ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Tetrapod Zoology

Tetrapod Zoology


Amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals - living and extinct
Tetrapod Zoology Home

The Cadborosaurus Wars

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Two renditions of 'Cadborosaurus' (upper one by C. M. Kosemen; one at lower right by Naish) with a pipefish. Not to scale!

ResearchBlogging.org

Over the last few months, I and two of my colleagues have been involved in an interesting dialogue in the literature. It concerns the entity dubbed ‘Cadborosaurus’ – a marine, horse-headed ‘mega-serpent’, supposedly reported by witnesses from the waters off British Columbia and elsewhere in the North Pacific. People who read my stuff (both here and in print) will know that I have more than a passing interest in cryptozoology, and especially in ‘sea monsters’; indeed, I’ve written about ‘Cadborosaurus’ quite a few times. As I always say, this interest in cryptozoology might be a dumb thing to admit, given the negative stigma attached to the field. And I’m sure that it’s based in part on adherence to the naïve and childish hope that sea monsters, relicts hominoids and such might actually be real.

Nevertheless, I remain interested in cryptozoology both because I think that some eyewitness accounts are really intriguing and difficult to explain, and because I’m interested in how people perform as observers of wildlife (see Paxton 2009). Unlike many who class themselves as sceptics, I’ve tried to understand where cryptozoologists are coming from, I’ve read and (do still read) the cryptozoological literature, and I don’t think that we should necessarily reject cryptozoological hypotheses as untenable without looking at the data (such as it is) first.

Cadborosaurus wars: Round 1

As I aim to show here, dealing with cryptozoologists can be a frustrating, even infuriating, business. As most people interested in mystery animal research will know, Michael Woodley, Cameron McCormick and myself recently argued that an alleged ‘baby Cadborosaurus’ was very likely no baby sea-serpent at all, but rather a mangled and half-remembered description of a pipefish (Woodley et al. 2011). We tabulated the various observations reported by the witness (William Hagelund), compared them to lists of characters compiled by examining numerous candidate species, and showed as clearly as possible that the pipefish identification is the one that best matches Hagelund’s observations. In other words, we did our best to examine the identity of the alleged creature in an empirical, critical fashion (Woodley et al. 2011). As I explained last time round, we have to remember that Hagelund wrote up his description of the encounter about two decades after it actually occurred, and that he did not ascribe the various ‘cadborosaur’ traits to his animal that the primary supporters of ‘Cadborosaurus’ (Edward Bousfield and Paul LeBlond) said that he did.

William Hagelund's 'baby Cadborosaurus' compared with a pipefish. Illustration by Cameron McCormick. See Woodley et al. (2011) for explanation.

Round 2

Most researchers were/are generally happy with our contention. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, I learnt from personal communication that Bousfield and LeBlond were not so happy. Essentially, they regarded our pipefish hypothesis as a non-starter hardly worthy of consideration. In a terse published response, provocatively titled ‘Pipefish or pipe dream?’, they accused us of “indulg[ing] in the common home-quarterbacking habit of insisting that anything described as different must be an erroneous description of something found in a book that vaguely looks like it” (Bousfield & LeBlond 2011, p. 779). I’ve no idea at all what a “common home-quarterbacking habit” is, and frankly the rest of the article isn’t much better. Bousfield & LeBlond (2011) cite Woodley et al. as “Naish and colleagues”, as if they weren’t paying attention, say that Hagelund’s ‘baby’ is grossly different from a pipefish and better matches ‘Cadborosaurus’, and even claim that employment of Occam’s Razor strengthens their hypothesised identification and bolsters rejection of ours (Bousfield & LeBlond 2011).

Bousfield & LeBlond's (2011) effort to show that pipefishes and Hagelund's animal are totally, totally different.

Round 3

Somewhat unhappy with the tone of Bousfield & LeBlond’s (2011) article, Michael, Cameron and I elected to produce a response (Woodley et al. 2012). Bousfield & LeBlond (2011) made three main points that require riposte. Firstly, they honestly thought that “by attempting to dismiss our pipefish identification, they had completed their task of critiquing our paper” (Woodley et al. 2012, p. 143). We find this dismissal premature and naïve, since – even if the pipefish hypothesis is deemed unsatisfactory – we (Woodley et al. 2011) drew attention to several other fish taxa that are more similar to Hagelund’s animal than is Bousfield and LeBlond’s reconstruction of ‘Cadborosaurus’.

