Evening Post. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1933. PLESIOSAURUS OR MYTH?

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 145, 16 December 1933, Page 8

Evening Post. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1933. PLESIOSAURUS OR MYTH?

The sea-serpent, hitherto classed with "Gorgons, and Hydras, and Chimaeras dire" among the evil things that "fables have feigned or fear conceived," has at last taken on quite a respectable appearance. The British Official Wireless message which he had all to himself on Thursday was. in itself a great honour, and the story which it told showed that he thoroughly deserved it. It is true that he is described in the niessage not as a sea-serpent hut as "a strange marine monster." But if this creature is not a serpent the same remark is generally considered to apply to all other sea-serpents yet discovered, and in attaching the epithet "marine" to a creature found in an inland freshwater lake the new ti|le begs a fundamental part of the question just as glaringly as the other. If we are to speak by the card, "Lacustrian monster" represents the limit of our licence. But what's in a name? And why pause on the threshold of a thrilling story to wrangle over pedantical niceties of nomenclature? Whatever we choqse to call it, this remarkable creature is said to have been seen in Loch Ness, Scotland, at different times during the last few months by at least fifty peoplej and to have aroused much discussion in the British Press. And now. come the crowning honours of a question in the British Parliament, a solemn reply from a British Minister, and the monopoly of a British Official Wireless message. From which side of the Tweed the member came who put. the question is not mentioned, but we may be grateful to him both for what he said and for what he did not say. A member nsked if, in the interests of science, an investigation could be made, and whether a Government Department could bo invited to observe and photograph--the strange creature. It might be captious to suggest that to detail a whole Department for the purpose would be a large order, but let us be thankful that the commission is not to go to Scotland Yard or one of the fighting services. In a fiercely ironical fragment, Clough imagines the Shade of "that Jesus whom they slew" returning to earth to trouble the consciences of men. And the great "World, it chanced, came by that way,' And stopped and looked, and spoke to the police, . * ■ And said the thing, for order's sake and peace, Most certainly must be suppressed, the nuisanco cease. Though the monster is depicted as "sallying forth from time to lime in search of food, to the consternation of the Highland crofters," and somebody has actually seen him "crossing- the public road, dragon-like, with what ap-' peared to be a lamb in his mouth," he is not to be branded as a nuisance, nor is there any suggestion that the help of the police is needed for the protection of life or property. We are told by the "Daily Mail's" special correspondent on the spot that the evidence' of the creature's existence "has now become so reputable and so widespread that at last the voices of the scoffers, and the incredulous are silent." But at this safe distance it is permissible to hope, that whether or not the creature itself is a myth, the lamb in its mouth is just as mythical as the sevenpenny New Zealand butter in London. Far deeper gratitude is due to the anonymous M.P. for making it quite clear that he speaks in the interests of science and not of destruction— the two things have not always been opposed; that what he wants is investigation, and that he would restrict its methods to observation and photography. ■■' If the shooting of harmless animals throughout the world had been confined to shooting them with a camera, what a different world it would have teen! If it were possible to take seriously the speculation that "the beast," as they call him in the neighbourhood, is "a survival of some prehistoric creature which may have been released from the earth's recesses" by some recenj; blasting operations, "a plesiosaurus or other huge fish-lizard 'held over,' as it were, from some prehistoric past," what an opportunity, without precedent in the modern world, there would be for science! What a magnificent opportunity there would also be for the vandal who would, as likely as not, get ahead of the man of science! For to the vandal all destruction is glorious, but the glory is enhanced by the rarity of the victim. . Referring to the barbarism of "civilised" man, Commander R. T. Gould says, "Nothing is safe. from him on land and even the Seven Seas give no real protection against him." And if the Seven Seas have given no protection against the vandalism of man, what chance would a plesiosaurus, have in Loch Ness? Commander Gould's words are a prelude to the beautiful plea for protection which he. quotes from W. H. Hudson's "The Naturalist 'in La Plata," as follows:— . . . Above all others, we should protect and hold sacred those types, Nature's masterpieces, which are first singled out for destruction on account of their size, or splendour, or rarity, and that false detestable glory which is accorded to their most successful slayers. In ancient times the spirit of life shone brightest in these; and when others that shared the earth

with thorn were-taken by death they were left, being more worthy of perpetuation. Like immortal flowers they have drifted down to us on the ocean of time, and their strangeness and beauty bring to our imaginations a dream and a picture of that unknown world, immeasurably far removed, where man was not: and when they perish, something of gladness goes out from Nature, and the sunshine loses something of its brightness. The country which destroyed the huia and still persecutes the godwit stands in just as deep need of Hudson's gospel as any other. Hudson's plea for the wild life which is still suffering wanton destruction wherever the foot of their arch-enemy can tread may be supplemented on one point from a naturalist of an earlier day. Hudson calls upon us to "protect and hold sacred" the masterpieces of Nature. To Sir Thomas Browne the works of Nature were sacred in no figurative sense. There were two books from which he collected his divinity. Besidos that written one of God, another of His servant Nature, that universal and publick Manuscript, that lies expans'd unto tho Eyes of all: those that never saw Him in the one, have- discovered Him in the other,. But, as God had made everything in, Nature and seen that it was good, one of Browne's problems was how there could be anything ugly in Nature, and he came to the conclusion that it was impossible. I hold there is a general beauty in tho works of Gpcty he writes ("Religio Medici" 1.16), and therefore no deformity in any kind or'species of creature whatsoever. I caunot tell by what Logiek we call a Toad, a Bear,' or an Klephant ugly; they being created in those outward shapes and figures which best express tho actions of their inward forms, and having past that general Visitation of God, Who saw that ali that He had made was good, that is, conformable to His "Will, which abhors deformity, and is the rulo of order and beauty. There is no deformity but in Monstrosity; wherein, notwithstanding, there is a kind of Beauty; Nature so ingeniously contriving the irregular parts, as they become sometimes more remarkable than the principal Fabrick. To speak yet more narrowly, there was never any thing ugly or mis-shapen, but tho Chaos; wherein, notwithstanding (to speak strictly), there was no deformity, because no form; nor was it yet impregnant by the voice of God. If Sir Thomas Browne could find even in monstrosity "a kind of beauty" it would not have been easy to convince him that a plesiosaurus is ugly. It would have been at least as hard as to catch one.