Page images

discovered the above records while exploring the prehistoric cavern at Montesqui-Avantes in Ariège.

The first finds of Count Begouen and his sons, which we mentioned when brought forth in 1914, before the war, were of great interest to the institute.

Some months later the three brothers departed for the front. What they have done there may be learned from the numerous and splendid citations which we have published. But that which they accomplished for science during their furloughs was not known. Yet it is of consequence that we learn and for that reason their father came yesterday to tell the academy that in June last during one of these furloughs which reunited all three sons at Montesqui-Avantes he continued with them the exploration of the Ariège cave.

This time Count Begouen and his sons discovered on the walls of the subterranean galleries some engravings estimated to be thirty thousand years old, and in such quantity and variety that the extraordinary ensemble of prehistoric art work constitutes a veritable mu


The animals figured in the cave are considerable in number and include reindeers, bisons, horses, both isolated and in groups; bears, elephants and rhinoceroses. The representations The representations of felines are very rare in prehistoric art; but MM. Begouen have photographed in their cave a genuine lion, executed in bas-relief. They have made out also several birds including swans, ducks, as well as three predatory night fliers.

The human figure is likewise represented in the cave, which in recognition of the sons of Count Begouen has been baptized "the Cave of the Three Brothers." A silhouette is particularly remarkable, almost baffling. It represents a man in motion; a man of powerful body, whose head and shoulders are joined by an enormous neck; a man whose upper and lower limbs and whose hands and feet are perfectly human, but whose vertebral column is prolonged in an exterior appendage resembling that of the anthropoids; a man, at last, qui marche a quatre pattes!

The suggestions prompted by the magnificent discovery of MM. Begouen have long held the attention of the academy. MM. Dieulafoy, Salomon Reinach, Edmond Pottier, Langlois, Louis Leger, Bouché-Leclercq are particularly interested.

Several communications have been made on the subject by MM. Homolle and ClermontGanneau.



The Destinies of the Stars. By SVANTE ARRHENIUS. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1918. Pp. xvii +256, illustrated.

In 1903 Dr. Arrhenius was awarded the Noble Prize for his researches in the field of electro-chemistry. To the study of the development of the celestial universe, he, therefore, brings the mind of a trained chemist; the

mind of one who is especially fitted to grapple with the intricate problems of the evolution of the stars and planets from the formless masses of gaseous nebulae.

In "The Destinies of the Stars" this evolution is traced through the spiral nebulæ, the gaseous stars, the sun, the worlds to be, Jupiter and Saturn, the world, to the final destiny of all, the dead planets, Mercury and Mars. In this general theory of growth and decay there is, of course, little that is new, but Dr. Arrhenius treats the matter in a new way and brings out many new points.

The chapter devoted to the planet Mars is especially interesting. In this the so-long popular fantastic ideas of Lowell are scientifially and clearly discussed, and the utter impossibility of any life, such as we have any conception of, existing on Mars is conclusively shown. The inhabitants of this planet, the wonderful system of irrigating canals, the whole fabric of intensely interesting fact and fancy so cleverly woven by Lowell, are shown by the clear, concise reasoning of the chemist to be only "such stuff as dreams are made of."

The book is decidedly interesting and well worth careful reading. It lacks, however, continuity. This is due, undoubtedly, to the

fact that the book was not written as a whole, but is a collection of lectures, delivered at various times and places, on different aspects of the general problem of the evolution of the universe.


Modern Navigation. By FRANK SEYMOUR HASTINGS. D. Appleton & Co. 1918. Pp. xvi+84, illustrated. With introduction by Rear-Admiral Albert Gleaves, U. S. N. In "Modern Navigation" the author has rendered a real service to all interested in the safe navigation of the seas. In the last quarter of a century there have been many improvements in the art of finding one's place at sea, and the officers of our Navy have been quick to take all possible advantage of these inventions and improvements. Not so, however, with those responsible for the vessels of the mercantile marine. These vessels have been navigated and are being navigated to-day by methods requiring long and cumbersome calculations, by methods long obsolete in the Navy.

When the necessity of manning the vessels, now being built under the emergency of war, was recognized, the government started schools for the training of many thousands of seamen to rank as mates and masters in the new mercantile marine. The attention of those in charge of this training was early called to these new methods and they were urged to start the future navigators right, to discard all the obsolete methods, and to substitute the simple modern method. This was not done: the training has gone on along the old fashioned and antiquated ideas of a past generation. The time and energy of thousands of bright, aspiring young men are being wasted, and old, worn out methods are being fastened on the next generation, all because the power to grant licenses to masters and mates rests in the hands of a few retired seamen, who have failed to keep abreast of the advances in their profession. For this reason the book of Mr. Hastings is most timely; it may help to bring the great advantages of modern methods before the officers and students of the training schools.

