish, which was partly through want of sufficient\n learning; but,\" he adds, \"let none blame him for these defects,\n seeing he was neither wanting in pains nor good will to performe\n what hee intended: and there are none so simple but know that\n heavie burthens are with most paines vndergone by the weakest men;\n and although there are many faults in the worke, yet iudge well of\n the Author; for, as a late writer well saith:--'To err and to be\n deceived is human, and he must seek solitude who wishes to live\n only with the perfect.'\"\n\nIt is difficult to comply with the request to think well of one who,\nwriting as an authority, deliberately promulgated, with an affectation\nof piety, that which he must have known to be untrue, and who was,\nmoreover, a shameless plagiarist; for Gerard's ponderous book is little\nmore than a translation of Dodonaeus, whole chapters having been taken\nverbatim from that comparatively unread author without acknowledgment.\n\nAfter this series of erroneous observations, self-delusion, and\nignorant credulity, it is refreshing to turn to the pages of the two\nlittle thick quarto volumes of Gaspar Schott.[93] This learned Jesuit\nmade himself acquainted with everything that had been written on the\nsubject, and besides the authors I have referred to, quotes and compares\nthe statements of Majolus, Abrahamus Ortelius, Hieronymus Cardanus,\nEusebius, Nierembergius, Deusingius, Odoricus, Gerhardus de Vera,\nFerdinand of Cordova, and many others. He then gives, firmly and\nclearly, his own opinion that the assertion that birds in Britain spring\nfrom the fruit or leaves of trees, or from wood, or from fungus, or from\nshells, is without foundation, and that neither reason, experience, nor\nauthority tend to confirm it. He concedes that worms may be bred in\nrotting timber, and even that they may be of a kind that fly away on\narriving at maturity (referring probably to caterpillars being developed\ninto moths), but that birds should be thus generated, he says, is simply\nthe repetition of a vulgar error, for not one of the authors whom he has\nexamined has seen what they all affirm; nor are they able to bring\nforward a single eye-witness of it. He asks how it can be possible that\nanimals so large and so highly-organised as these birds can grow from\npuny animalcules generated in putrid wood. He further declares that\nthese British geese are hatched from eggs like other geese, which he\nconsiders proved by the testimony of Albertus Magnus, Gerhardus de Vera,\nand of Dutch seamen, who, in 1569, gave their written declaration that\nthey had personally seen these birds sitting on their eggs, and hatching\nthem, on the coasts of Nova Zembla.\n\n [93] 'Physica Curiosa, sive Mirabilia Naturae et Artis,' 1662, lib.\n ix. cap. xxii. p. 960.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 35.--THE BARNACLE GOOSE TREE. _After Aldrovandus._]\n\nIn marked and disgraceful contrast with this careful and philosophical\ninvestigation and its author's just deductions from it, is 'A Relation\nconcerning Barnacles by Sir Robert Moray, lately one of His Majesty's\nCouncil for the Kingdom of Scotland,' read before the Royal Society, and\npublished in the 'Philosophical Transactions,' No. 137, January and\nFebruary, 1677-8.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 36.--DEVELOPMENT OF BARNACLES INTO GEESE. _After\nAldrovandus._]\n\nDescribing \"a cut of a large Firr-tree of about two and a half feet\ndiameter, and nine or ten feet long,\" which he saw on the shore in the\nWestern Islands of Scotland, and which had become so dry that many of\nthe Barnacle shells with which it had been covered had been rubbed off,\nhe says:--\n\n \"Only on the parts that lay next the ground there still hung\n multitudes of little Shells, having within them little Birds,\n perfectly shap'd, supposed to be Barnacles. The Shells hung very\n thick and close one by another, and were of different sizes. Of the\n colour and consistence of Muscle-Shells, and the sides and joynts\n of them joyned with such a kind of film as Muscle-Shells are, which\n serves them for a Hing to move upon, when they open and shut....