[N°. 118.] REPORTS AND PAPERS. 29] 
Though the Captain says: it had no fins, Lieutenant Drummonp 
stated, that there was “a backfin” which was perhaps twenty feet 
in the rear of the head, “and visible occasionally”. If this were a 
true back-fin, it ought to have been constantly visible. As, howev- 
er, it was only occasionally seen, we conclude that it was nothing 
else but one of the animal’s foreflappers, occasionally coming above 
the surface of the water. “The captain also asserted that he saw 
the tail, or another fin about the same distance behind it.” This 
of course must have been one of the animal’s hind flappers. Lieu- 
tenant Drummonp must have been mistaken as to the length of 
the head, which he described as “perhaps ten feet.” His calcu- 
lation evidently includes a portion of the neck. The head moreover 
was rather pointed, rather blunt, flattened at the top; the upper- 
jaw projecting considerably. He too, uses the terms of shoulders in 
saying: “the upper part of the head and shoulders appeared of a 
dark brown colour, and beneath the under-jaw a brownish-white.” 
The three figures are tolerably well drawn; im fact they are the 
best of all the sketches ever made of this animal. They are as if 
they were delineated after the description above, but they were 
in reality “made from a sketch taken immediately after the animal 
was seen. Here, as in foregoing reports, the figures and the text 
complete one another. The head is not that of a serpent, but that 
of a mammal. The proportions of length and height, the outlines 
of the jaws, the length of the mouth-split, the exact place of the 
eye, even the flattened appearance of forehead and nose are true 
mammalian characters. No whiskers or bristles on the upper-lips, 
and no ears or earholes are drawn, or mentioned. The distance , 
when nearest, was about one hundred yards. It is clear that they 
were not visible at that distance. The nostrils are indicated in the 
drawing by a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle, 
and are afterwards mentioned as having been visible. 
In short, the descriptions as well as the figures agree with our 
present notion of the external appearance of the animal, known as 
the sea-serpent. I only wish to poimt out here that in none of the 
three figures the head can boast of great correctness; for such a 
head would never have been described as resembling that of a 
snake. It is clear that it is drawn too high, too short and not 
flat enough. 
I will insert here a single remark on a passage in Prof. OwEn’s 
reply. It is the following: Prof. Owen rejects the existence of the 
sea-serpent in the Norwegian Seas. “Few sea-coasts have been more 
