76 | WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 
a cartilaginous fish, a male one, of which the two pterygopodia 
(a pair of additional paring-organs, the so-called “claspers” or 
“holders”) were regarded as the third pair of feet, whilst the 
ventral and pectoral fins were the other pairs. “It 1s, however, no 
shark ,” he goes on, and adduced 7 proofs for this theory; “it is, 
neither a cetacean,” and for this opinion he gives 4 different 
reasons. And yet he has the boldness to conclude: “The animal 
consequently is more related to the sharks, and as it is not a true 
shark, it must be a Chimaera”’; but the reasons given to prove 
this are of course still more forced and irrelevant. I will add here 
that he also says: “finally individuals of Chimaera of 30 feet 
in length, have already been caught’, a manifest untruth, for the 
largest ever measured were of three feet and a half! — For those 
readers who never saw a Chimaera, or sea-cat, or a figure of it, 
I have delineated the Chimaera monstrosa in our fig. 9. 
Fig. 9. — Chimaera monstrosa, Linn. 
In the Hdinb. Philos. Journ. Vol. V, 1821, an analysis is pub- 
lished of one of the vertebrae of the Orkney-Animal. The analysis 
was made by Dr. Joun Davy, and communicated “a considerable 
time ago” by Dr. Lacs to the Wernerian Society. To trouble my 
readers with this analysis would be superfluous. 
Dr. Hissert in his Description of the Shetland Islands, 1822, 
really believes that: 
“The existence of the sea-snake, — a monster of fifty-five feet 
long, is placed beyond a doubt, by the animal that was thrown 
on shore in Orkney, the vertebrae of which are to be seen in the 
Edinburgh Museum.” 
Dr. Haminron too, in his Amphibious Carnivora, 1839, is of the 
same opinion: “We turn first’ he says “to an account of an animal 
which apparently belonged to this class” (viz. the class of sea-ser- 
pents), “which was stranded in the Island of Stronsa, one of the 
Orkneys, in the year 1808’, and he goes on giving some details 