This small book gives a short account of the St. Hilaire method. Very wisely all extraneous matter is eliminated, and the book is confined to the bringing before the merchant officer the advantages of the Navy method. The working of this method is shown by a number of concrete examples, and the book is well illustrated with carefully prepared diagrams. The book, however, lacks a clear explanation of the fundamental principles of a "line of position," and of the real underlying basis of the St. Hilaire method.

It is certainly refreshing to see a book on navigation, which is something more than a mere compilation from treatises of a past generation.




In a brief note published in SCIENCE in 19131 I recorded the second taking in Florida waters of this great fish. As an interesting coincidence it may be pointed out that this specimen is the second ever taken in the Atlantic Ocean, or, so far as records go, ever seen therein. In a later and more extensive paper,2 I gave the details of the capture of this fish with as full a description and as many photographs as possible, and followed these with the natural history of the fish as contained in the writings of those scientists who have been privileged to study it at first hand. Reproduced in this larger paper were all the known figures of this great shark. Inasmuch as in the course of this work there were brought to light a number of accounts and descriptions of this greatest of all sharks which up to that time had remained unknown, it was believed that the paper contained a

1 Gudger, E. W., "A Second Capture of the Whale Shark, Rhincodon Florida typus, in Waters," SCIENCE, 1913, N. S., Vol. 38, p. 270. 2Natural History of the Whale Shark, Rhineodon typus Smith," Zoologica: Scientific Contributions, New York Zoological Society, 1915, Vol. I., pp. 349-389, 14 figs.

résumé of all the known accounts of the fish. However, during the summer of 1917, while at work on the Bibliography of Fishes in the department of ichthyology of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, I found a few hitherto unknown references to the whale shark. Since these are of themselves interesting and since they extend our knowledge of its recorded habitat, it seems worth while to collect and publish them as a postscript to the paper referred to above.

Lest any one, seeing the title only, should be misled by it, it may be well to say by way of introduction to our subject, that in the Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Liverpool Meeting, 1870), 1871, page 171, occurs the title "On Rhinodon typicus, a Rare Shark lately Added to the Free Museum, Liverpool." However, no data whatever are given.

Furthermore, Lütken's CC paper, Om Haplægten Rhinodon " (1874), consists of but a few remarks by this distinguished ichthyologist on the similarity of the gill apparatus of Rhinodon to that of the great basking shark, Selache maxima. Further than this mere statement, the paper in question does not concern us.

Taking our references chronologically, the next one is very interesting. Julian Thomas (1887) while at anchor in Red Scar Bay, on the south side of New Guinea says that:4


A school of sharks twenty-five to forty feet long now surrounded us. . . . The fish came right underneath the bows, and then quietly floated astern on top of the water. We could have touched him with our hands by leaning over the bulwarks. . . . This was a shark-an enormous mottled brute, which seemed as long as our ship. He turned partly over and showed his frightful jaws, which would have taken in a man whole. He was by the computation of the captain and all hands, at least forty feet long, with a six-foot "beam." The sharks were all around, not one of them ap

parently under twenty-five or thirty feet long. The "boomer" appeared to lead them, and they swam around us both to port and starboard. It almost seemed as if they meant to attack the ship.

8 Lütken, C. F., "Om Haplægten Rhinodon,'' Videnskabelige Meddelelser Naturhistoriske Forening, Kjobenhavn aarene 1873, 1874, p. 2.

4 Thomas, Julian, "Cannibals and Convicts: Notes of Personal Experiences in the Western Pacific," London, 1887, p. 380.

[ocr errors]

This great fish was impervious to bullets, for when fired at with rifles, "The bullets ricochetted off the brute's back" and "shot after shot was fired without much apparent effect." Thomas calls this shark Selache maxima, probably because that was the largest shark known to him, but there is no reason to doubt its being Rhineodon typus, the giant of all the sharks. His reference to the color and great size effectually settles that.

Those who read my larger article will recall that Captain Steuart says that around the coasts of Ceylon the spotted shark was always surrounded by smaller sharks of which it was the leader. Also Thomas's ricochetting bullets recall what Mr. Brooks wrote me as to the impermeability of the hide of the second Florida specimen to rifle balls.

