292 THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTS, [N*: Tiea 
sedulously searched, or by more acute naturalists (witness the lab- 
ours of Sars and Lovén) than those of Norway. Krakens and sea- 
serpents ought to have been living and dying thereabouts from 
long before Pontoppidan’s time to our day, if all tales were true; 
yet they have never vouchsafed a single fragment of the skeleton 
to any Scandinavian collector.” It may be true that Mssrs Sars 
and Lovin often navigated along the coasts of Norway and yet 
never saw a sea-serpent. Prof. OwxEn forgets that his own coun- 
tryman, Mr. Morrigs Srrrnine, saw one with his own eyes! Is 
this proof not decisive enough? The absence of remains is not a 
proof of the non-existence of the sea-serpent, as there are whales 
with two backfins, which are seen by three different xaturalists, 
yet not one single bone has ever fallen under the notice of zoolo- 
gists. Prof. Own also mentions the Kraken. Now my readers know 
well enough that the Krakens are abundant enough, being gigantic 
calamaries; it is, however, possible that before the year 1848 there 
was no official report of such a calamary. At present, however, 
they may be found by scores! It may be remarked here, too, that 
it was not before the year 1861, that a piece of a Kraken, or 
gigantic calamary, was brought to Paris by the commander of the 
Alecton, nota bene notwithstanding Prof. Owen’s assertion that they 
did not exist, as else the naturalists of Norway , and amongst them 
especially Sars and Lovin, would have found them !! 
Of course it was impossible that the statement of Capt. M’QuHaE 
agreed in details with that of Lieutenant Drummonp, because the 
latter was immediately written after the appearance of Aug. 6th., 
whilst the letter of Captain M’Quuaz was addressed to the Ad- 
miralty on the llth. of October, two months afterwards and ap- 
parently written from memory. 
Mr. Anprew Witson in his Leisure Time Studies says of the 
“fin” mentioned by Lieutenant Drummonp: 
“This fin evidently corresponds to the structure described in the 
captain’s report as “something like a mane of a horse’, and which 
the introduction of the word “like” (as I have inserted it in par- 
entheses after the word “rather” in his description) serves to cor- 
relate with the “bunch of sea-weed” which “washed about its back’’.” 
I believe to have clearly shown that the “fin” of Lieutenant 
Drummonp was nothing but one of the animal’s fore-flappers and 
the other fin, “twenty feet more backward”, was one of the 
animal’s hind-flappers, and I believe that I may express my con- 
viction that Mr. Anprew Winson was just as wrong in supposing 
