[1818. | REPORTS AND PAPERS. 193 
As soon as the Report reached Europe, Mr. H. M. Ducroray 
pE Bnainvinie made an extract from it in his Journal de Physique, 
de Chimie et d Histoire Naturelle, Vol. 86, (Paris, 1818). Appar- 
ently he too believed the little snake to be a new species, and 
therefore paid more attention to it than to the large marine animal, 
which he doubtlessly could not explain, and about which he did 
not trouble himself much. In one respect Mr. De Brarnvit.e tried 
to throw ridicule on two reports, viz. those of Ropertr Brace and 
Wiviiam Somerby: “and the imagination of some sailors is cause 
that they saw a tongue or spear coming out of his mouth, to 
which they gave a length of twelve feet, a circumference of 6 
inches at the bottom and a termination as a lancet.” As we saw, 
the two sailors only mentioned a fongue of two feet; they did not 
use the expression of spear, they neither gave the circumference at 
the bottom, nor did they describe the termination as a /ancet’s 
but as a harpoon’s. It was Mr. Foster who saw a prong or spear, 
but only of twelve zaches and terminating in a small point. At all 
events Mr. Dz Bratnvitie has read badly! 
But on the other hand he is a believer. His extract ends thus: 
“If we were now to scrutinize the existence of the Great Sea- 
Serpent, we must confess that it would be difficult to deny the 
appearance of an animal of very great length, very slender, and 
swimming with rapidity, in the sea near Cape Ann, but that it 
is a true snake, this is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as 
the Scohophis, this assertion is still more doubtful, and finally 
that it is of the same species, here the number of probabilities 
still diminishes, and becomes totally null, if one believes that such 
an immense animal, as that which is observed in the sea has gone 
ashore to lay its eggs.” 
For this is firmly believed by the Committee! 
Prof. W. D. Pxcx in his dissertation on the Sea-Serpent (J/em. 
Am. Acad. Arts Sc. Vol. IV. Pt. I, 1818) says: 
“The testimony is ample of the existence of such a serpent, in 
the portion of the Atlantic which washes our shores.” 
After having mentioned some early accounts Prof. Prck says: 
“These are the eartiest notices I can find of this animal on our 
shores, and their truth is rendered undubitable by the evidence 
lately brought together by the Committee of the Linnaean Society, 
of men of fair and unblemished character in Gloucester.” 
13 
