[The 7th.] THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. 397 
In the fifth explanation we have learned that Mr. A. G. Met- 
VILLE was of opinion that there does not exist a sea-serpent in 
reality, but only in fables, and that these fables originated in the 
Northern mythology. Now, he seems to have changed his opinion 
in a fortnight, for in a letter to Dr. CoeswrLi, part of which is 
published “with permission of both gentlemen” in the Zoologist, 
number of November 27th., 1848, he says: 
“[ have never entertained a doubt regarding the existence of 
some unknown animal of vast dimensions, whose angel visits have 
astonished the fortunate observers or excited the incredulous smile 
of the authorities of science.” 
“No one inclined, I believe, to give due importance to the 
known facts of geology, can entertain the probability of any rela- 
tionship between “the great sea-serpent’’ and the extinct Plesiosauri ; 
nor do the recorded phenomena require such a hypothesis.” 
“Reasoning from the known occurrence of a huge cartilaginous 
fish (Squalus) on our Orcadian shores, I am of opinion that when 
caught the sea-serpent will turn out to be a shark, and I conceive 
it is just as probable that a shark may carry the head for short 
periods out of the water, as that the flying fishes should occasion- 
ally step aboard to look at us land monsters.” 
“It is always unsafe to deny positively any phenomena that may 
be wholly or in part inexplicable; and hence I am content to 
believe that one day the question will be satisfactorily solved. 
Might we not obtain some information from the accurate Sars 
regarding the Norwegian tradition? Could not the surgeon of the 
Daedalus throw some light on the subject?” 
Mr. Gossz, in his Komance of Natural History, after having 
treated of the probability of the sea-serpent being an optical illusion 
caused by huge stems of sea-weed, or being a large seal, or some 
cetacean, expresses his opinion about the basking-shark theory in 
the following terms: 
“As to its place among fishes, Dr. Mantell and Mr. Melville 
consider that the Daedalus animal may have been one of the 
sharks; and there is no doubt that the celebrated Stronsa animal, 
which was considered by Dr. Barclay as the Norwegian sea-serpent , 
was really the Selache maaima or basking-shark. But the identifi- 
cation of Captain M’Quhae’s figure and description with a shark 
is preposterous. ” 
Mr. Anprew Witson, however, in JVature (1878, Sept. 12, 
Vol. XVIII) is of the opinion that: 
