ATA THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. [The 20th. | 
the deception being increased by the resemblance of a head caused 
by several “skarps” in a cluster heading the column, and by the 
“lumpy seas of a swift tideway frequently intervening and hiding 
for an instance part of the black lines, causing the observer to — 
not unnaturally — imagine that the portions so hidden had gone 
under water. The speed of the cormorant on the wing may be 
fairly estimated at thirty miles an hour or more.” — J. Rag. 
It would be superfluous to compare the sea-serpent with a mass 
of flying birds. The descriptions and figures of the former are the 
most striking proofs against this hypothesis. 
The twenty-first explanation was proposed by Dr. AnDREw WIL- 
son in his Lezsure Time Studies, 1879. He presents a frontispice 
to his work “embodying the chief representations of the various 
theories of the sea-serpent question.” On the left side of the fore- 
ground is delineated a large turtle. Of this supposition Mr. Lrr 
says in his Sea Monsters Unmasked: 
“A giant turtle may have done duty, with its propelling flippers 
and broad back.” 
The largest sea-turtle does not surpass the length of six feet, 
including the neck and head when stretched as much as possible. 
The breadth of the shell of such an individual may be about three 
and a half in diameter. It is impossible that sea-farig people would 
have been deceived by a swimming turtle. They know these ani- 
mal well enough. Even a giant turtle would immediately be re- 
cognized by its broad shell. No sea-turtles occur near the Norweg- 
ian shore. 
The twenty-second explanation. I don’t know whether the note 
p. 106 of the third edition, 1884, of Mr. Anprew Wixson’s Leis- 
ure Time Studies, also appeared in the first edition, January, 
1879, and so I don’t know whether this author, or Mr. Lez, 
(1883), has a superior claim to the supposition that the great sea- 
serpent might be in some or in most instances a giant cuttle-fish 
or calamary. 
Mr. Anprew Wrtson, quoting the report of Messrs WuxpsTER 
and ANpERSoN (n°. 146), in which the latter says: “the creature 
was apparently of a gelatinous (that it flabby) substance”, writes 
in a note: 
