Snakes: Curiosities and Wonders of Serpent Life

by Catherine Cooper Hopley

Notwithstanding much already said, the opinion of Dr. Wilson will be valued by many of my readers, and I therefore give portions in his own words:—

‘As far as I have been able to ascertain, zoologists and other writers on this subject have never made allowance for the abnormal and huge development of ordinary marine animals. My own convictions on this matter find in these the most reasonable and likely explanation of the personality of the sea serpent, and also the reconciliation of such discrepancies as the various narratives may be shown to evince.... I think we may build up a most reasonable case both for their existence and for the explanation of their true nature, by taking into account the fact that the term “sea serpent,” as ordinarily employed, must be extended to include other forms of vertebrate animals which possess elongated bodies: and that cases of the abnormally large development of ordinary serpents and of serpent-like animals will reasonably account for the occurrence of the animals popularly named “sea serpents.” ...

‘Whilst to my mind the only feasible explanation of the narrative of the crew of the Pauline must be founded on the idea that the animals observed by them were gigantic snakes, the habits of the animals in attacking the whales evidently point to a close correspondence with those of terrestrial serpents of large size, such as the boas and pythons; whilst the fact of the animals being described in the various narratives as swimming with the head out of the water would seem to indicate that, like all reptiles, they were air-breathers, and required to come more or less frequently to the surface for the purpose of respiration.’

Apology is due to so eminent a physiologist for having first given expression to my own opinion on the Pauline serpent, though in tardily quoting a high authority I may risk suspicion of plagiarism. I must be permitted to explain, therefore, that on seeing the subject ventilated in Land and Water (to which I had for some years been a contributor on ophidian matters), I also, though uninvited, prepared a paper on ‘the sea serpent.’ In a letter to the Editors, I even presumed to criticise part of what had lately appeared, enclosing MS. with yet more.

In reply, I was informed that the subject would not be continued or ‘re-opened,’ and my returned MS. is still before me, much of it now for the first time being presented to the public. To proceed with Dr. Wilson:—

‘The most important feature in my theory, ... and that which really constitutes the strong point of this explanation, is the probability of the development of a huge or gigantic size of ordinary marine serpents....

‘Is there anything more improbable, I ask, in the idea of a gigantic development of an ordinary marine snake into a veritable giant of its race; or, for that matter, in the existence of distinct species of monster sea serpents, than in the production of huge cuttle-fishes, which, until within the past few years, remained unknown to the foremost pioneers of science? In the idea of the gigantic developments of snakes or snake-like animals, be they fishes or reptiles, I hold we have at least a feasible and rational explanation of the primary fact of the actual existence of such organisms.’

In a most interesting lecture on ‘Zoological Myths,’ delivered at St. George’s Hall, January 2, 1881, Dr. Andrew Wilson again laid much stress on the ‘gigantic development of an ordinary marine snake into’ one of those amazing individuals which, say, at the very least, are over a hundred feet in length!

How long would the poison fang of such a reptile be? How many ounces of venom would its glands contain? Or does the Dr. wish us to understand that as the vertebræ of a Hydrophis has gradually developed into the complicated structure of a constrictor, so has the poison-fang become gradually obsolete? Appalling, indeed, would it be were those enormous developments armed with poison-fangs! Monarchs of the deep they truly would be. Happily, venomous serpents are restricted in their size; but an interesting speculation has been opened in the above theory of abnormal development, and I trust it may be followed up by abler reasoners than the present humble writer. In the previous chapter the distinguishing characteristics of the true marine snakes were described, and I feel more disposed to agree with Dr. Andrew Wilson when he says, ‘or for the matter of that, in the existence of distinct species of monster sea serpents,’ than in the development of a small venomous one into an amazing constrictor. Except the ‘monster.’ Why should not the gigantic forms be perfect in themselves, with an inherited anatomical structure? In volume xviii. of Nature, 1878, Dr. Andrew Wilson again discusses the sea serpent, and thus concludes:’ ... and as a firm believer from the standpoint of zoology that the large development of the marine ophidians of warmer seas offers the true explanation of the sea-serpent mystery.’