Further elucidation on the 1905 Brazil sighting
First, I would like to thank Jerrywayne for providing an avenue to acquire further data on this sighting event.
Here is the URL ink directly to the book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=cq...=X&ei=LlcBUaymKLTJ0AG404CgCA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#
The full title is: “Three Voyages of a Naturalist: Being an Account of Many Little-Known Islands in Three Oceans Visited by the “Valhalla” RYS” by MJ Nicoll, Member of the British Ornithologists’ Union with an Introduction by The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Crawford KT FRS. (London: Witherby & Co., 1908)
(This edition came from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Library in La Jolla, California.)
From the Preface, page XVI
About the ship:
“First, however, I must tell of the good ship that carried us safely through calms and storms by sail and steam for over 72,000 miles. ‘Valhalla,” RYS, is, I believe, the only ship-rigged yacht in the world. She is of 1700 tons displacement, and is fitted with auxillary screw, which, under favourable conditions, will drive her through the water at a speed of about 10 ½ to 11 knots an hour. It is under sail, however, that ‘Valhalla’ is at her best, and on many occasions we logged 16 knots per hour.”
Page XVII
“…The total number of crew carried, including officers, engineers, and stewards, was about sixty-five…”
Reading the Preface informs the reader that these were expeditions very much akin to that was done by Charles Darwin and other naturalists—collecting plants, insects, fish, birds, and mammal specimens, and taking them back to the UK. And observing things in situ.
Page XXIII of the Preface. (The third expedition in which the creature sighting happened to take place on. It shows that while both were ornithologists, they were actually specimen sample collectors—they were recording whatever they saw, and taking specimens. There are many photographs in this book—but these were of things on the deck--including specimens, or on land for the most part. This is a very short excerpt of a very lengthy description of what they did. Since I would argue that Nicoll and everyone else on board the ship had exceptional amounts of at-sea experience, I think that his statements of distance should be given more weight, rather than less. But that is only my opinion.)
“…It was not until the autumn of 1905 that I again set out in the “Valhalla” on my last and , perhaps, most interesting voyage.
On this cruise we had a somewhat larger party, for besides Lord Crawford, the Hon. Walter Lindsay, Dr. A. Dean, and myself, Mr. EGB Meade-Waldo was invited to accompany us for the purpose of collecting insects, and thus I was able to devote my whole time to birds, mammals fishes, and reptiles, with the consequence that examples of several new species were obtained.
We sailed from Cowes on 8th November, 1905, and, after calling at Las Palmas, ran down amongst the South Atlantic Islands to the Cape of Good Hope; thence northwards through the inhospitable waters of the Mozambique Channel to Madagascar and the little-known islands which lie to the north-west. After visiting the Seychelles we returned home via the Suez Canal, completing a voyage of seven months, during which time we had covered about 19,000 miles….”
[there is mention of visiting St. Paul’s Rocks on 2nd December, and were at Bahia from 10th to 30th December 1905.]
…
Page XXIV-XXV of the Preface:
“The results obtained during this voyage were more important than those of the two proceeding ones.
The collection of bird-skins, numbering five hundred, contained specimens of eight species new to science. Besides these there were many rarities, few of the birds of the small coral islands to the north-west of Madagascar having been previously represented in the National [UK] collection.”
…
(What follows is further data dealing with the eyewitness report of the “sea serpent”—and Nicoll also describes it as such. In this version, things are expanded out a bit more than in the Proceedings report. The creature was under observation for probably the better of ten minutes, beginning at about fifty yards from the ship (while under sail power), and increasing distance. A few minutes of observing the “frill” and then the rest of the creature emerged above the surface, exhibiting propulsion activity. Interestingly, the “frill/fin” is described by Knoll as “soft” and “rubber-like.” Doesn’t strike me as a tree trunk. Indeed, this sighting is not quite actually in or near the mouth of a river, but 14 miles out in the open ocean, according to what Nicoll writes (if I understand correctly). One may argue that he was completely fooled by a tree trunk, but he observed the phenomenon for a good number of minutes, as well as via binoculars.)
[pages 21 to 26]
Chapter III ITAPARICA- BAHIA.
“Before describing our doings at Bahia, I must refer in detail to an important incident which occurred on the high seas during our second voyage thither.
On the 7th December, 1905, when in latitude 7 [degrees] 14 [minutes] S., longitude 34 [degrees] 25 [minutes] W., and about fourteen miles from the coast of Brazil near Para, a creature of most extraordinary form and proportions was sighted by two of us. At the time we were under sail only, and were slowly making our way to Bahia. It was at about 10 o’clock in the morning, and I was leaning on the rail of the poop deck, when a large fin suddenly appeared close to the ship at a distance of about fifty yards. This fin resembled that of no fish I had previously seen, and I pointed it out immediately to Mr. EGB Meade-Waldo, who was on deck with me at the time, and we watched it together for several minutes. As we passed slowly by, a long eel-like neck surmounted by a head, shaped somewhat like that of a turtle, rose out of the water in front of the fin. This creature remained in sight for a few minutes, but we soon drew ahead of it, and it became lost to view, owing to the ripple of the water. Owing to the fact that we were under sail at the time, it was not possible to go about and make a closer inspection, and with great regret we had to be content with the view we had had of this remarkable monster.
A full account of it was given at a meeting of the Zoological Society of London, on 19th June, 1906, and I quote below from the report which was printed in the “Proceedings” of that Society (10th October, 1906, p. 721):--
…..[snip, as this is the same material as I posted earlier in this thread]
“This creature was an example, I consider, of what has been so often reported, for want of a better name, as the “great sea-serpent.” I feel sure, however, that it was not a reptile that we saw, but a mammal. It is of course, impossible to be certain of this, but the general appearance of the creature, especially the soft, almost rubber-like fin, gave one this impression. It is often said that, if there were such a monster, remains of it would have been found long ago, but this is not necessarily so. Supposing the “sea-serpent” lives in deep holes, such as there were in the spot where we saw our “monster,” then there would be little chance of remains being washed ashore, and the amount of deep-sea dredging that has yet been done is very small, so that it is not surprising that no parts of this creature have been obtained in that way.
That it is not more often reported is not to be wondered at, when one realizes how often it is that a ship may sail for days together without sighting another ship, even in seas where there is considerable traffic. Also it must be remembered that such ridicule is generally bestowed on the reports of sea-monsters that many persons hesitate to describe what they have seen. I know myself of several instances of unknown sea-monsters having been seen by reliable witnesses, who, to avoid the inevitable “chaff,” would not publicly state their experiences.”
From where I stand, I think we have an excellent eyewitness (in actuality there were two), and the sighting lasted of sufficient duration (upwards of probably ten minutes) that I think—only in this case—we should be able to rule out mistaken identification of a tree trunk. I think in ten minutes of observation a tree trunk would have been able to be discerned.
But I will leave the door open on mistaken ID.