\n The Shells hang at the Tree by a Neck longer than the Shell, of a\n kind of Filmy substance, round, and hollow, and creased, not unlike\n the Wind-pipe of a chicken, spreading out broadest where it is\n fastened to the Tree, from which it seems to draw and convey the\n matter which serves for the growth and vegetation of the Shell and\n the little Bird within it. This Bird in every Shell that I opened,\n as well the least as the biggest, I found so curiously and\n compleatly formed, that there appeared nothing wanting as to\n internal parts, for making up a perfect Seafowl: every little part\n appearing so distinctly that the whole looked like a large Bird\n seen through a concave or diminishing glass, colour and feature\n being everywhere so clear and neat. The little Bill, like that of a\n Goose; the eyes marked; the Head, Neck, Breast, Wings, Tail, and\n Feet formed, the Feathers everywhere perfectly shap'd, and blackish\n coloured; and the Feet like those of other Water-fowl, to my best\n remembrance. All being dead and dry, I did not look after the\n internal parts of them. Nor did I ever see any of the little Birds\n alive, nor met with anybody that did. Only some credible persons\n have assured me they have seen some as big as their fist.\"\n\nIt seems almost incredible that little more than two hundred years ago\nthis twaddle should not only have been laid before the highest\nrepresentatives of science in the land, but that it should have been\nprinted in their \"Transactions\" for the further delusion of posterity.\n\nRay, in his edition of Willughby's Ornithology, published in the same\nyear as the above, contradicted the fallacy as strongly as Gaspar\nSchott; and (except that he incidentally admits the possibility of\nspontaneous generation in some of the lower animals, as insects and\nfrogs) in language so similar that I think he must have had Schott's\nwork before him when he wrote.\n\nAldrovandus[94] tells us that an Irish priest, named Octavianus, assured\nhim with an oath on the Gospels that he had seen and handled the geese\nin their embryo condition; and he adds that he \"would rather err with\nthe majority than seem to pass censure on so many eminent writers who\nhave believed the story.\"\n\n [94] 'Ornithologia,' lib. xix. p. 173, ed. 1603.\n\nIn 1629 Count Maier (Michaelus Meyerus--these old authors when writing\nin Latin, latinized their names also) published a monograph 'On the\nTree-bird'[95] in which he explains the process of its birth, and states\nthat he opened a hundred of the goose-bearing shells and found the\nrudiments of the bird fully formed.\n\n So slow Bootes underneath him sees,\n In th' icy isles, those goslings hatched on trees,\n Whose fruitful leaves, falling into the water,\n Are turned, they say, to living fowls soon after;\n So rotten sides of broken ships do change,\n To barnacles, O, transformation strange!\n 'Twas first a green tree; then a gallant hull;\n Lately a mushroom; then a flying gull.[96]\n\n [95] 'De Volucri Arborea,' 1629.\n\n [96] Du Bartas' \"Divine Week\" p. 228. Joshua Sylvester's\n translation.\n\nNow, let us turn from fiction to facts.\n\n[Illustration: FIG 37.--SECTION OF A SESSILE BARNACLE. _Balanus\ntintinnabulum._]\n\nAlmost every one is acquainted with at least one kind of the Barnacle\nshells which were supposed to enclose the embryo of a goose, namely the\nsmall white conical hillocks which are found, in tens of thousands,\nadhering to stones, rocks, and old timber such as the piles of piers,\nand may be seen affixed to the shells of oysters and mussels in any\nfishmonger's shop. The little animals which secrete and inhabit these\nshells belong to a sub-class and order of the Crustacea, called the\n_Cirrhopoda_, because their feet (_poda_), which in the crab and lobster\nterminate in claws, are modified into tufts of curled hairs (_cirri_),\nor feathers. When the animal is alive and active under water, a crater\nmay be seen to open on the summit of the little shelly mountain, and, as\nif from the mouth of a miniature volcano, there issue from this\naperture, from between two inner shells, the _cirri_ in the form of a\nfeathery hand, which clutches at the water within its reach, and is then\nquickly retracted within the shell. During this movement the\nhair-fringed fingers have filtered from the water and conveyed towards\nthe mouth within the shell, for their owner's nutriment, some minute\nsolid particles or animalcules, and this action of the casting-net\nalternately shot forth and retracted continues for hours incessantly, as\nthe water flows over its resting-place. The animal can live for a long\ntime out of water, and in some situations thus passes half its life.