1899.] SUPPOSED SIRENIAN IN ST. HELENA. 'J'97 



In answer to my enquiries, Mr. Sterudale wrote to me as 

 follows on the subject ^ : — " The last appearance recorded of the 

 Manati in St. Helena was in 1810, when one caoie ashore at Stone 

 Top Valley beach, and was shot by a Mr. Burnham. It measured 

 seven feet, and ten gallons of oil were obtained from it. Another 

 was seen the same year in Manati Bay. 



" In the old records I find, March 20, 1690, it thus entered — 

 ' Tuesday, Goodwin and Coales brought up for killing a Sea-Cow, 

 and not paying the Company's Royalty. They desire pardon, 

 and say the Sea-Cow was very small ; the oyle would not amount 

 to above four or five gallons.' 



" Again, on the 11th September, 1739, ' A Sea-Cow killed upon 

 Old Woman's Valley beach, as it was lying asleep, by Warrall and 

 Greentree.' " 



This evidence, I take it, may be regarded as amply sufficient to 

 prove the former occurrences of a marine mammal at St. Helena. 

 And from the name " Manati Bay " given to a spot on the S.W. 

 coast, it further seems evident that the animal in question was 

 far from uncommon ; although, on the other hand, it never seems 

 to have been abundant. In addition to this, the name of the bay, 

 and the application of the title Manati or Sea-Cow to the animal 

 itself, seem to be evidence in favour of the Sirenian nature of the 

 latter ; for, so far as I am aware, such names are not misapplied 

 in popular language to Seals. And there are no Seals known from 

 the island. Moreover, if the creatures in question had been Seals 

 they would almost certainly have been numerous, while they would 

 not have been exterminated so easily. Against the Sirenian 

 nature of the animal may, however, be urged the mention of the 

 killing of a specimen asleep on the beach, since it is generally 

 stated that there is no decisive evidence that Sirenians ever volun- 

 tarily come ashore ^. Too much importance must not, however, be 

 attached to this, seeing that it is, in the first place, maiuly negative 

 evidence, while, in the second place, it might not be applicable in 

 the case of an extinct species, with which we may have to do in this 

 instance. It decisively shows that the animal was not a Cetacean. 



With regard to the idea of the St. Helena animal being identical 

 with either the African or the American Manati, it appears to me 

 that this is impossible. In the first place, although it is conceiv- 

 able that an individual might once and again be carried from either 

 shore to the island, it is quite out of the question that this could 

 have been a case of common occurrence. And, accordingly, if the 

 creature were a Sirenian at all, it must have been a denizen of the 

 coast of the island. But such a coast, without a single river-mouth 

 or estuary, would have been quite unsuited to the habits of Manatis, 

 as we now know them. A Dugong might perhaps live there ; but 

 then there is no evidence of the existence of those animals in the 

 Atlantic. 



If, then, the St. Helena animal were a Sirenian ab all (on which 



1 The same extracts in a rather briefer form are given by Melliss. 

 ^ See Flower and Lydekker : ' Study of Mammals,' p. 214. 



