2322 Reptiles. 



On a former occasion (Zool. 1841) I took advantage of the rare opportunity afforded 

 for the discussion of the subject by the conductor of this journal, for the purpose of 

 showing, first, that sea-serpents as a family have long been perfectly recognized in 

 science, and that therefore the name itself should inspire no sentiment of ridicule ; 

 and next, of remarking that strange as are the properties attributed to the great sea- 

 serpent, there are remains of a former world in our museums which in their perfect 

 state united them all, or nearly all. Encouraged by the Editor's referring them to the 

 Enaliosauri [Zool. LI V. Wrapper] I ventured to name the Plesiosaurus as the marine 

 animal of our acquaintance to which they bear the nearest resemblance. This, al- 

 though admitted at the time to be a daring breach of the Draconic laws of geology, — 

 laws which, having once consigned an organized form to extinction, have very rarely 

 relaxed their rigour, — seemed to be a necessary result of the argument par voie d ''ex- 

 clusion : if not a Plesiosaurus what else is it likely to be, allowing the descriptions to 

 be at all correct? Is it an anomalous shark? and does the "animal of Stronsa " 

 after all furnish the real key to the problem ? The affirmative side of the question is 

 not without at least two very able supporters (see Zool. 2310); and yet how to 

 reconcile the characteristics of any possible shark with the serpent-like head, curved 

 neck, mane, or certainly very equivocal dorsal fin, and the protuberances so often men- 

 tioned, it is difficult to imagine. A recent correspondent of the ' Times ' (Zool. 2311) 

 calls attention to the striking resemblance between the sea-serpent and the Plesiosau- 

 rus, and is surprised at its never having occurred to any one before. If the signature 

 F.G.S. implies that the writer is a Fellow of the Geological Society, it is satisfactory 

 to find a member of that particular body, whose favour was least to be expected, so 

 pleased with the idea as to be willing to adopt it for his own. It had, however, been 

 repeated and widely circulated by other periodicals. In the words of an elegant 

 contributor in ' Chambers' Edinburgh Journal,' who alludes to it, " one could al- 

 most suppose that among the buried learning of the earlier nations there lurked some 



not sometimes betake themselves to the sea, or even " transport themselves from one 

 continent to another." The former question need not detain us, as neither of the spe- 

 cimens exceeded six feet in length. The latter, as more likely to meet with favour, 

 deserves remark. Whatever support its author can derive from the passages here 

 quoted is at his disposal, and also the circumstance which he might have adduced of 

 a large boa constrictor having been conveyed to the island of St. Vincent (twisted 

 round the trunk of a cedar tree), carried away, as is supposed, from the banks of some 

 South- American river. This occurrence is quoted by Sir Charles Lyell from the 

 Zoological Journal of December, 1827 (' Principles of Geology '). Nevertheless, all 

 idea of the identity of the sea-serpents in question and land-serpents is easily set at 

 rest. In the first place, M. Schlegel (whose authority his translator, Professor Traill, 

 esteems very highly) limits the length of the greatest known serpent to twenty, or, at 

 most, twenty-five feet. Secondly, the largest snakes, as the boas and pythons, are un- 

 known in Norway or the Eastern States of America, the adjoining seas of which are 

 most frequented by " the great sea-serpents." Thirdly, the two hemispheres, whatever 

 community of birds and mammals they may exhibit, never interchange their reptiles. 

 " All the reptiles of the New World constantly belong to species different from those 

 of the Ancient World." — (' Physiognomy of Serpents'). 



