466 THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. [The 18th. | 
from which Mr. Proctor quotes my views, I distinctly refer to the 
probability of giant sea-snakes being occasionally developed and 
appearing as the modern sea-serpent. The use of the word “only” 
in Mr. Proctor’s remark is misleading; since I offer the rbbon- 
fishes simply as explanatory of certain sea-serpent narratives, and 
not as a sole and universal representative of the modern leviathan.” 
“Thus, then, with the ribbon-fishes at hand, and with the clear 
proof before us that these and other animals may be developed to 
a size which, compared with their ordinary dimensions, we can 
only term enormous, I think the true and valid explanation of the 
sea-serpent question is neither far to seek nor difficult to find. To 
objectors of a practical turn of mind, who may remind me that 
we have not yet procured even a single bone of a giant serpent, 
I would pomt out that I by no means maintain the frequent de- 
velopment of such beings. The most I argue for and require is 
their occasional production; and I would also remind such objec- 
tors of the case of the giant cuttle-fishes which, until within the 
past few years, remained in the same mysterious seclusion affected 
at present by the great serpentine unknown. I need only add that 
J have as firm faith in the actual discovery of a giant serpent of 
the sea, as that in the giant tape-fish we find its representative , 
or that in the huge development of ordinary forms we discover the 
true and natural law of its production.” 
“To sum up my arguments by way of conclusion, I respectfully 
submit, as does a pleading counsel to his jury, —” 
“Firstly: That many of the tales of sea-serpents are amply verified, 
when judged by the ordinary rules of evidence; this conclusion 
being especially supported by the want of any prema facie reason 
for prevarication ;’’ 
“Secondly: That, laying aside appearances which can be proved 
to be deceptive and to be caused by inanimate objects or by unu- 
sual attitudes on the part of familiar animals, there remains a 
body of evidence only to be explained on the hypothesis that cer- 
tain gigantic marine animals, at present unfamiliar or unknown 
to science, do certainly exist; and” | 
“Thirdly: That the existence of such animals is a fact perfectly 
consistent with scientific opinion and knowledge, and is most read- 
ily explained by recognizing the fact of the occasional development 
of gigantic members of groups of marine animals already familiar 
to the naturalist.” 
Mr. Ler, in his Sea Monsters Unmasked, too, supposes that 
