OCR Text |
Show 1899.] SUPPOSED SIRENIAN IN ST. HELENA. 797 In answer to my enquiries, Mr. Sterndale wrote to me as follows on the subject *:-" The last appearance recorded of the Manati in St. Helena was in 1810, when one came ashore at Stone Top Valley beach, and was shot by a Mr. Burnham. It measured seven feet, and ten gallons of oil were obtained from it. Another was seen the same year in Manati Bay. " In the old records I find, March 20, 1690, it thus entered- ' Tuesday, Goodwin and Coales brought up for killing a Sea-Cow, and not paying the Company's Royalty. They desire pardon, and say the Sea-Cow was very small; the oyle would not amount to above four or five gallons.' " Again, on the 11th September, 1739, 'A Sea-Cow killed upon Old Woman's Valley beach, as it was lying asleep, by Warrall and Greentree.'" This evidence, I take it, may be regarded as amply sufficient to prove the former occurrences of a marine mammal at St. Helena. And from the name " Manati Bay " given to a spot on the S.W. coast, it further seems evident that the animal in question was far from uncommon; although, on the other hand, it never seems to have been abundant. In addition to this, the name of the bay, and the application of the title Manati or Sea-Cow to the animal itself, seem to be evidence in favour of the Sirenian nature of the latter ; for, so far as I a m aware, such names are not misapplied in popular language to Seals. And there are no Seals known from the island. Moreover, if the creatures in question had been Seals they would almost certainly have been numerous, while they would not have been exterminated so easily. Against the Sirenian nature of the animal may, however, be urged the mention of the killing of a specimen asleep on the beach, since it is generally stated that there is no decisive evidence that Sirenians ever voluntarily come ashore 2. Too much importance must not, however, be attached to this, seeing that it is, in the first place, mainly negative evidence, while, in the second place, it might not be applicable in the case of an extinct species, with which w e may have to do in this instance. It decisively shows that the animal was not a Cetacean. With regard to the idea of the St. Helena animal being identical with either the African or the American Manati, it appears to me that this is impossible. In the first place, although it is conceivable that an individual might once and again be carried from either shore to the island, it is quite out of the question that this could have been a case of common occurrence. And, accordingly, if the creature were a Sirenian at all, it must have been a denizen of the coast of the island. But such a coast, without a single river-mouth or estuary, would have been quite unsuited to the habits of Manatis, as w e now know them. A Dugong might perhaps live there ; but then there is no evidence of the existence of those animals in the Atlantic. If then, the St. Helena animal were a Sirenian at all (on which r The same extracts in a rather briefer form are given by Melliss. 2 See Flower and Lydekker : ' Study of Mammals,' p. 214. |