Greater pipefish (Syngnathus acus); image from wikipedia.

Secondly, Bousfield & LeBlond (2011) argued that the Hagelund animal couldn’t be a pipefish due to the presence of an obvious neck, a horizontally aligned tail, large jaws and so on. However, they were apparently unable to appreciate or understand that the un-pipefish-like features they refer to were not reported or described by Hagelund at all. Furthermore, as I said above, Hagelund wrote about his encounter about two decades after it supposedly happened, and it again seems naïve to assume without caveat that the features he described were 100% accurate.

Thirdly, Bousfield & LeBlond’s (2011) claim that Occam’s Razor demands that their ‘baby sea serpent’ interpretation be taken more seriously than our ‘misidentified pipefish’ hypothesis is laughable. You can read our response in full to see how we dealt with this claim (Woodley et al. 2012). You might be able to guess.

Round 4

Bousfield and LeBlond will not, it seems, be responding further in print.

In case it's not obvious, this is a cartoon, and you need to understand irony to appreciate it.

But after receiving a series of emails from an apparently frustrated Ed Bousfield, I feel it’s time to say publicly that the published work on ‘Cadborosaurus’ is terrible science and more to do with the imagination and preconceptions of the protagonists than anything to do with actual biology.

Frankly, I’m tired of being told that I and my colleagues are the ones with the ridiculous ideas, the ones who aren’t thinking things through in proper scientific fashion, or the ones who are failing to recognise the true phylogenetic affinities of organisms reported by eyewitnesses. Bousfield has even – I wish I were joking – referred to us as “ivory tower scientists”, and as people who “may indeed know something about fossil vertebrate animals but know relatively little about living megaserpents in general and Cadborosaurus willsi in particular”.  I wish he would do his homework and work out for himself that only one of us is a palaeontologist. The ‘Ivory Tower’ claim is amusing, since it doesn’t take much research to appreciate that I and my colleagues are pretty much the very antithesis of that term. I offer the adjacent cartoon as a parody.

As if it’s not clear enough already, I want to state here why I think that the ‘Cadborosaurus’ work published by Bousfield and LeBlond is terrible science. Much of this has been covered elsewhere in the literature (Ellis 1994, Staude & Lambert 1995, Bauer & Russell 1996, Naish 2001, Woodley et al. 2008), but I want to repeat it so that the above discussion can be better seen in context, especially for those who are unfamiliar with this subject. And to those who have read what I’ve said about ‘Cadborosaurus’ before (in this 2006 Tet Zoo ver 1 article, for example), note that I have definitely become less sympathetic.

Interpreting Cadborosaurus: eyewitness accounts

The idea that ‘Cadborosaurus’ might exist and be real all stems, of course, from the fact that eyewitnesses have reported encounters with apparently long-bodied, horse-headed ‘mega-serpents’ in the waters of the north-east Pacific. A long-bodied, horse-headed vertebrate carcass, apparently retrieved from the stomach of a sperm whale at a Queen Charlotte Islands whaling station in 1937, sounds like the same sort of animal. Herein lies the case for ‘Cadborosaurus’. To conclude that the animal is real, you have to accept that these eyewitness reports, and the photos of that carcass, all represent descriptions or depictions of the same one species.

Needless to say, the foundations of the case for ‘Cadborosaurus’ are far from secure. Once you look at individual eyewitness accounts in detail, the hypothesis that they all represent the same animal species crumbles as clearly untenable. In fact, one of the many failings of Bousfield, LeBlond and like-minded cryptozoologists is that they’re unable or unwilling to realise that the cryptids they believe in are composite entities, constructed by combining observations of different species and/or phenomena. Some ‘Cadborosaurus’ descriptions do refer to vertically undulating, serpentine phenomena that, if they do represent animals, are difficult to reconcile with species that we know about, so please note here that I am not necessarily discounting altogether the existence of a marine vertebrate that remains unrecognised by scientists at large.

The diversity of entities believed to represent sightings of 'Cadborosaurus', from Woodley et al. (2012). Illustration by Cameron McCormick.

A 'Cadborosaurus' sighting (this one reported by fisherman David Miller in 1959). The drawing here (from Bright 1989) is actually substantially 'augmented' relative to Miller's original. Should we interpret such sightings as evidence for a new species of 'mega-serpent', or should we try to interpret them as confused accounts of seal, deer or other known animals or phenomena?