Of somewhat doubtful value is the following brief account found in a work compiled and edited by Paul Fountain from the notes of Thomas Ward of Australia (1907). It is of doubtful value because, although the fish passed in full view at a distance of eighty yards, no mention is made of the yellow spots and vertical bars which ornament it. These may have been indistinct, or the fish may have been in line with the sun, or it may have been a specimen of Selache maxima, to the presence of which in antipodal waters as recorded by the Australian ichthyologists the present writer has recently called attention. Be the explanation what it may, the incident is given for what it is worth.

Fountain had been cruising near the head of the Great Australian Bight, when he fell

5 Steuart, James, "Notes on Ceylon, etc.," London, 1862, p. 156.

6 Ward, Thomas, Paul Fountain, editor, "Rambles of an Australian Naturalist," 1907, pp. 119-120.

7 Gudger, E. W., "On the Occurrence in the Southern Hemisphere of the Basking or Bone Shark, Cetorhinus maximus," SCIENCE, 1915, N. S., Vol. 42, pp. 653-656.

in with a school of sixty-feet sperm whales. His words are:

Before the last of them was out of sight, an enormous shark passed so close to us that we had a full view of it. Like the whales, which it appeared to be following, it swam slowly, passing the Swan at a distance of 80 yards. I can therefore testify that its length was at least 40 feet; and in bulk it seemed to be nearly equal to some of the whales. From the circumstances of its great size there can be no doubt that this was a specimen of Rhinodon typicus, or the great Pacific basking shark.

Another even more indefinite reference deserves brief mention only here. George Bennett, in 1831 saw two large sharks which he described as follows:8

On the 18th of March, 1831, during my former voyage, in latitude 44° 55′ north, and long. 25° 10' west; in the evening, two sharks of a very large size were seen at a short distance from the ship. A high dorsal fin, projecting from the water, was at first only discernible, and had a resemblance to a rock. It was at first stationary, but soon began to move steadily along, and then occasionally the tail could be seen partially above the water. I know not to what species to refer it; one of the crew on board, who had been in a whaler, said that it was what they named a "bone shark," which is seen in numbers alongside the ships when they are cutting up a whale. He said, also, that he had seen them as large as a twenty-barrel whale; that "the mouth resembled the gills of a fish, and they are spotted over the back." Whether the latter part of this account accorded with the actual appearance of the fish, I was not sufficiently near to ascertain, but it appeared correct with respect to its large size.s

This fish was seen in the North Atlantic near the Azores, but it is not clear that it was Rhincodon. However, the account seems of sufficient interest to warrant its inclusion here. If this fish was the whale shark, then we must note three occurrences in the Atlantic, this being the first.

One of the common haunts of this greatest of fishes is around the island of Ceylon, but it is not unknown in the Bay of Bengal, where it

8 Bennett, George, "Wanderings in New South Wales, Batavia, Pedir Coast, Singapore and China," London, 1834, Vol. II., p. 267.

has been recorded by Lloyd in 1908. However, this is not its first record for these waters, for in the year 1835 one W. Foley10 had given the following vivid account of his experiences. We will let him tell his story in his own words.

On my voyage to Madras (in May last), I saw a most extraordinary fish, and one which had never before been seen by any seaman on board, although some of the officers and crew had been employed in the whale fishery. It was of the size of a whale but differing from that animal in shape; spotted like a leopard in very beautiful manner; it came close under the stern of the ship, during a calm, and we had a magnificent opportunity for viewing it; it had a very large dorsal fin, which it moved about with great rapidity when made angry in consequence of the large stones which we threw down upon it rashly, for it possessed sufficient strength to have broken the rudder and stove in the stern of the ship. Several large fish (seemingly Dog-fish), about a cubit in length and upwards, were gambolling about the monster, entering its mouth at pleasure and returning to the water again. The following will give you some idea of its shape. The mouth very large, dorsal fin black or dark brown, tail also; body covered with brown spots like a leopard, head lizard-shape.

This description leaves no doubt that this was a Rhineodon, and to one acquainted with their habits it is equally plain that the "dogfish" were remoras or echeneises. Chierchia11 (1884) found several remoras in the mouth of his specimen taken in the Bay of Panama. Others have noted the same fact. Foley's mistake is, however, perfectly excusable. Numerous other writers on sharks and remoras have mistaken these later for young sharks. The present writer was inclined to scoff at such errors, until in the clear waters around Key West, he made a similar mistake in the summer of 1913.

