[ 1877. ] REPORTS AND PAPERS. BAD 
an article entitled “Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange”’ appeared, writ- 
ten by an anonymous writer. Evidently the report of Captain Drrvar, 
which appeared in the Liverpool newspapers of the 10th. of January 
of that year, was the stimulus to this essay. The writer superfi- 
cially treats of several already known accounts and reports of sea- 
serpents viz: our n°. 144, 145, and 5, the tales of Ponroppipan , 
the animal of Stronsa (p. 61—88), the appearances quoted by the 
Boston Linnaean Society (1817), our n°. 118, the hoax of the 
Daphne (1848, Oct. 21), our ns, 129 and 130, the cheat of Dr. 
Kocu (1845), and the true sea-snakes (Hydrophdae). In two of his 
assertions this anonymous author is mecorrect, viz. It was not Cap- 
tain M’Quaar who asserted that the animal’s mouth was large 
enough to admit of a tall man standing upright in it, but an 
anonymous contributor to the Zimes; Mr. Henprrson was master 
of the ship Mary Ann, and not of the Daphne; the master of 
this ship was called Tretawnry. I consider these four names as 
fictive (see my Chapter on hoaxes p. 34.) 
WAT. — 1877, May 21. — In Mr. Annrew Wutson’s Lei- 
sure Time Studies we read in a note (p. 111): 
“An instance of a large sea-snake being seen in its native seas 
is afforded by the report of the master of the barque Georgina 
from Rangoon, which (as reported in the newspapers of September 
4, 1877) put into Falmouth for orders on the Ist. September. On 
May 21, 1877, in latitude 2° N. and longitude 90° 53’ E., a 
large serpent about forty or fifty feet long, grey and yellow in 
colour, and ten or eleven inches thick, was seen by the crew. It 
was visible for twenty minutes, during which time it crossed the 
bow, and ultimately disappeared under the port-quarter.”’ 
The dimensions are clearly those of the visible part of the ani- 
mal. The colour being stated as grey and yellow makes me con- 
clude that the animal had swum for a long time with its body in 
a straight line, without diving and that the part, exposed to the 
sunbeams, had dried up. 
Mr. Anprew Wrrson adds: “There can be little doubt that 
this sea-serpent was simply a largely developed marine snake”. I'll 
not contest his opinion. — 
148. — 1877, June 2. — Not less important than others 
