422 THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. [The 10th. ] | 
purpose, I could wish to separate them from the Reptiles, because 
I feel doubtful of their Reptilian nature. For this doubt I could 
urge many reasons in connection with the views I have long since 
published in the System of Nature, but, waiving all considerations 
which may be considered speculative, I would invite the intention 
of naturalists to the figure of Ichthyosaurus as restored by geolo- 
gists, to the shape of the beak, the situation of the blow-holes, 
the character of the paddles, the mammalian structure exhibited 
by a section of the vertebrae, the extraordinary conformation of the 
sternum, and the smoothness of the skin; and when they have 
well-considered these important points, I would inquire whether 
these distinguishing features are not rather mammalian than reptil- 
ian? and, again, whether they are not rather marsupial than plac- 
ental? I have already pointed out the manupedine, ferine, glirine 
and brutine groups of marsupials; why should we not also have 
a cetine group? Without making any other use of this suggestion 
than that of temporarely separating the Enaliosaurians from the 
Reptiles, I now request the readers’ attention to the arguments of 
Mr. Morries Stirlmg (Zool. 2309) and of F. G. 8. (Zool. 2311), 
both of whom support the opinion which I had previously broach- 
ed as to the Enaliosaurian character of the Sea Serpent, — a 
view controverted by Dr. Melville (Zool. 2310) and Prof. Owen 
(Zool. 2316), on the ground that the Enaliosaurians are extinct; 
but here I may perhaps be permitted to remark that this fact, 
being only assumed, does not touch the main question.” 
“Proceeding to Reptiles proper, and referring to the suggestion 
of an anonymous contributor to the “Times”, quoted by Dr. Coes- 
wELL (Zool. 2321 note), we find it questioned whether the animal 
may not have been a boa; and I may observe that the evidence 
concerning the head, which has been repeatedly described as pre- 
cisely resembling that of a snake or serpent, together with the 
fact of the animal holding its head clear of the water, are so many 
points in favour of its belonging to the Ophidia; but, on the 
other hand, we must place the non-observance of that undulating 
mode of progression which every snake must employ, — and it 
amounts to more than non-observance, for Captam M’Quhae, who 
directed his attention to this point especially, declares that such 
undulation did not exist. Again, the enormous length — three 
times that of a boa — militates against this hypothesis. Professor 
Owen lays great stress on the non-existence of ophidian vertebrae ; 
but as only two Ophidians have yet entered the arena as compet- 
