THE FORTEAN
EXPLORER
An On-line Column by Ronald Rosenblatt
FAUNA
IN THE CANON
SOME NOTES TOWARDS THE IDENTITY OF FAUNA IN THE HOLMES CANON, WITH
ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE "THE ADVENTURE OF THE SPECKLED
BAND," "THE ADVENTURE OF THE LION'S MANE,"
AND SOME SPECULATIONS ON THE GIANT RAT OF SUMATRA.
As
many Holmesian scholars have noted, the stories of the
Holmes canon are a veritable Victorian zoo of exotic and
unlikely animals who put in frequent and at times
inexplicable appearances in the cases Holmes is working
to solve. This is less surprising than it might otherwise
appear when we remember that the late nineteenth century
was a great field-day for British naturalists and
sportsmen who ventured off to the far corners of the
Empire to find trophies and scientific specimens of the
exotic wildlife to be found in Africa and Asia. As a
result of all this activity, public interest and
excitement about rare wild animals was high, and it is
not thus surprising that Watson should have chosen to
emphasize those cases in which unusual wild animals
figured prominently.
Unfortunately, Watson is not always
reliable in his accounts, to put the matter as gently as
possible. A man who cannot remember whether he has been
wounded in the shoulder or the leg can hardly be expected
to get scientific facts straight, and indeed Watson often
does not. It is therefore left to the scholar to set
matters aright as much as may be possible. In the matter
of animals mentioned by Watson, it is often necessary to
speculate further on the true identity of the creatures
involved, as Watson's information is often fragmentary
and inaccurate.
The Trained
Cormorant and the Repulsive Story of the Red Leech
First, we may pass lightly over some of the
references to animals that are simply too fragmentary to
be of much use in drawing valid inferences. In this
category, for example, we may place the trained cormorant
whom Watson refers to as figuring in the "case of
the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained
cormorant." This passing statement in "The Case
of the Veiled Lodger" really is not very
illuminating. Presumably the cormorant was trained to
catch fish and bring them to its master, as this is in
fact what cormorants in the Orient are frequently trained
to do. Just what the connection with lighthouses and
politicians is, though, we cannot really tell.
The cormorant is certainly a suitable
bird to be involved in a criminal matter for when it has
emerged from the water it often sits on a rock with wings
outstretched in a manner very reminiscent of a large bat,
and with its snakelike head and long sharp beak, the
cormorant assumes a rather sinister, reptilian appearance
at these moments. More than this, however, we simply do
not know.
In a similar limbo must remain
"the repulsive story of the red leech" and the leech's
repulsive master Crosby. To what use Crosby put his
obnoxious pet we do not know, just as we do not know
exactly how the "venomous lizard or gila"
listed in Holmes' index may have figured in a crime. As
the gila and its close relative the Mexican beaded lizard
have the unpleasant habit of fastening their jaws in a
vise-like grip upon their victims until their venom is
injected, we may well imagine the unsavory story in which
they may have figured. As these creatures are native to
the American Southwest, we must assume that some American
renegade was involved in the case as well, for it is
unlikely that the lizards arrived in England of their own
accord. Once again, though, all is speculation.
The Giant Rat of
Sumatra
It is with some relief, then, that we can pass on
to firmer ground, where scientific and bibliographic
research may yield some results. Surely the most
tantalizing creature mentioned in the Holmes memoirs is
the Giant Rat of Sumatra, which somehow managed to infest
the unhappy ship Matilda Briggs in so terrible a fashion
as to leave behind a tale "for which the world is
not yet prepared," or at least was not prepared for
at the time of the case of the Sussex Vampire (who turned
out to be only the mischievous Master Jacky and not,
unfortunately for those of zoological bent, a South
American bat of unpleasant dietary habits known as Desmodus
rotundus.) Now we may fruitfully speculate
on the identity of this mysterious rodent, the Giant Rat,
and we may, in fact, offer a speculative suggestion as to
its true name and nature.
There can be no question that giant
tropical rats do, in fact, exist. The African giant rat (Cricetomys
gambianus) is found in Tropical Africa,
where it is highly esteemed as food, and often reaches a
length of nearly three feet from nose-tip to tail-tip.
