THE GREAT UNKNOWN. 



those which in the diagnosis above I have marked 

 with italics. Yet these are the characters mainly 

 relied on to prove the mammalian nature of the 

 animal. Some of these characters could not pos- 

 sibly have been determined at two hundred yards' 

 distance. I say "mainly relied on;" because there 

 is the mane-like appendage yet to be accounted 

 for. This is a strong point certainly in favour of 

 a mammalian, and of a phocal nature ; whether 

 it decides the question, however, 1 will presently 

 examine. 



The head in either of the large sketches (those, I 

 mean, in which the creature is represented in the 

 sea) does not appear to me at all to resemble 

 that of a seal; nor do I see a "vaulted cranium.*' 

 The summit of the head does not rise above the 

 level of the summit of the neck ; in other words, 

 the vertical diameter of the head and neck are 

 equal, while there are indications that the occiput 

 considerably exceeds the neck in transverse di- 

 ameter. This is not the case with any seal, but it 

 is eminently characteristic of eels, of many ser- 

 pents, and some lizards. Let the reader compare 

 the lower figure (lUustrated London News, Oct. 

 28, 1848) with that of the Broad-nosed Eel in 

 Yarrell's "British Fishes," (Ed. ii., vol. ii., p. 396). 

 The head of some of the scincoid lizards (the 

 Jamaican Celestus occkluus, for instance) is not 

 at all unlike that represented ; it is full as vaulted, 

 and as short, but a little more pointed, and with 

 a flatter facial angle. On this point the Captain's 

 assertion corrects the drawing; for in reply to 

 Professor Owen he distinctly asserts that "the 

 head was tint, and not a capacious vaulted cra- 

 nium;" and the description of Lieutenant Druin- 

 mond, jmblished before any strictures were made 

 on the point, says, "the head .... was long, 

 329 



