Ca 
[No. 148. ] REPORTS AND PAPERS. 35 
about a third of the whole length. The reason of this estimation 
is not mentioned; probably it was the rippling of the water behind 
the back of the animal, which led to it. I firmly believe that this 
individual was more than two hundred feet in length. Again, the 
Lieutenant seems not to have had the least idea of what could 
have been the ridge of fins! No wonder! 
Of the second sketch (fig. 45) I will only say that it is partly 
wrong; for only ove flapper must have been visible at one time, 
though it may be that the animal was paddling with such a rap- 
idity that it seemed as if the two flappers were visible together. 
And when seen from aside in this position it would appear that 
the animal had more than two flappers, had a row of them, as 
is shown in our fig. 36. — It is also clear that the severe splashing 
and foaming of the water, which must have been caused by the 
movements of the flappers, is omitted in the figure. 
Mr. Anprew Wrtson in his Lezsure Time Studies notes that 
the details furnished in the account of the Z%mes appear to be 
explicable by a tape-fish (Gymnetrus or Regalecus). 1 nead not say 
that I am not at all at one with him. There is not one simple 
character either in the ridge of fins, or in the animal described , 
which agrees in the least with that of a tape-fish! Moreover tape- 
fishes are deep-sea fishes, and only rise to the surface , dying or dead ! 
Mr. Srartes V. Woop, Jun’s comparison of the animal with 
a manatee (Nature, 1880, Nov. 18) is better at first view, but 
the length of the neck, the form of the flappers and the dimen- 
sions of both animals differ in such a degree, that it is superfluous 
to dwell any longer on it. 
In January 1879, Mr. Anprew Wirson published his Lezsure 
Time Studies, a very interesting and captivating book. His fifth 
chapter is entitled. “The sea-serpents of Science’. As might be 
expected the author treats of the various explanations of the sea- 
serpent given by men of science as well as by others, and declares 
himself to be a firm believer of the fact that large unknown ani- 
mals exist. I wish to quote here the most interesting parts, or 
better said, those parts which are, at present, of great interest. 
In considering the authenticity of the reports and the admission 
that really “something’’ must have been seen, the author says: 
»Uan we, after perusing the mass of evidence accumulated dur- 
23 