But, not only are the observations on record highly disparate, they are most parsimoniously interpreted as descriptions of many things. If you own any or all of the ‘Cadborosaurus’ literature, look at the images penned by eyewitnesses. There are various seal-shaped and deer-shaped heads, sometimes with obvious ears and short ‘horns’, and sometimes not (Heuvelmans 1965, Bousfield & LeBlond 1995, LeBlond & Bousfield 1995). Could it be, I wonder, that many (maybe all) of these sightings are actually of seal and swimming deer? The ‘camel-like’ head of ‘Cadborosaurus’, with its large, dark eyes and overhanging upper lip, is likely that of a surfacing male Northern elephant seal Mirounga angustirostris – a surprisingly large beast, the head of which might stand about a metre above the sea surface when ‘standing’ vertically in the water. I came up with this myself after seeing photos of a surfacing elephant seal and later heard it from a Canadian biologist whose father had a close encounter with a surfacing elephant seal (and immediately thought ‘Cadborosaurus’). Bauer & Russell (1996) “regard pinnipeds, especially the northern elephant seal Mirounga angustirostris, as the most likely candidates for the source of most of the [‘Cadborosaurus’] observations reported at sea” (p. 13). The Northern elephant seal is confirmed, incidentally, as a visitor of British Columbian waters, and remember that it stays down for so long, and visits the surface so briefly and intermittently that (some specialists suggest) it might be better regarded as a ‘surfacer’ than as a ‘diver’. Note that the description of the ‘Cadborosaurus’ head is also is a good match for that of a Moose Alces alces, as emphasised by the composite image below (from Cryptomundo). Moose are excellent swimmers and even dive to feed on submerged vegetation (the idea that they might explain some sea and lake monster reports is not exactly novel).

With the seal-headed and deer-headed sightings out of the picture, do the descriptions of serpentine, multi-humped animals remain as good evidence for marine ‘mega-serpents’? Elsewhere in the world, standing waves, colliding wakes, lines of swimming cetaceans, pinnipeds and even seabirds flying close to the water surface have all been misinterpreted by people as representing giant, multi-humped water monsters.

So I’m not confident that there is a large and compelling body of eyewitness data supporting the reality of ‘Cadborosaurus’. Instead we have a tainted and inconsistent pool of discordant accounts that cannot be interpreted as evidence for the existence of a single species.

Interpreting Cadborosaurus: the Naden Habour carcass

It is with the identikit image of the ‘Cadborosaurus’ construct in mind that Bousfield and LeBlond interpreted the Naden Harbour photos. The photos show a seemingly long-bodied, camel-headed vertebrate carcass.

One of several photos of the Naden Harbour 'Cadborosaurus' carcass.

Bousfield and LeBlond’s assumption that what we see in the photos represents the life appearance of a very peculiar creature is naïve. After briefly considering (and rejecting) an informal suggestion that the carcass was a “fetal baleen whale”, they adopted the hypothesis that Naden Harbour carcass = mega-serpent (Bousfield & LeBlond 1995, p. 9) without considering other hypotheses. Could it actually have been the highly decomposed, incomplete remains of a known species, like a large shark, or a bony fish of some sort? Many of us interested in ‘sea monsters’ are thinking along these lines, and in fact the idea that the carcass might be the substantially mangled remains of a shark has already been mentioned in print (Bauer & Russell 1996, Naish 2001). Bousfield & LeBlond (1995) provided a superficial and wholly amateurish description of the carcass, made some enormous and highly error-prone assumptions about its skeletal anatomy, and used one of the photographs of the carcass (yes, I said one of the photographs) as the holotype for a new species: Cadborosaurus willsi Bousfield & LeBlond, 1995.

Does any of this seem like ‘good’ science involving appropriate consideration of alternative hypotheses, caution, conservatism and best practise? I leave you to judge, but I certainly do not regard ‘Cadborosaurus’ as a valid biological entity based on the data that Bousfield & LeBlond (1995) presented. Incidentally, Bousfield and LeBlond published their description of the ‘new species’ in ‘supplement 1’ of volume 1 of Amphipacifica, a new publication stated to be devoted to invertebrate systematics. The editorial board consisted of Bousfield as Managing Editor and C. P. Staude and P. Lambert as Assistant Editors. On the ‘Cadborosaurus’ article, Staude and Lambert were “opposed to its publication as a formal species description” and felt the need to express this opinion in an editorial published at the front of the issue (Staude & Lambert 1995).

