IV. 
The various accounts and reports concerning observations of 
Sea-Serpents chronologically arranged and thoroughly 
discussed; and criticisms of the papers written about the subject. 
An account of the appearance of a Sea-Serpent, published in 
Nature of Nov. 18, 1880, induced me to make a study of that 
subject. A few months afterwards I wrote a little paper for the 
Album der Natuur, a Dutch periodical, designed to bring the 
latest progress and problems of Science in a very popular manner 
under the eyes of non-scientific readers. 
In that paper I discussed the probability of the existence of an 
animal which was unknown to zoologists, but which nevertheless 
existed, and gave rise to all the narratives of the Great Sea-Serpent. 
In January, 1889, I happened to come across a paper on the 
same subject by Mr. Henry Lez. In this work “Sea Monsters 
Unmasked” the sea-serpent is explained in several manners, as 
having been a row of porpoises following one another, as some 
gigantic sea-weed, as huge calamaries, and though hesitatingly as 
any still unknown animal belonging to a genus of reptiles, the 
representatives of which are only known in the fossil state. 
Having given another explanation in my above-mentioned paper, 
and seeing that Mr. Lexx did not mention my supposition, I am 
now so bold as to repeat my attempt at explaining the Sea-Serpent 
in another manner; I have chosen the English language as being 
known to all zoologists and to all navigators. 
The Sea-Serpents and other serpents of extraordinary dimensions, 
quoted by Aristoretes (History of Animals, Book 8, chapt. 28), 
Puinius (Naturals Historiae, Lib. 4, cap. 23, Lib. 8, cap. 14), 
Vaterius Maximus (de Factis Dictisgue Memorabilibus, Lib. 1, 
