| N°. 137— 140. | REPORTS AND PAPERS Ts 7 
extending through a number of years, which remains after setting 
aside fables and exaggerations, it seems surprising that no natur- 
alist of that country has ever applied himself to make out some- 
thing about the animal. In the meantime, as the public will most 
probably be dubious about quickly giving credit to our account, 
the following explanations are open to them, all of which have 
been proposed to me, wz: — porpoises, lumps of sea-weed, empty 
harring-barrels, bladders, logs of wood, waves of the sea, and 
inflated pig-skins; but as all these theories present to our minds 
greater difficulties than the existence of the animal itself, we feel 
obliged to decline them.” 
| “D. ‘Twopeny.” 
We observe at a glance that the figures show nearly exactly the 
same outlines as the figure of Mr. Brnsrrup (fig. 24). The reap- 
pearing and disappearing of the animal is well pictured and evi- 
dently recalls to my readers mind the “sinking down like a rock” 
of American reports. The reader will observe that the appearance 
took place nearly in the same locality as that of 1808, June (n°. 
31, 32). Moreover we need not add anything to the unvarnished 
reports. As to the appearances of the large creatures in 1871 and 
“some years back’, communicated in the post-scriptum, their de- 
scriptions, are too vague for me to see in them sea-serpents. — 
The fin striking up at a little distance from the head, of course, 
was one of the animal’s fore-flappers. — 
Mr. Epwarp Newman, the Editor of the Zoologist, who first 
was a firm believer in the sea-serpent, and expressed his opinion 
that it might be a still living Plestosaurus or an animal closely 
allied to it, and who afterwards evidently wavered in his opinion, 
after his description of the Regalecus Jonesi, a ribband-fish, (see 
above p. 319), now suddenly adds to the evidences of the Rev. 
JoHN Macraz and the Rev. Davin Tworrny, the following note: 
“J have long since expressed my firm conviction that there 
exists a large marine animal unknown to us naturalists; I main- 
tain this belief as firmly as ever. I totally reject the evidence of 
published representations; but do not allow their imaginary figures 
to interfere with a firm conviction, although I admit thei tend- 
ency is always in that direction: the figures and exaggerated de- 
scriptions of believers are far more damaging to a faith in such an 
animal than the arguments, the ridicule on the explanatory guesses 
