WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 71 
such an appearance therefore was seen, but could only be met 
with in the place of the two dorsal fins, instead of being continu- 
ed along the back, as in the drawing. The contortions towards the 
tail are such, as the invertebral joints could not admit of, they 
are therefore imaginary.” 
“It is said, two different persons measured the fish; one by 
fathoms, the other by a foot-rule, and that it was fifty-five feet 
long. ‘Their accuracy is at least doubtful, as the parts that are 
preserved correspond with those of a fish about thirty feet long, 
and it is rendered still more so, as the person who gives the 
length in fathoms, says, he saw at that time the six legs, the 
two foremost being larger than the hinder ones, and the lower 
joint more rounded on the body to the toes. The pectoral fin , 
which is preserved, proves this declaration to be incorrect: the 
person who measured the fish with a foot-rule, declares the length , 
from the hole in the head to the beginning of the mane, to be 
exactly fifteen feet, which is probably correct since a Squalus of 
about thirty-six feet long would measure, from the forepart of the 
skull to the dorsal fin, about fifteen feet; but the other measure- 
ment must be questionable.” 
“It is deserving of remark, that there is no one structure re- 
presented in this drawing, atic was not actually seen. The skeleton 
of the holders corresponds with the legs in the drawing, the margin 
of the dorsal fin in a putrid state with the mane; so that the only 
errors are in the contortions towards the tail, the length of the 
fish and the number of the holders, which were mistaken for legs. 
(This mistake of the holders of the male shark for legs, has been 
frequently made. There is a drawing in Sir Joseph Bank’s library, 
sent from Ireland, in which the fish is represented walking like a 
duck, with broad webbed feet. The skin of a male Squalus maxi- 
mus was exhibited in London, some years ago, distended by means 
of hoops, and the holders were shown as its legs, on which it 
occasionably walked). And when we recollect that the drawing was 
made from memory six weeks after the fish had been seen by those , 
who describe it, during which interval it had been their principal 
subject of conversation, we may conclude that so extraordinary an 
object, as the mutilated fish must appear, when believed to be a 
perfect one, would, in their different discourses, have every part 
exaggerated, and it is only remarkable that the depositions kept 
so close to the truth as they have done.” 
“It is of importance to science; that it should be ascertained , 
