[The 2nd. | THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. 387 
M. Ducrotay bE BrainvittE dared handle the subject publicly. 
As soon as the Report of the Committee of 1817 reached him, 
he made an extract from it in his Journal de Physique, etc., Vol. 
86, 1818, Paris. He, however, made much more of the little cu- 
rious snake, apparently believing too that it was a new species, 
than of the large marine animal of which he was unable to give 
any explanation. Mr. pr Buatnvitte does not hesitate to express 
his astonishment that the Committee concluded the sea-serpent to 
be a real snake and an adult of their Scohophis atlanticus, and 
ended his extract: 
“If we will now scrutinize severely the existence of the Great 
Sea-Serpent, we must avow that it would be difficult to deny the 
appearance in the sea near Cape Anne; of an animal of very great 
length, very slender, and swimming with rapidity, but that it is 
a true snake, is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as the 
Scohophs, is an assertion still more doubtful; and finally to hold 
that it is of the same species, reduces the number of probabilities 
which become null, if one is to believe that such an immense 
animal as that observed in the sea, goes ashore to lay its eggs!” 
For this is firmly believed by the members of the Committee! 
For Mr. pe Brainvirte who did not give himself the trouble 
to collect as many accounts as possible, to read Ouaus Maenus, 
Pontoppipan, HcEDE, etc., it was of course impossible to conceive 
what animal had been seen near Cape Ann, nor was he, for the 
same reason, able to explain the very different declarations of the 
witnesses concerning the length of the animal. 
Mr. A. Lesvzur, who was a companion of the celebrated Mr. 
Péron, and who, in 1818, lived at Boston, wrote to Mr. pz 
Buainvitie to say that he had not only seen the little snake, but 
had dissected the same portion of the vertebral column as did the 
members of the Committee, together with several inches of another 
portion of the snake, and concluded that the figure of the little 
snake published by the Committee was very well drawn, but that 
the figure of the portion of the vertebral column was very badly 
done; of this he gave another figure, and furthermore asserted 
that the little snake not only was nothing else but a true snake, 
closely allied to the Black Snake (Coluber constrictor), but that it 
was in a state of disease and notably difformed. Of the great Sea- 
Serpent he said nothing, because he had not seen it himself. 
The dissertation of Mr. pr BuatnviniE and the extract from Mr. 
Lzsvevur’s letter translated into German are in Oxen’s J/sis, 1819. 
