388 THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. [The 2nd. | 
Mr. Frorier in his Wotizen, Vol. 4, 1823, expresses himself 
about this explanation in the following manner: 
“As long as the Linnaean Society, to prove their explanation , 
cannot depose an accurate observation or a dissection, we may be 
allowed to entertain modest doubt about their explanation.” 
Of this little Coluber we find also the following passage in 
ScHLEGEL’s Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens. La Haye, 1837, 
Pp. 80: 
“In the same country a snake has been found, probably of the 
species called Coluber constrictor, of which all parts were disfigured 
by sickness much so, that they believed to recognize in this kind 
of monster the famous Sea-Serpent of the North, so well-known 
for its enormous size. The extract from the dissertation, published 
in Boston, will be found in the Journal de Physique Vol. 86, 
p: 297." ! 
Dr. Haminton, in his Amphibious Carnivora, 1839, apparently 
believes that the little Scoliophis atlanticus was the spawn of the 
Great Sea-Serpent, at least he heads his Group III: 
“The Great Sea-Serpent.”’ 
“Scoliophis atlanticus? Linn. Soc. of Boston”. 
We see that he is not quite sure of it, as he puts a note of 
interrogation after the scientific name. 
Without any doubt the Scoliophis atlanticus was a difformed 
specimen of Coluber constrictor. It was the bunches on its back, 
which induced the Committee to suppose this little snake to be a 
spawn of the sea-serpent, which had also bunches on its back. 
After the discovery that the little snake was a difformed one, the 
explanation falls to the ground. Moreover the smooth skin and 
the presence of four flappers of the sea-serpent, are proofs against 
this supposition. | 
The third explanation. In the Chapter on Hoaxes I have already 
inserted. the letter from Prof. T. Say, of Philadelphia, to Bran 
Leacn, of London, in which the former, relying upon a trick of 
the crew of the vessel commanded by captain Ricuarp Ricu, firmly 
believed and declared the Sea-Serpent to be nothing but a large 
tunny. Prof. Say’s letter is also printed in THomson’s Annals of 
January, 1819. We have inserted a figure of a tunny in the above 
mentioned Chapter, fig. 1. 
