ig6 
The Bolivian M ouster : 
[April, 
see that the ocean is the home of. mammals, vastly 
transcending in size the largest terrestrial species, it is at 
least not impossible that the same rule may hold good for 
reptiles. The sea-serpent, according to the most libeia 
statements, only bears the same proportion to the python 
that the whale does to the elephant. 
An earthworm of 6 feet in length has actually been cap- 
tured in South Africa. A species not greatly superior in 
size may have been the cause of the probably exaggeiated 
reports of the underground monster of Brazil. 
Nor was there in the story of the Queensland saurian any 
feature which could a priori inspire suspicion. It is surely 
unsafe to say that all animal forms— even of large size 
existing in the world have been already captured, descnbed, 
disseCted, andduly deposited for examination in our museums. 
Nor have we any warrant for at once denying the existence o 
a species of unusual dimensions. Still less are we justified m 
sneering at those who would bid us, in such cases, at least 
to suspend judgment until decisive evidence has been 
There are, however, cases in which incredulity is much 
more warrantable. Thus some years ago we saw, in a lite- 
rary and political organ of the ulcerated class, as Punch 
once termed them, a figure and description of a sea- 
monster” said to have been observed somewhere on the 
western coast of South America. This creature whether it 
had a real existence or whether it had been evolved ou o 
the consciousness of “ our own artist, presented je 
startling feature of three pairs of limbs. We need scarcely 
say that no vertebrate animal, recent or fossil, has been 
found possessing more than two pairs. 
The Bolivian monster, which is our more immediate sub- 
iedt displays a characteristic still more improbable. We 
do not say “impossible,” since the use of this woid in 
Science is rarely prudent, accused as savants now often aie 
of their liability to the “ credulity of scepticism. It may 
indeed be useful, before proceeding to a description of the 
animal in question, to justify the reluctance of scientific 
men to accept human testimony unsupported by evidence of 
a more palpable kind. This reluctance has, we believe, 
called forth of late some very strong comments. It has 
been pronounced singular that evidence such as m any 
Court of Law would suffice to conviCt any accused person 
of murder, should, in the Courts of Science, be dismissed as 
utterly inconclusive. 
On careful reflection, however, an essential difference 
