'THE GREAT SEA SERPENT: 265 



Avitnesses, suggesting that the idea of a ' serpent ' Is too 

 restricted. 



Notwithstanding much already said, the opinion of Dr. 

 Wilson will be valued by many of my readers, and I 

 therefore give portions in his own words: — 



' As far as I have been able to ascertain, zoologists and other writers on this 

 subject have never made allowance for the abnormal and huge deyelopvicnt of 

 ordinary marine animals. My own convictions on this matter find in these 

 the most reasonable and likely explanation of the personality of the sea serpent, 

 and also the reconciliation of such discrepancies as the various narratives may 

 be shown to evince. ... I think we may build up a most reasonable case 

 both for their existence and for the explanation of their true nature, by taking 

 into account the fact that the term ^'sea serpent," as ordinarily employed, must 

 be extended to include other forms of vertebrate animals tvhich possess elongated 

 bodies : and that cases of the abnormally large development of ordiiiary serpents a7id 

 of serpent-like animals "will reasonably account for tJie occurrence of the animals 

 popularly tiamed^^ sea serpents.^'' . . . 



* Whilst to my mind the only feasible explanation of the narrative of the crew 

 of the Paidine must be founded on the idea that the animals observed by them 

 were gigantic snakes, the habits of the animals in attacking the whales evidently 

 point to a close correspondence with those of terrestrial serpents of large size, 

 such as the boas and pythons; whilst the fact of the animals being described in 

 the various narratives as swimming with the head out of the water would seem 

 to indicate that, like all reptiles, they were air-breathers, and required to come 

 more or less frequently to the surface for the purpose of respiration.' 



Apology is due to so eminent a physiologist for having first 

 given expression to my own opinion on the Pauline serpent, 

 though in tardily quoting a high authority I may risk sus- 

 picion of plagiarism. I must be permitted to explain, there- 

 fore, that on seeing the subject ventilated in Land and Water 

 (to which I had for some years been a contributor on ophi- 

 dian matters), I also, though uninvited, prepared a paper 

 on 'the sea serpent' In a letter to the Editors, I even 

 presumed to criticise part of what had lately appeared, 

 enclosing MS. with yet more. 