\nUnder such circumstances, the shells, containing a reserve of moisture,\nremain firmly closed until the return of the tide brings a fresh supply\nof water and food. These are the \"acorn-barnacles,\" the _balani_,\ncommonly known in some localities as \"chitters.\"\n\nBarnacles of another kind are those furnished with a long stem, or\npeduncle, which Sir Robert Moray described as \"round, hollow, and\ncreased, and not unlike the wind-pipe of a chicken.\" The stem has, in\nfact, the ringed formation of the annelids, or worms. The shelly valves\nare thin, flat, and in shape somewhat like a mitre. They are composed of\nfive pieces, two on each side, and one, a kind of rounded keel along the\nback of the valves, by which these are united. The shells are delicately\ntinted with lavender or pale blue varied with white, and the edges are\nfrequently of a bright chrome yellow or orange colour.\n\nIt is not an uncommon occurrence for a large plank entirely covered with\nthese \"necked barnacles\" to be found floating at sea and brought ashore\nfor exhibition at some watering-place; and I have more than once sent\nportions of such planks to the Aquaria at Brighton, and the Crystal\nPalace.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 38.--PEDUNCULATED BARNACLES. (_Lepas anatifera._)]\n\nIt is most interesting to watch a dense mass of living cirripedes so\nclosely packed together that not a speck of the surface of the wood is\nleft uncovered by them; their fleshy stalks overhanging each other, and\noften attached in clusters to those of some larger individuals; their\nplumose casting-nets ever gathering in the food that comes within their\nreach, and carrying towards the mouth any solid particles suitable for\ntheir sustenance. How much of insoluble matter barnacles will eliminate\nfrom the water is shown by the rapidity with which they will render\nturbid sea water clear and transparent. The most common species of these\n\"necked barnacles\" bears the name of \"_Lepas anatifera_,\" \"the\nduck-bearing _Lepas_.\" It was so entitled by Linnaeus, in recognition of\nits having been connected with the fable, which, of course, met with no\ncredit from him.\n\nFig. 39 represents the figure-head of a ship, partly covered with\nbarnacles, which was picked up about thirty miles off Lowestoft on the\n22nd of October, 1857. It was described in the _Illustrated London\nNews_, and the proprietors of that paper have kindly given me a copy of\nthe block from which its portrait was printed.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 39.--A SHIP'S FIGURE-HEAD WITH BARNACLES ATTACHED TO\nIT.]\n\nOthers of the barnacles affix themselves to the bottoms of ships, or\nparasitically upon whales and sharks, and those of the latter kind often\nburrow deeply into the skin of their host. Fig. 40 is a portrait of a\n_Coronula diadema_ taken from the nose of a whale stranded at\nKintradwell, in the north of Scotland, in 1866, and sent to the late Mr.\nFrank Buckland. Growing on this _Coronula_ are three of the curious\neared barnacles, _Conchoderma aurita_; the _Lepas aurita_ of Linnaeus.\nThe species of the whale from which these Barnacles were taken was not\nmentioned, but it was probably the \"hunch-backed\" whale, _Megaptera\nlongimana_, which is generally infested with this _Coronula_. This very\nillustrative specimen was, and I hope still is, in Mr. Buckland's Museum\nat South Kensington. It was described by him in _Land and Water_, of May\n19th, 1866, and I am indebted to the proprietors of that paper for the\naccompanying portrait of it.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 40.--WHALE BARNACLE (_Coronula diadema_), WITH THREE\n_Conchoderma aurita_ ATTACHED TO IT.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 41.--A YOUNG BARNACLE. (_Larva of Chthamalus\nstellatus._)]\n\nThe young Barnacle when just extruded from the shell of its parent is a\nvery different being from that which it will be in its mature condition.\nIt begins its life in a form exactly like that of an entomostracous\ncrustacean, and, like a Cyclops, has one large eye in the middle of its\nforehead. In this state it swims freely, and with great activity. It\nundergoes three moults, each time altering its figure, until at the\nthird exuviation it has become enclosed in a bivalve shell, and has\nacquired a second eye. It is now ready to attach itself to its\nabiding-place; so, selecting its future residence, it presses itself\nagainst the wood, or whatever the substance may be, pours out from its\ntwo antennae a glutinous cement, which hardens in water, and thus fastens\nitself by the front of its head, is henceforth a fixture for life, and\nassumes the adult form in which most persons know it best.