The ‘living serpentine plesiosaur’ hypothesis

Bousfield and LeBlond have consistently employed a somewhat confused approach to the identity of ‘Cadborosaurus’. The original description (Bousfield & LeBlond 1995) proposes that ‘Cadborosaurus’ is a long-bodied member of ‘Euryapsida’ (the mostly defunct and now ambiguous term once used for sauropterygians and a number of possibly allied reptile groups); specifically, they classify it as ‘Class Reptilia, Subclass Euryapsida?, Order Plesiosauria?’ (p. 8). They’ve also said that ‘Cadborosaurus’ combines reptilian and mammalian traits, and in LeBlond & Bousfield (1995) they intimated a relationship with thalattosuchian crocodyliforms. On other occasions, they’ve said that they were not/are not supporting a plesiosaurian identify for ‘Cadborosaurus’ (the abstract of Bousfield & LeBlond (1995) uses the wording “within vertebrate class Reptilia … the animal appear [sic] least unlike some plesiosaurs of Mesozoic age” (p. 3)). To be clear, they actually were and are favouring the hypothesis that ‘Cadborosaurus’ is a relict surviving plesiosaur.

'Cadborosaurus' as imagined by Bousfield and LeBlond (illustration by D. Naish).

If you’ve never heard the remarkable claim that a giant, serpentine plesiosaur might inhabit the modern waters of the north Pacific, I can hardly blame you. This work has been largely ignored by qualified biologists, mostly because they think it’s nonsense and unworthy of serious consideration. Aaron Bauer and Anthony Russell (1996), well known for their excellent work on lizards and other vertebrates, wrote a lengthy critical assessment of Bousfield & LeBlond’s (1995) description of ‘Cadborosaurus’, and I note that their conclusions and criticisms were highly similar to those of myself and my colleagues (Naish 2001, Woodley et al. 2008, 2011, 2012).

Time to say it like it is: BAD SCIENCE

Some 'Cadborosaurus' acccounts describe swimming giraffes. Just sayin' (and, no, I am not being in the least bit serious). Spanish Banks cadborosaur drawing from Bright (1989). Floating giraffe image by Don Henderson.

We’ll be coming back to ‘Cadborosaurus’ again in the future. For now, I hope that several things are clear:-

– eyewitness accounts used to support the reality of ‘Cadborosaurus’ likely represent a hodge-podge of seal and deer sightings, as well as sightings of other animals and phenomena. Maybe the north-east Pacific is home to a large, as yet unrecognised, vertebrate animal, but this is not clear from eyewitness accounts. They represent an inconsistent set of diverse descriptions that cannot be interpreted as evidence for a new species.

– the 1937 Naden Harbour carcass, believed by Bousfield and LeBlond to represent the same ‘mega-serpent’ reported as a living animal by eyewitnesses, is ambiguous and its interpretation as a modern-day serpentine plesiosaur, awarded a binomial name on the basis of old photographs, cannot be considered conservative, competent science.

– a re-interpretation of a supposed ‘baby Cadborosaurus’ account as that of a pipefish has been strenuously counter-argued by the main supporters of ‘Cadborosaurus’ on the grounds that its identification as a baby mega-serpent is more likely. Whether the ‘misidentified pipefish’ hypothesis is correct or not, it is just insulting to be told that this hypothesis is less parsimonious than the hypothesis that it represents a baby sea-serpent.

– all in all, the published research on ‘Cadborosaurus’ involves improbable conclusions, a lack of critical analysis, and a lack of the conservatism and restraint that’s normal in scientific research. It’s just bad, bad science. Furthermore, the primary supporters of the alleged reality of ‘Cadborosaurus’ have displayed a frustrating arrogance, lack of humility and stubborn attitude whenever their ideas are – quite justifiably – placed under scrutiny.

Cameron has written a series of articles about our Woodley et al. (2011) paper and additional ‘Caddy’ reports: part 1 is here, then there’s part 2a, part 2b, part 3, part 4 and part 5. For various Tet Zoo articles on ‘sea monster’ mysteries of various kinds, see…

Refs – -

Bauer, A. M. & Russell, A. P. 1996. A living plesiosaur?: A critical assessment of the description of Cadborosaurus willsi. Cryptozoology 12, 1-18.

Bousfield, E. L. & LeBlond, P. H. 1995. An account of Cadborosaurus willsi, new genus, new species, a large aquatic reptile from the Pacific coast of North America. Amphipacifica 1 (supplement 1), 1-25.