Lloyd, R. E., "The Occurrence of Rhinodm typicus at the Head of the Bay of Bengal," Records Indian Museum, 1908, Vol. II., p. 306.

10 Foley, W., "An Unusual Sea Monster in the Bay [of Bengal]," Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1835, Vol. 4, pp. 62-63.

11 Chierchia, G., "The Voyage of the Vettor Pisani," Nature, 1884, Vol. 30, p. 365.

In 1901, Kishinouye of the Imperial Fisheries Bureau, Tokyo, Japan, published an interesting description with a crude figure of a Rhincodon taken in Japan which he thought to be a new species and which he named pentalineatus. Apparently this paper was reproduced in Japanese as follows: "On Yasurizame (Rhinodon pentalineatus)," etc., Dobuts. Zasshi, Tokyo, 1903, Vol. 15, 41-44. This journal I have not been able to locate in America, and my letters to Mr. Kishinouye have seemingly gone astray, but the conjecture expressed above seems reasonable.

Our next and last reference is to the occurrence of this fish in the Philippines, where however, it is not entirely unknown since Dr. H. M. Smith,12 the present U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries, has put on record (1911) an 18-foot specimen taken at Negros Occidental in 1910. Again Dr. David Starr Jordan 13 in 1915 recorded the capture of a 20-foot specimen at the island of Zebu in March of that year. However this last reference in question dates back to 1835 when one Captain H. Piddington published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal a Notice of an Extraordinary Fish." His account is so circumstantial and so fascinatingly interesting that it seems best to quote him verbatim.


In December, 1816, I commanded a small Spanish brig, and was lying at anchor in the Bay of Mariveles, at the entrance of the Bay of Manilla. One day, about noon, hearing a confusion upon deck, I ran up, and looking over the side, thought, from what I saw, that the vessel had parted [her chain] and was drifting over a bank of white sand and coral, with large black spots. I called out to let go another anchor, but my people, Manilla men, all said, "No Sir; it's only the chacon!" and upon running up the rigging, I saw indeed that I had mistaken the motion of the spotted back of an enormous fish passing under the vessel, for the vessel itself driving over a bank! My boatswain (contramestre), a Cadiz man,

12 Smith, H. M., "Note on the Occurrence of the Whale Shark, Rhinodon typicus, in the Philippine Islands," Proceedings Biological Society of Washington, 1911, Vol. 24, p. 97.

18 Jordan, David Starr, SCIENCE, 1915, March 26, p. 463.

with great foolhardiness jumped into the boat with four men, and actually succeeded in harpooning the fish with the common dolphin-harpoon, or grains, as they are usually called, to which he made fast the deep-sea line; but they were towed at such a fearful rate out to sea, that they were glad to cut from it immediately.

From the view I had of the fish, and the time it took to pass slowly under the vessel, I should suppose it not less than 70 or 80 feet in length. Its breadth was very great in proportion, perhaps not less than 30 feet. The back was so spotted, that, had it been at rest, it must have been taken for a coral shoal, the appearance of which is familiar to seamen. I did not distinguish the head or fins well, from being rather short-sighted, and there being some confusion on board.

As my people seemed to look upon "the chacon," as they called it, almost in the light of an old acquaintance, which it was to many of them who had served in the Spanish gun-boat service, I made many inquiries of them, of which the following is the result.

"1. That there were formerly two of these monsters, and that they lived (teniam su casa) in a cluster of rocks, called Los Puercos, at the southwest entrance of the bay of Mariveles; but that, about ten or fifteen years before this time, or say in 1800, one was driven on shore, and died close to the village in the bay; the inhabitants of which were compelled by the stink to abandon their houses for a time.

2. That the remaining one frequented the bay of Mariveles and that of Manilla, and it was supposed that it often attacked and destroyed small fishing boats, which, never appeared after going out to fish, though no bad weather had occurred. This last account I afterwards found singularly corroborated.

3. That it was considered as dangerous by the Spanish gunboats; that they always when there kept a swivel loaded, the report of which, they said, drove it away. My principal informant was a man, employed as pilot for the ports in the Philippine Islands, whither I was bound, who had passed his whole life in the gun-boats. He said that one instance of its voracity occurred when he was present. A man, who was pushed overboard in the hurry to look at the monster, being instantly swallowed by it.

4. The native fishermen of the Bay of Manilla quite corroborate this account, and speak of the monster with great terror."

About 1820 or 1821, an American ship's boat,

« PreviousContinue »