These giant rats are often accompanied by a highly
unusual parasite, a "weird, wingless
cockroach," (Hemimerus talpoides)
nearly one inch in length. This creature will be found
described on page 218 of Desmond Morris' The
Mammals (Harper & Row, 1965). We may
also mention in passing the Indian giant squirrel (Ratufa
indica) another rodent that reaches a length
of three feet. Thus, there is nothing in the least
preposterous about a giant Sumatran rat. We must briefly
consider as well whether the Giant Rat of Sumatra may
have been merely an unusually big specimen of the common
ship rat (Rattus rattus), since
these creatures, though it is not well known, often grow
to truly impressive size, as large as a rabbit or a cat.
Such a creature might easily grow up on the wharves of a
Sumatran seaport before slipping aboard the unsuspecting
Matilda Briggs to wreak its terrible crimes. Such a
creature might easily have carried the bubonic plague
aboard the ship, and if the Matilda Briggs had then
docked at London or other European seaports, Holmes might
have been very wise in keeping the story a secret, as the
panic resultant from such news might have been very great
indeed.
However, there is another possibility
in this question which to the author's knowledge has
never been suggested before. There lives on the island of
Sumatra, as well as in Southern Asia and on the island of
Borneo, a very curious animal called a "Moon
Rat". This animal's scientific name is Echinosorex
gymnurus. While it is not in fact a rat,
being more closely related to the hedgehogs, its
appearance is very rat-like, with long sharp snout and
whisker, hairy body and long naked tail. This creature
reaches a body length of sixteen inches with an eight
inch tail, or a total length of twenty-four inches, or
two feet. Surely this is giant enough for anyone's taste.
Could this animal be the very creature we seek? A giant
"rat" indigenous to Sumatra does indeed answer
our needs. Most interesting is the following statement
about the Sumatran Moon Rat by Desmond Morris: "Anal
glands secrete a musky substance that gives these animals
their highly characteristic smell. This is so distinctive
that it has even been made the subject of native
legends." (Page 80, The Mammals.)
Might this perhaps be the key that unlocks why the world
was not yet prepared for the story of the Sumatran rat?
Was it merely Victorian prudishness that forced Holmes to
keep silent on the Matilda Briggs affair? Was some native
deviltry or voodoo involved in the case? No doubt we
shall know the answers to these questions someday.
The "Speckled
Band"
We now pass on to the case in which animals figure
so prominently, namely "The Adventure of the
Speckled Band." Here it must be admitted at the
outset that Watson has done a dismal job of garbling the
facts. It simply will not do to tell us that the baboon
is an "Indian animal," when, as every
schoolchild knows, the baboon comes from Africa, not
India. The supposed ferociousness of the cheetah is also
very much in doubt, as cheetahs are well known for their
docility and the ease with which they are trained. (As
the cheetah, Acinonyx jubatus,
became extinct in India shortly after the turn of the
century, Dr. Roylott's specimen must have been one of the
last of its race.) No doubt Watson filled in these and
other details at a late date and simply relied on his
imagination to supply facts which he had long since
forgotten.
Now, as to the identity of the
"speckled band" itself, we may quickly discount
Holmes' statement concerning "An Indian swamp adder.
It is the deadliest snake in India," as there is no
such animal as an Indian swamp adder. At any rate, no
such animal will be found listed in Gharpurey's
Snakes of India and Pakistan (Popular
Prakashan, Bombay, 1935) and similar reference sources.
What we do find mentioned by Gharpurey is a snake that
fits very nicely the description of the "speckled
band." The most dangerous poisonous snake in India,
after the cobra, is the krait and we find this
description of the banded krait (Fig. 4): "Banded
Krait (Bungarus fasciatus). It
has all the distinctive characteristics of the krait, but
in addition it has across the back large broad bands,
their colour alternating yellow and black. The bands may
be 1 to 1 1/2 inches broad. The Banded Krait has a very
beautiful appearance. It is a deadly poisonous snake, its
venom being estimated to be sixteen times as powerful as
that of the Cobra." (Page 56) These latter
statements are very significant, for they explain both
how the snake might have been mistaken for a handkerchief
or headband and also how the snake's venom dispatched the
huge and powerful Dr. Grimsby Roylott so easily and
instantaneously. The author submits that a careful survey
of venomous Indian snakes will turn up no other so suited
to the identity of the "speckled band." We
shall not speculate here on whether Dr. Grimsby Roylott
could actually have trained a snake to respond to a
whistle and the reward of a dish of milk. Suffice it to
say that snakes have not external ears and hence have
little sense of hearing and also snakes, contrary to
popular myth, have no liking whatsoever for milk. (The
American "milk-snake" for example is so called
because it is often found in dairy barns. But its reason
for being there is not to suck the milk from the cows as
was popularly thought, but to catch the mice and rats
that live in the straw found in such barns.) Thus,
Watson's account is suspect in the extreme, and we must
conclude that the true facts of the murder of Helen
Stoner's sister and Dr. Grimsby Roylott's sudden demise
remain to be told in full.