[97]\n\n [97] If any of my readers wish to observe the development of young\n barnacles they may easily do so. The method I have generally\n adopted has been as follows: Procure a shallow glass or earthenware\n milk-pan that will hold at least a gallon. Fill this to within an\n inch of the top with sea-water, and place it in any shaded part of\n a room--not in front of a window. Put in the pan six or eight\n pebbles or clean shells of equal height, say 1-1/2 or 2 inches, and\n on them lay a clean sheet of glass, which, by resting on the\n pebbles, is brought to within about 2-1/2 inches of the surface of\n the water. Select some limpets or mussels having acorn-barnacles on\n them; carefully cut out the limpet or mussel, and clean nicely the\n interior of the shell; then place a dozen or more of these shells\n on the sheet of glass, and the barnacles upon them will be within\n convenient reach of any observation with a magnifying glass. If\n this be done in the month of March, the experimenter will not have\n to wait long before he sees young _Balani_ ejected from the summits\n of some of the shells. Up to the moment of their birth each of them\n is enclosed in a little cocoon or case, in shape like a\n canary-seed, and most of them are tossed into the world whilst\n still enclosed in this. In a few seconds this casing is ruptured\n longitudinally, apparently by the struggles of its inmate, which\n escapes at one end, like a butterfly emerging from its chrysalis,\n and swims freely to the surface of the water, leaving the split\n cocoon or case at the bottom of the pan. Some few of the young\n barnacles seem to be freed from the cocoon before, or at the moment\n of, extrusion. From three to a dozen or more of these escape with\n each protrusion of the cirri of the parent, and as the parturient\n barnacle will put forth its feathery casting net at least twenty\n times in a minute for an hour or more, it follows that as many as\n ten thousand young ones may be produced in an hour. These, as they\n are cast forth at each pulsation of the parent's cirri, fall upon\n the clean sheet of glass, and may be taken up in a pipette, and\n placed under a microscope, or removed to a smaller vessel of\n sea-water, for minute and separate investigation. It seems strange\n that animals which, like the oyster and the barnacles, are\n condemned in their mature condition to lead so sedentary a life,\n should in the earlier stages of their existence swim freely and\n merrily through the water--young fellows seeking a home, and when\n they have found it, although their connubial life must be a very\n tame one, settling down, and not caring to rove about any more for\n the remainder of their days. These young _Balani_ dart about like\n so many water-fleas, and yet, after a few days of freedom, they\n become fixed and immovable, the inhabitants of the pyramidal shells\n which grow in such abundance on other shells, stones, and old wood.\n\nIt is unnecessary for me to describe more minutely the anatomy of the\nCirripedes; I have said enough to show the nature of the plumose\nappurtenances which, hanging from the dead shells, were supposed to be\nthe feathers of a little bird within; but it is difficult to understand\nhow any one could have seen in the natural occupant of the shell, \"the\nlittle bill, like that of a goose, the eyes, head, neck, breast, wings,\ntail, and feet, like those of other water-fowl,\" so precisely and\ncategorically detailed by Sir Robert Moray. As Pontoppidan, who\ndenounced the whole story, as being \"without the least foundation,\" very\ntruly says, \"One must take the force of imagination to help to make it\nlook so!\"\n\nAs to the origin of the myth, I venture to differ entirely from\nphilologists who attribute it to \"language,\" and \"a similarity of\nnames,\" for, although, as Professor Max Muller observes in one of his\nlectures, \"words without definite meanings are at the bottom of nearly\nall our philosophical and religious controversies,\" it certainly is not\napplicable in this instance. Every quotation here given shows that the\nmistake arose from the supposed resemblance of the plumes of the\ncirrhopod, and the feathers of a bird, and the fallacious deductions\nderived therefrom. The statements of Maier (p. 112), Gerard (p. 106),\nSir Robert Moray (p. 110), &c., prove that this fanciful misconception\nsprang from erroneous observation. The love of the marvellous inherent\nin mankind, and especially prevalent in times of ignorance and\nsuperstition, favoured its reception and adoption, and I believe that it\nwould have been as widely circulated, and have met with equal credence,\nif the names of the cirripede and of the goose that was supposed to be\nits offspring had been far more dissimilar than, at first, they really\nwere.