The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-05-16

ported over and over again in the news
papers, and thousands of eye witnesses
first and last stand ready to testify that
they have seen him at one place or an
other. And. Daradoxically enough. in
the midst of all these accommodating re-
ports. there has grown up in the public
mind, perhaps for the first time IN mis-
tory, a spirit of sceDticism regarding
the very existence of the sea serpent.
Ours is an Ultra-sceDtical generation,
and the scepticism appears to focalize
on marine wonders. The great food
and NOah's ark are repudiated even by
. orthodox clergYmen; Jonah and his
whale are being weighed in the balance
in more than one pulpit: and there are
! those who would make a NTH also of
the time honored sea ser2ent. Indeed
1t has come to pass that belief in the
existence of sea serpent is looked
upon rather as an evidence of ignorance
and credulity.
1t is only fair to add that a certain
number of people have regarded the
alleged sea serpent in this same spirit
all along. And it must be admitted
that there is some warrant for this at
titude, for the sea serpent has certainly
proved very elusive being, when sub
jected to critical tests Yet on the
other hand. II should not be forgotten
that more than one distinguished nat
uralist has looked into the matter and
affirmed his belief in the existence of
the sea serpent; while Mr.. Spencer's
philosophical dictum would seem to
leave no alternative to the belief that
something which has had the appear
aEce of a great serpent in the sea has
actually existed, and been seen again
and again Such great naturalists as
Sir Richard Owen, Louis AgaSsiz and
others have rot thought it beneath
their dignity to inquire what this some
thing NAV be; and if the results of
these Investigations have been neither
uniform nor quite conclusive, they are
at least interesting and worthy of eX-
animation. Let US see, then, what eX-
/ plantations Of the sea serpent tradition
the naturalists have been able to offer.
AS TO the earlier accounts, such as
that of Magnus, of course no one now
takes them seriously. But, on the other
hand, it is hardly open to question ;hat
many 18th century witnesses have de-
scribed pretty accurately the appear
ance OF something which they took for
a sea serpent. The people of Gloucester,
for example, saw something, and that.
TOO. something very unusual, in their
harbOr in 1877, as they fully convinced
the committee of the Linnaean society
already referred to. And there are
plenty of Gloucester people alive today
who will tell you that they have them
!
off the coast there within recent years.
/ 1t does not necessarily follow that this
monster was a veritable serpent, but
what was it?
The answers TO that question have
been almost numberless- 1t has been
suggested at one time and another that
the alleged sea serpent was really only
a school of porpoiSeS swimming Single
file: that it was a shark, whale, a
manatee a cutie fish, a floating tree,
even a bunch of seaweed. But the eye
witnesses greet such suggestions with
nirth and scorn. What they saw, they
affirm, was no ordinary denizen of the
seas; serpent or not, it was strange,
anomalous monster
The naturalists have been more than
half-disposed to think this assertion
correct. They are rather more prone
than ordinary persons TO admit that
there may be creatures in the sea I'M
dreamed of in their PHILOSOPHERS. and
they are able to point out scientifically
what may he the affinities of such
creatures They know from the rec
ords of geology that there have been
times in the past when the seas were
peopled with veritabe sea serDents as
monstrous and as startling as fancy
could we'll depict, and they are by no
means sure that some of these may
not have left living descendants. There,
~
creature 80 or 40 feet in length, with
fshlike body. great paddles for legs,
and a long serpent-like neck. Ihls
creature f1ourished abundantly in one
geological epoch, and if any direct
descendant OF his chances TO be alive
today. we need look no further for the
true sea serpent of tradition. Who
knows that there is not some form of
oIesiosaurus in the seas today2 Pro-
lessor Silliman, among others, has
thought it not unlikely
Then. again, there was the crea-
ture whose remains DIR. Harlan dls-
covered in 1923. and which he called
hasilosaurus. but which Professor
owen afterward renamed zeuglodon.
This was a marine monster at least
so feet in length, perhaps more, and
of somewhat serpent-like proportions,
though it really was more closely re-
lated to the whales than to true
reptiles. The vertebrate of this crea-
ture were until recently scattered about
in certain regions of Alabama (once
beneath the seal so ahundantly that
farmers used them to build FENCES. IN
lS45 an enterprising person named
Koch collected a series Of these Verte-
brae. and put them together ana
created a furOre by exhibiting the
product in New York as the skeleton
of the true sea serpent. The fraud was
discovered and exposed presently; but
that does not alter the fact that Inc
zeuglodon in his day was creature or
most amazing proportions. More than
one naturalist of repute has thought
that he may have left living repre-
sentative.
The zeuglodon's descendant, it is
trle would not he technically ser
pent. being a mammal and not rep
file: but no one contends that the crea-
tire called sea serpent is necessarily
named in accordance with the technl-
cal standards. Indeed, the latest and
most enthusiastic supporter of the sea
serpent idea among naturalists of re
pute. namely. Professor Oudeman, dl-
rector of the Royal geological and bo-
tanical garden at the Hague, holds that |
the creature which goes by the name
of sea serpent is in reality gigantic
cousin of the mammals known as sea
lions which as everyone knows, are |
near relatives of the seals. Professor
Oudeman brings forward a long array
of evidence in support of his opinion.
He lists no fewer than lS4 substances
of what he believes to he authentic
anpearances of the sea serpent, and by |
coynpa4ing these he thinks he has been !
able to gain tolerably correct idea
as 10 not only the appearance and !
manner. but even the physiological pc |
euliarities and mental attributes of the |
creature in question. He speaks as
freely of this creature as he would of
a seal or shark or any other perfectly |
accredited animal. He even gives il
a scientific name. or rather he points |
out the fact that other naturalists pro-
vided the suppositious creature with a |
name early in the century. Sitting |
these early appellatiOns. in accordance !