The Terrible
"Lion's Mane"
Our final instance of an unusual creature in a
Holmes adventure is the terrible "Lion's Mane,"
the homicidal sea beast which so rudely interrupted
Holmes' vacation by the seashore and which is found in
one of the few adventures actually narrated by the Master
himself. Here we find, in complete opposition to Watson'
slipshod narrative, a very precise scientific account.
Now the first question is whether such a creature as Cyanea
capillata actually exists and whether
Holmes' description of it and its deadly effects is
correct as presented. We must answer a resounding
"yes" to both questions.
For if we turn to page 104 of F. S.
Russell's The Medusae of the British Isles,
Volume II, Pelagic Scyphozoa (Cambridge
University Press, 1970), we shall find no less than
thirty-five pages devoted to our culprit, Cyanea
capillata, the Lion's Mane, which turns out
to be a stinging jelly-fish (Fig. 6 & 7). Of the
sting, Russell states: "...the sting of C. capillata
is relatively severe. This jellyfish is especially
avoided by fishermen...Bad stings can give rise to
blisters, lassitude, irritation of the mucous membranes
and muscular cramps, and may affect heart and respiratory
activities." Russell further states that: "The
stinging powers of C. Capillata are retained long after
the medusa has been stranded on the shore." This, of
course, explains how the washed-up Lion's Mane was able
to deliver its poisonous stings.
Of Holmes' encounter with this
creature Russell is by no means ignorant. He states:
"A modern Sherlock Holmes might well have solved his
problem by examination of the nematocyts on the dead
man's skin without having to find the jellyfish
itself!" This is somewhat unfair as Holmes did, in
fact, suspect the jellyfish, after confirming his
suspicions in J. G. Wood's Out of Doors,
from which Russell also quotes extensively. Thus we must
give Holmes full marks for accurately presenting the
mysterious creature that killed Fitzroy McPherson and
attempted to kill Ian Murdoch.
Many other aspects of Holmes'
adventures with wild animals might be explored. Was it,
in fact, to search for the Abominable Snowman or Yeti
that Holmes went to Lhasa at the Dalai Lama's request,
disguised as a Norwegian explorer named Sigerson, as some
writers have suggested? Did Holmes ever turn his hand to
the mystery of the Loch Ness monster, so temptingly near
at hand? These and other questions remain to be
unraveled. When they are, we can only hope that the world
will be prepared.
NOTE: For the benefit of
bibliophiles, it is interesting to take note of some
books that might have been in Holmes' library in
connection with these cases. We have already noted J. G.
Wood's Out of Doors of 1882, in
which Holmes found his account of the stinging of C.
capillata: "...Both the respiration and the action
of the heart became affected, while at short intervals
sharp pangs shot through the chest, as if struck by a
leaden missile....Several days elapsed before I could
walk with any degree of comfort, and for more than three
months afterwards the shooting pang would occasionally
dart through the chest." It is interesting to
realize that these are part of the very words Holmes must
have read while doing his research!
Some books Holmes might have
consulted in the Matilda Briggs case include An
Account of the Rats of Calcutta published at
the turn of the century by William C. Hossack, M.D., by
the Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta. No doubt William C.
Hossack, M.D. was an old Army friend of Watson's from the
Afghan campaign, and he would surely have sent Watson an
early draft of first edition of this valuable book.
Holmes would surely have purchased a copy of Henry C.
Barkley's The Art of Rat Catching,
published in 1896 in London, and indeed he may have asked
Henry C. Barkley himself into the case as a consulting
expert. When we think that 1896 may in fact have been the
year of the Matilda Briggs case, this seems very possible
indeed.
|