Creature named Gloucester Sea Serpent was first seen in September 10, 1817 in Gloucester Bay in Gloucester, Massachusetts. Rumors spread out quickly across New England. There was a number of publications during next three years about this mysterious creature in paper in US press. One of the first who wrote about it was William Bentley from Salem, Massachusetts.

William Bentley, the Pepys of Salem, recorded in his diary on August 15 that “we have heard from Gloucester that a Narway Kraken had visited their harbor within ten pound Island. We have had letter upon letter”.

Chandos Michael Brown "A Natural History of the Gloucester Sea Serpent:
Knowledge, Power, and the Culture of Science in Antebellum America(1171: p.408)

Soon afterwards Boston Weekly Messenger published under the heading "Monstrous Serpent" a brief compilation of the sightings . The length of creature varied between 50 and 100 feet. It had a girth "about the diameter of a barrel". It moved in a serpentine manner, though this was disputed, and its body had joints and resemled "a string of buoys on a net, as set to catch herring" (1171: p.409). The creature was shot at by a musket ball by ship-carpenter Matthew Gaffney who were closest to creature, with no obvious effect.

Sightings of Gloucester Serpent gained immediate attention Linnaean Society of New England in Boston. American naturalists met huge difficulties with critical acclaim of their theories and publications in Old World. They were ridiculed for its crude language and poor scientific level. This hurried reaction of Society to monopolize this creature as an object of their scientific study and attempt of classification was an attempt to establish itself as an scientific in European terms and to gain some recognition.

Lonson Nash was sent to Gloucester to collect evidence. He was given a list of 25 questions to witnesses by Linnaean Society. He deposed eight of them: three merchants, two ship-masters, a mariner, a ship-carpenter and James Johnstone,Jr. "age seventeen". All, Nash assured the committee, "men of fair and unblemished character" (1171: p.411). That stress on fair and unblemished character was an attempt to prevent an accusations of hoax, which was especially important in case of dealing with sightings of such an unusual creature. The evidences were different:

... it’s head “appeared much like the head of a turtle… and larger than the head of any dog”. It was “something like the head of the rattlesnake, but nearly as large as the head of the horse” and “his mouth appeared like that of a serpent; the top of his head appeared flat”. One witness swore that there “rose from his head or the most forward part of him, a prong or spear about twelve inches in height, and six inches in circumference at the bottom, and running to a small point”…

Five of the witnesses maintained that the creature exhibited a distinct segmentation in the forms of “rings” or “bunches” along its entire length. One vowed that he counted at least fifty such divisions, though this number far exceeds any other estimate…

ship-carpenter Matthew Gaffney fired a large musket ball at the creature’s head from a distance of thirty feet without noting anything unusual about the shape of its spine…

Chandos Michael Brown "A Natural History of the Gloucester Sea Serpent:
Knowledge, Power, and the Culture of Science in Antebellum America (1171: p.408)

Gaffney, who at thirty feet came closest to the creature, said that its motion was “vertical, like a caterpillar”. Pearson (merchant) witnessed Gaffney’s shot, but he compared the serpent’s movement to that of an eel, that is, on a horizontal plane.

Chandos Michael Brown "A Natural History of the Gloucester Sea Serpent:
Knowledge, Power, and the Culture of Science in Antebellum America (1171: p.411-412)

Linnaean Society asked for some additional reports on creature. Nash, by his own words, observed this creature through a glass in April 14th and his description marvelously met the expectation of committee (1171: p.413).

Gloucester Sea Serpent gain some attention afterwards, though the they became more and more skeptical. The report of Linnaean Society published within a weeks of first sightings invented a whole new genus Scoliophis stianticus for this creature. The reports about sightings of creature and attempts to study it scientifically was ridiculed in press in 1818 already, especially in southern states. Since attempts of capturing the serpent were unsuccessful, this whole thing was seen as a hoax. Hence, it became the matter of local pride and dignity to capture the beast. Captain Rich was one of those, who sought to recover reputation losses. In the summer of 1818 he tried to capture Gloucester Sea Serpent. He carefully analyzed the Linnaean Society's report. After that he hired eight witnesses of the serpent: "I hired those men in order that i might not be deceived, should he make his appearance, having never seen him myself". He determined from the report that the creature was seen mostly when water was in a dead calm. So he chose on of those days and went on his boat to a place where the creature was seen most often. He was lucky and creature appeared. "All crew agreed to a man, that what we then saw was the supposed Serpent.... After that the pursuit began. Shortly afterwards it was obvious that mysterious nature of serpent is not so mysterious: "by following it up closely we have ascertained that the supposed Serpent, is no other than the wake of such fish as he have taken". After five days of pursuit Rich finally managed to haul his prey on board. After identifying it, he wrapped the fish in sail and went to Gloucester where he publicly exhibited it. Account of captain Rich's capturing of a fish that was identified as horse-mackerel or tuna (Thunny) was published by Boston Weekly Messenger on September 10, 1818. For mane then the mystery of Gloucester Sea Serpent was solved (1171: p.421-423).

Marshall James Price, en route to visit his family at the beach resort in Nahant, was fortunate to have with him his “famous mast head spy glass”. Attracted to a great crowd gathered on a beach, he witnessed the thing gamboling in calm water about one hundred and fifty yards off the shore. His description generally matches those included in the Linnaean Society Report and clearly was influenced by it (1171: p.414).