\n\nSetting aside several ingenious and far-fetched derivations that have\nbeen proposed, I think we may safely regard the word \"barnacle,\" as\napplied to the cirrhopod, as a corruption of _pernacula_, the diminutive\nof _perna_, a bivalve mollusk, so-called from the similarity in shape of\nits shell to that of a ham--_pernacula_ being changed to _bernacula_. In\nsome old Glossaries _perna_ is actually spelt _berna_.\n\nTo arrive at the origin of the word \"barnacle,\" or \"bernicle,\" as\napplied to the goose, we must understand that this bird, _Anser\nleucopsis_, was formerly called the \"brent,\" \"brant,\" or \"bran\" goose,\nand was supposed to be identical with the species, _Anser torquatus_,\nwhich is now known by that name. The Scottish word for \"goose\" is\n\"clake,\" or \"clakis,\"[98] and I think that the suggestion made long ago\nto Gesner[99] (1558), by his correspondent, Joannes Caius, is correct,\nthat the word \"barnacle\" comes from \"branclakis,\" or \"barnclake,\" \"the\ndark-coloured goose.\"\n\n [98] See the quotation from Hector Boethius, p. 101.\n\n [99] 'Historia Animalium,' lib. iii. p. 110.\n\nProfessor Max Muller is of the opinion that its Latin name may have been\nderived from _Hibernicae_, _Hiberniculae_, _Berniculae_, as it was against\nthe Irish bishops that Geraldus wrote, but I must say that this does not\ncommend itself to me; for the name _Bernicula_ was not used in the early\ntimes to denote these birds. Giraldus himself described them as\n_Bernacae_, but they were variously known, also, as _Barliates_,\n_Bernestas_, _Barnetas_, _Barbates_, etc.\n\nI agree with Dr. John Hill,[100] that \"the whole matter that gave\norigin to the story is that the 'shell-fish' (cirripedes), supposed to\nhave this wonderful production usually adhere to old wood, and that they\nhave a kind of fibres hanging out of them, which, in some degree,\nresemble feathers of some bird. From this slight origin arose the story\nthat they contained real birds: what grew on trees people soon asserted\nto be the fruit of trees, and, from step to step, the story gained\ncredit with the hearers,\" till, at length, Gerard had the audacity to\nsay that he had witnessed the transformation.\n\n [100] 'History of Animals,' p. 422. 1752.\n\nThe Barnacle Goose is only a winter visitor of Great Britain. It breeds\nin the far north, in Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, and Nova Zembla,\nand probably, also, along the shores of the White Sea. There are\ngenerally some specimens of this prettily-marked goose in the gardens of\nthe Zoological Society in the Regent's Park, London; and they thrive\nthere, and become very tame. In the months of December and January these\ngeese may often be seen hanging for sale in poulterers' shops; and he\nwho has tasted one well cooked may be pardoned if the suspicion cross\nhis mind that the \"monks of old,\" and \"the bare-footed friars,\" as well\nas the laity, may not have been unwilling to sustain the fiction in\norder that they might conserve the privilege of having on their tables\nduring the long fast of Lent so agreeable and succulent a \"vegetable\" or\n\"fish\" as a Barnacle Goose.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\nLONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,\nSTAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.\n\n\n Transcriber's note:\n\n _Underscores_ have been used to indicate _italic_ fonts.\n Inconsistent hyphenation has been left as written.\n Missing end quote marks have been inserted.\n The word irreconcileable has been left as written: \"I\n need scarcely point out how utterly irreconcileable is the\"\n The word gowden has been left as written: \"Braiding her\n locks of gowden hair\"\n The word fane has been left as written: \"exactly resembled\n the tail of a fish, with a broad fane\"\n The word engulphed has been left as written: \"were all\n suddenly engulphed in the waves on the night of the battle\"\n\n\n\n\n\n
","title":"Sea Monsters Unmasked, and Sea Fables Explained","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":64062}