| The 16th. | THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. 44,9 
Fig. 69. — Macrorhinus leoninus (LINN). 
Captain M’Quuaz, on the contrary, at once rejects the idea of 
a seal. His letter is interesting enough to be read over again; I 
therefore refer my readers to.it (n°. 118). 
Mr. Frortepr, in his Notizen, Third Series, X. p. 97, of July, 
1849, after having mserted in his columns extracts from the state- 
ment of Lieutenant Drummonp, from that of Captam M’Quuar, 
from the hoax of the Daphne, from the suggestion of Mr. Manrett, 
from that of Prof. Owzn, &c. &c. finally concludes : 
“We therefore observe from all these articles that nothing is 
still fixed about the existence or non-existence of the great sea- 
serpent; yet so much seems inquestionable now, that there must 
be a large sea-animal, still unknown, and not quite unlike a 
snake; but whether this monster is a snake, nay even belongs to 
the family of the amphibians, this gets more and more doubtful 
after the objections of Prof. Owen.” 
Mr. Gossz, in his Romance of Natural History treats of the 
seal-hypothesis in the followmg manner: | 
“Among animals, the Vertebrata are the only classes supposable. 
But of these, which? Birds are out of the question; but Mammata, 
29 
