211 



length and proportional thickness are so totally different from the 

 animal in question, that the two could scarcely be confounded, by 

 the most " ignorant fishermen " who had ever seen them. 



These witnesses assert that the Stronsey animal (though a portion 

 towards the tail was broken off when they took its dimensions) 

 measured no less than fifty- five feet in length ; whereas that of the 

 largest Basking shark of which we possess any accurate account, 

 scarcely exceeds thirty-six feet. 



The circumference of the two animals is no less widely different. 

 My notes state the circumference at the thickest part of the body of the 

 Orkney animal to be about ten feet ; while it tapered much towards 

 the head and the tail ; whereas the circumference of a large Bask- 

 ing shark, where thickest, is not less than twenty feet. Besides, the 

 shark-like figure of the latter could scarcely be confounded with the 

 eel-like form of the Stronsey animal.* 



The manCy as it is termed, may perhaps be the remains of a 

 decomposed dorsal fin ; but the fibres do not seem to be the rays of 

 a fin ; and the animal seen from the Dcedalus is stated to have had 

 a mane, floating about like sea-weed ; and a similar appendage has 

 generally been noticed in some less distinct accounts of a supposed 

 sea-serpent. 



Supposing this to be a dorsal fin, it extended from the anterior 

 vnngs, or pectoral fins, towards the tail for thirty-seven feet, and 

 differs from the dorsal fin of any species of shark. If the mane con- 

 sisted of detached fibres extending for thirty-seven feet on the back, 

 it is analogous to no appendage of any known marine animal. That 

 its rays or fibres are very peculiar, will appear from the specimen 

 now exhibited. These round fibres are fourteen inches in length ; 

 and in the dried state, have a yellow colour and transparency, equal 

 to that of isinglass. 



The vertebrae, which have been preserved in spirit in our Museum, 

 have been exceedingly well described by Dr Barclay, in the Wer- 



* The diameter of the animal is a little differently stated by different wit- 

 nesses. But as we are told that its contour was more oval than round, we can 

 easily explain the discrepancy. One witness, who had not measured it, speaks 

 of it as equalling a middle-sized horse in thickness. On measuring four horses 

 of from thirteen to fourteen hands in height, I found their greatest circumfer- 

 ence to be from seventy-one to seventy-three inches, (or from five feet eleven 

 inches to six feet one inch), or an average of six feet ; that is less than the 

 thickest part of our animal, but seemingly near that of its average dimensions^ 



