86 WOULD-BE SEA-SERPENTS. 
Again: the teeth of the animal were not called “cartilaginous”, 
but they were described as “soft, and” that “they could be bent by 
the strength of the hand”. 
Mr. Tratiu further says that “they would seem to have been 
the remains of fins, altered by incipient decomposition. The six — 
may be remains of pectoral, abdominal and anal fins’. Now there 
is no fish known to Zoologists, that has ¢wo anal fins. The anal 
fin is therefore called an unpaired fin! | 
In comparing the dimensions of the animal of Stronsa with those 
of Homr’s Basking-shark, the writer, like Dr. Barcuay, perman- 
ently believes that the animal was “in its most entire condition” ! 
Further he asserts that the “length of the largest Basking shark of 
which we possess any accurate account, scarcely exceeds thirty six 
feet’. Consulting Prof. H. Scuiecen’s De visschen van Nederland, 
I read, however: 
“The largest individual ever observed on the coasts of England, 
had a length of 36 feet. On the coasts of Norway, individuals are 
usually observed much larger than the boats fitted out for this 
capture, which are of about 40 feet. According to earlier intelli- 
gences, transmitted by trustworthy witnesses to the Bishop GunNEzR, 
sometimes individuals of more than 70, and even of more than 
100 feet in length were captured on the coasts of Norway”. 
In considermg the “mane” he also overlooks the fact that the 
two dorsal fins and the caudal fin were entirely decomposed ,. so 
that their fibres had become quite loose. According to the so cal- 
led “first cervical vertebra” he made the same mistake as Dr. Barcuay ! 
The two “circular spiracles on each side of the neck” have of 
course no relation at all with the five linear true gill-splits (not 
“spiracles’ as Mr. Traizu says) of the Basking-shark. These “two 
spiracles on each side of the neck” were in no case “spiracles”. 
They may have been decomposed stems of the vascular system in 
the flesh near the skull of the animal. 
Dr. Trait, no more than Dr. Barcuay, seemed to have known 
the difference between the “head” of a shark and its “skull” or 
“cranium” ! 
The “hole on the top of the cranium” which is also figured in 
the engraving representing the skull in the Memoirs of the Wernerian 
Society is evidently the result of putrification and of an external 
injury. : 
T need not tell my readers what I think about “the animal of 
Stronsa”. They may more than once have observed that I agree 
