The Tall Tale of the Sicilian Sea Serpent

nn
n

n In June 1877 the LordsnCommissioners of the Admiralty received official reports from the Royal Yacht Osborne,nforwarded by Commander Pearson, regarding the sighting of an unidentifiednmarine creature seen on the second day of that month off Cape Vito, Sicily. Thendocuments were passed on to Right Hon. R. A. Cross, Secretary of State for thenHome Department, who in turn sought the opinion of Frank Buckland in an attemptnto identify whatever it was that had been seen and Buckland further consultednProfessor Richard Owen, Mr. A. D. Bartlett of the Zoological Gardens, CaptainnDavid Gray of the whaling ship Eclipse and Mr. Henry Lee of the BrightonnAquarium on the matter.

The Royal Yacht Osborne

nCommander Pearson’s report read: –

n

n“I myself saw thenfish through a telescope, but at too great a distance (about 400 yards) to benable to give a detailed description; but I distinctly saw the seal-shaped head,nof immense size, large flappers, and part of a huge body.”

n

nLieutenantnDouglas Forsyth’s report, written at sea on June 4^th is as follows,

n

n“At 5 p.m. on the 2^nd inst., while passing Cape St. Vito, northncoast of Sicily, I observed a large, black-looking object on the starboardnquarter, distant about two cables [a cable is 240 yards]; and onnexamining it with a telescope, I found it to be a huge monster, having a headnabout fifteen to twenty feet in length. The breadth I could not observe. Thenhead was round, and full at the crown. The animal was slowly swimming in ansouth-easterly direction, propelling itself by means of two large flappers ornfins, somewhat in the manner of a seal. I also saw a portion of the body of thenanimal, and that part was certainly not under forty-five or fifty feet innlength.”

n

n
n

The ‘Ridge of Fins’ as seen from the Osborne

n
n

n

nAnother officer, Lieutenant Haynes, reported

n

n

n“On the evening ofnJune 2, the sea being perfectly smooth, my attention was first called by seeingna ridge of fins above the surface of the water, extending about thirty feet,nand varying from five to six feet in height. On inspecting it by means of antelescope, at about one and a half cables’ distance, I distinctly saw a head,ntwo flappers, and about thirty feet of an animal’s shoulder. The head, asnnearly as I could judge, was about six feet thick, the neck narrower, aboutnfour to five feet, the shoulder about fifteen feet across, and the flappers eachnabout fifteen feet in length. The movements of the flappers were those of anturtle, and the animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance being strongestnabout the back of the head. I could not see the length of the head, but fromnits crown or top to just below the shoulder (where it became immersed) I shouldnreckon about fifty feet. The tail end I did not see, it being under waternunless the ridge of fins to which my attention was first attracted, and whichnhad disappeared by the time I got antelescope, was really the continuation of the shoulder to the end of the body.nThe animal’s head was not always above water, but was thrown upwards, remainingnabove for a few seconds at a time, and then disappearing. There was an entirenabsence of ‘blowing’ or ‘spouting’.”

n

nMr. Moore, engineer of the Osborne,nwrites,

n

n“When looking over the starboard quarter of the ship, my attentionnwas called by observing an uneven ridge of what appeared to me to be the fins of a fish above the surface ofnthe water, about a cable’s length distance from the ship. They varied innheight, as near as I can judge, from seven to eight feet above water, andnextended about forty feet along the surface. Not having a telescope with me, Inregret I am unable to give a further description.”

n

Animal seen swimming away from the Osborne

nRichard Owen commentednthat there are discrepancies between these accounts, explained by some usingntelescopes and some not, and by both subject and observers moving at unreportednspeeds, and in a typical Owenian gesture, commends that all involved should consultnthe chapter on zoology in the Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry (written,nsurely by coincidence, by one Professor Richard Owen). In his opinion, thencreature was probably some species of cetacean.

nMr Bartlett of the ZoologicalnGardens reported back with his views, firstly pointing out that these gentlemennwere officers of Her Majesty’s Navy whose word, by implication, is abovensuspicion, and who were perfectly acquainted with marine observations (a dig,nmaybe, at Owen). He rules out a serpent on the grounds of the ‘flappers’, andnsea-lions or seals on the grounds that they do not use their front flippersnwhen they swim. He puts Owen’s cetacean theory to one side – naval officersnwould have enough experience of whales to know one when they saw one; the ridgenof fins makes a turtle unlikely. What was seen could have been a school ofnsharks swimming in tandem but he offers the opinion that the sighting was of annanimal as yet unknown to science. He points to the large mammals that werenstill being found in the wild (he cites a rhinoceros discovered in 1868 atnChittagong), and that the depths of the seas were largely unexplored. Couldnthey not, he posits, contain some form of large, fish-lizard like those sonrecently positioned at Sydenham, under the supervision of Prof. Owen?

Whale and Sea Serpent – from Lee – Sea Monsters Unmasked – 1883

nMr HenrynLee’s thoughts ally very much with those of Mr Bartlett – Royal Navy officersnwould not lie, they are trained and highly competent observers with greatnexperience of marine fauna, and the creature may be a new discovery, althoughnhe feels that it is most probably a species of giant squid, pointing to recentndiscoveries of gigantic decapods, some of which were over fifty feet in length.nHe refers to the case of the Pauline which had reported seeing ansea-serpent in 1875, and which could have been two whales rolling over togethern(mating or fighting), but settles on the Osborne’s beast as being of unknownnorigin.

Banks’s Oarfish – Couch – A History of Fishes of the British Isles – Vol 2 – 1868

nBuckland himself adds Banks’s Oarfish into the mix, although, as Couchnpoints out, very large specimens of the oarfish have not been seen, beforenadding that they fall

n

n“… far short indeed of the famous Sea Serpent, butnconvey[ing] the impression that the latter is a species of the same order ofnfishes.”

n

n(J Couch A History of Fishes of the British Isles Vol 2n1868)

Basking Shark – Couch – A History of Fishes of the British Isles – Vol 1 – 1868

nAfter further consideration of the evidence, Buckland come to thenconclusion that the Osborne monster was three or four basking sharksnswimming together, which would explain the size, the fins and the flappers,nadding that basking sharks were commonly seen in the Mediterranean.

Basking Shark – Buckland – Notes and Jottings from Animal Life – 1886

nMr HenrynLee went on to write the marvellous Sea Monsters Unmasked (1883), anmasterpiece of early cryptozoology, which is a companion volume to his equallynsplendid Sea Fables Explained.