386 THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. [The 2nd. | 
atlanticus reduced to ‘/, of its size, and a separate full-sized figure 
of its head, showing the two wounds caused by the pitchfork with 
which the animal was killed. 
Fig. 54. — Scoliophis atlanticus; one sixth of its full-size. 
Next they gave: “A few 
remarks on the question” 
(broached by the public) 
“whether the great serpent, 
Bie f60 ataita hod geniierre seen in the Harbour of Glou- 
cester be the Scoliophis At- 
lanticus.” These “few remarks” fill three pages and a half and end 
with the words: 
“On the whole, as these two animals agree in so many conspic- 
uous, important and peculiar characters, and as no material differ- 
ence between them has yet heen clearly pointed out, excepting 
that of size, the Society will probably feel justified in considering 
them individuals of the same species, and entitled to the same 
name, until a more close examination of the great Serpent shall 
have disclosed some difference of structure, important enough to 
constitute a specific distinction.” 
It is quite astonishing that scientific men could come to the 
conclusion that the large animal, that gave rise to the 51 ac- 
counts which the Committee could have gathered up to their days, 
was a full grown individual of the species they called Scohophis 
atlanticus! If they had collected all these accounts, if they had 
seriously compared them, they would have come most probably to 
the conclusion that they did not know precisely what it was, but 
that it could never be a snake. 
Also from another point of view it is hard to explain that the 
Committee believed the sea-serpent to be of the same species as 
the little Scohophis. Three persons mentioned the tongue, which 
was not bifid, while the tongue of Scohophs is so! And the most 
accurate testimonies agree that the skin was smooth and had zo 
scales ! ! 
The newspapers brought the accounts of 1817 to Europe and 
no doubt drew the attention of many zoologists, but only Mr. H. 
