[The 1st. ] THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. 385 
Fig. 58. — A row of porpoises. 
repetitions, I beg the reader to refer to the testimonies of Mr. 
Cummines (n°. 29) and Mr. Prince (n°. 63), in which they clearly 
bring to light the difference between the appearance of the sea- 
serpent and that of a row of porpoises. 
And where a naturalist, like Mr. Scatece., describes the effect 
caused by a row of porpoises, he has no right to assert that those 
persons who declare to have seen the sea-serpent, were the dupe 
of an optical illusion. Mr. Scutecret should have said: “On one 
occasion I was nearly deceived by a row of porpoises, but alas, | 
never saw a sea-serpent !”” 
The second explanation is that of the Committee of the Linnaean 
Society of New England (Boston). This Committee consisted of the 
Hon. Judge Davis, Prof. Jacop Bicrntow, and Mr. Francis C. Gray. 
This learned body after having published, 1817, exceedingly inte- 
resting reports, was of course morally bound to explain the phenom- 
enon. What kind of beast could it be!? and before they began 
to feel puzzled, a deus ex machina in the form of a sick, illformed 
and lame little snake presented itself suddenly in a field near 
Loblolly Cove. It was killed by a working man at that place, 
bought by Dr. So and So, and presented to the Committee to 
examine it, because people believed that this animal was a spawn 
of the great sea-serpent. The Committee really examined and dis- 
sected it and gave a full account of their experience in their Report. 
They considered the little snake to be new to science, closely al- 
lied to the Coluber constrictor or Black Snake, a common species 
of North-America, and gave it the name of Scolophis atlanticus. 
This account is followed by two documents describing how the 
Scoliophis \ooked while it was alive, and the circumstance under 
which it was killed. I present here to my readers the Scoliophis 
25 
