56 
the Wernerian Transactions, and which remarkable creature does not seem 
hitherto to have been satisfactorily classed. 
Professor Owen, in his interesting letter to the Times of 14th No¬ 
vember, referring to these remains still preserved in Edinburgh, declares 
them to belong to a selache or basking shark. We are told by lawyers 
that a well-connected chain of circumstantial evidence is more satisfactory 
for the establishment of a fact than even direct testimony ; so, probably, 
the skilful inductions of the comparative anatomist, leading us from the 
study of a single vertebra to the reproduction of the whole organization? 
justly engages at once our admiration and the concurrence of our judg¬ 
ment. Nevertheless, as the reconcilement of direct with circumstantial 
evidence removes from the mind all lingering cause of hesitation, it would 
be very desirable to learn how the recorded characters of the Stronsa 
animal can be made to harmonize with the descriptions and representations 
of the basking shark, which recent opportunities have enabled able zoolo¬ 
gists to give with great truth and exactitude. In the accompanying 
plate, (No. 6, fig. 2.) is a drawing of the selache or basking shark, copied 
from Yarrel; and in juxtaposition is a figure of the Stronsa animal, re¬ 
stored from the admeasurements and descriptions taken on the spot where 
it was found, but designedly drawn to assimilate it as far as possible with 
Fig. II. It will be seen, however, that the disagreement is very great, and 
in most essential particulars. The size, the neck, the dorsal fin, the 
branchial openings, and the general form of the basking shark, are alto¬ 
gether different from these characters in the Stronsa animal; but these 
and other distinctive marks may all be found fully discussed in the 
Wernerian Transactions for 1809-11. Its identity with the selache was 
controverted and considered at that time, and we are not aware that the 
question has ever been settled by common consent since. 
The non- discovery of any remains corresponding with the popular idea 
of a huge marine ophidian, has been stated as a reason for disbelief in its 
existence ; but strong as this argument certainly is, it is not stronger than 
that derived from the rarity of the appearance of the supposed animal it¬ 
self. If there be indeed such a creature, or indeed any huge pelagic 
monster sui generis , and not merely a variety of well-known species, such 
as the whale or shark, it must be an occupant of the depths of the ocean, 
as has been urged before, and whose visits to the surface are accidental. 
The monstrous dimensions of such a creature would necessarily imply 
slowness of growth, length of generation, and few representatives of 
species. Living and dying in the deep abyss, its body preyed upon by the 
