A450 THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. [The 16th. | 
Reptilia, Pisces, — there is no antecedent absurdity in assigning 
it to either of these. Each of these classes contains species of length- 
ened form, of vast dimensions, of pelagic habit; and to each 
has the creature been, by different authorities, assigned.” 
“Tet us, then, look at the Mammala. Here Professor Owen 
would place it; and his opinion on a zoological question has almost 
the force of an axiom. I trust I shall not be accused of presump- 
tion if I venture to examine the decision of one whom I greatly 
respect. It is true, his reasoning applies directly only to the creature 
seen from the Daedalus; but we are bound to consider the exigencies 
not only of that celebrated case, but of all the other well-authen- 
ticated cases.” | 
“Prof. Owen thus draws up the characters of the animal: — 
“Head with a convex, moderately capacious cranium, short obtuse 
muzzle, gape not extending further than the eye; eye rather 
small, round, filling closely the palpebral aperture; colour, dark 
brown above, yellowish white beneath; surface smooth, without 
scales, scutes, or other conspicuous modifications of hard and naked 
cuticle; nostrils not mentioned, but indicated in the drawing by 
a crescentic mark at the end of the nose or muzzle; body long, 
dark brown, not undulating, without dorsal or other apparent fins ; 
“but something like the mane of a horse, or rather a bunch of 
sea-weed , washed about its back.” | 
“The earlier of these characters are those “of the head of a 
warm-blooded mammal; none of them those of a cold-blooded 
reptile or fish’. The comparison of the dimly-seen something on 
the back to a horse’s mane or sea-weed, seems to indicate a cloth- 
ing of hair; and, guided by this interpretation, the Professor 
judges that the animal was not a cetacean, but rather a great seal.” 
“Now, it is manifest that it was from the pictorial sketches, 
more than from the verbal description of Captain M’Quhae, that 
this diagnosis was drawn up. And if the drawings had been made 
from the life, under the direction of a skilful zoologist, nothing 
could be more legitimate than such a use of them. But surely it 
has been overlooked that they were made under no such circum- 
stances. Only one of the published representations was original; 
and this was taken “immediately after the animal was seen”. That 
is, one of the officers, who could draw, went below immediately, 
and attempted to reproduce what his eye was still filled with. Now, 
what could one expect under such conditions? Of course, the artist 
was not a zoologist, or we should have had a zoologist’s report. 
