A892, THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. [The 23d.| 
“(The animal seen from the Osdorne, and figured in the Graphic 
of June 30th., 1877, as “the sea-serpent’’, is quite a different thing 
from the one in question, and may have been a manatee. |” 
This figure is our figure 45. Evidently Mr. Woop did not read 
the account accurately, and so came to a hasty supposition based 
on a figure only. The length of the visible part of the animal seen 
from the Osborne, 1. e. “from its crown or top to just below the 
shoulders, where it became immersed’, was “about fifty feet’, and 
the length of the flappers “each about fifteen feet’. So this animal 
had an enormous neck. Now the manatee or sea-cow has a total 
length of ten feet, the length from the crown or top to just below 
the shoulders is not more than four feet. and there is no question 
of a neck, as our figure will show. Mr. Woop committed the 
/ / ips ecoovshes ey, tye ft ' 
/ ETD RG A eealen { 
fee rs Bee 
Fig. 71. — Thrichechus manatus Linne. 
mistake, like so many others, that he explained oze sea-serpent, 
instead of first comparing a// the reports of it before giving an 
opinion. 
Let us now place all these explanations side by side. According 
to different authorities, the sea-serpent may be: . 
1. A row of porpoises. (Rev. ALDEN Braprorp, 1808). 
2. Scoliophis atlanticus, a new species of snake with bunches on 
its back. (Hon. Jonn Davis, Prof. Jacop Biernow, Mr. C. F. 
Gray, 1817): 
3. A large tunny. (Prof. THomas Say, 1818). 