- . & LeBlond, P. H. 2011. Pipefish or Pipe Dream? Journal of Scientific Exploration 25, 779-780.

Bright, M. 1989. There are Giants in the Sea. Robson Books Ltd, London.

Ellis, R. 1994. Monsters of the Sea. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Heuvelmans, B. 1968. In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents. Hart-Davis, London.

LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. 1995. Cadborosaurus: Survivor From the Deep. Horsdal & Schuber Publishers Ltd., Victoria, Canada.

Naish, D. 2001. Sea serpents, seals, and coelacanths: an attempt at a holistic approach to the identity of large aquatic cryptids. Fortean Studies 7, 75-94.

Paxton, C. G. M. 2009. The plural of “anecdote” can be “data”: statistical analysis of viewing distances in reports of unidentified giant marine animals 1758-2000. Journal of Zoology 279, 381-387.

Woodley, M. A., McCormick, C. A., & Naish, D. 2012. Response to Bousfield & LeBlond: Shooting pipefish in a barrel; or sauropterygian “mega-serpents” and Occam’s razor. Journal of Scientific Exploration 26, 151-154.

- ., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. 2011. A baby sea-serpent no more: Reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile “Cadborosaur” report. Journal of Scientific Exploration 25, 497-514.

Woodley, M., Naish, D., & Shanahan, H. (2008). How many extant pinniped species remain to be described? Historical Biology, 20 (4), 225-235 DOI: 10.1080/08912960902830210

Darren Naish About the Author: Darren Naish is a science writer, technical editor and palaeozoologist (affiliated with the University of Southampton, UK). He mostly works on Cretaceous dinosaurs and pterosaurs but has an avid interest in all things tetrapod. His publications can be downloaded at darrennaish.wordpress.com. He has been blogging at Tetrapod Zoology since 2006. Check out the Tet Zoo podcast at tetzoo.com! Follow on Twitter @TetZoo.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 59 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Corvid 7:53 am 04/16/2012

    It’s frustrating! I am also a scientist and casually interested in cryptozoology, and I wish that more cryptozoologists would stop taking any challenge to their conclusions as personal attacks or attempts by the “closed-minded” to dismiss their work. I try to bring up the birdwatching community and Rare Bird Reports as an example: if you see a rare bird in an area and wish to report it, you must give lots of evidence, and if you do not have enough evidence (especially photographs), EVEN IF YOU KNOW you saw a particular species, NO ONE WILL BELIEVE YOU. That happened to me once – I am an experienced birder and saw a species I was very familiar with in a very unusual place. However, no one in the community would believe me until much later, when multiple other observers saw the same bird and were able to take (crystal clear) photographs. If birdwatchers have to provide that much evidence of their sightings of KNOWN species, it follows that cryptozoologists and people who say they’ve seen cryptids must provide even stronger evidence to convince anyone that they’ve seen an unknown species. I can completely commiserate with their frustrations – I know what it’s like not to be believed! – but I just wish more people understood the importance of solid evidence and patience. You have to work through the personal frustration to gather the evidence required to support your claim. Of course, the hardest part is to back down or admit your error if you cannot gather enough evidence, or if the evidence contradicts your claims.

    Link to this
  2. 2. Max Blake 9:37 am 04/16/2012

    “…, I and two of my colleagues have been involved in an interesting dialogue in the literature.”

    I’m not convinced that ‘dialogue’ is the right word to use…

    Good point Corvid, but it is not easy at all to convince some people in the cryptozoology community that an eyewitness report is the worst, least reliable evidence you can give for something, but that detailed analysis of grouped reports with an eyewitness led version of principle components analysis to group similar reports together within a phenomenon, is the way to do things. Darren’s work above about splitting the seal-headed and camel-headed groups off, then coming up with a reasonable hypothesis for what those may be is the way to do things. Lumping all ‘Caddy’ sightings together is a really bad way to do science.

    Link to this
  3. 3. Heteromeles 11:16 am 04/16/2012

    If this is a typical example of the way cryptozoology is practiced, I’m not surprised.

    But I am saddened.

    There’s a definition of “mystic” floating around out there, about people who are in love with mysteries. I think this definition does a grave injustice to the mystics who are trying to experientially understand how their brain works from the inside, but nonetheless the mystery-loving mystic definition seems to fit all too much cryptozoological research.

    There are obvious problems with this as science. To me, the worst thing is what it impedes. Let’s assume, for a moment, that sea serpents and bigfoot both exist. If real scientists demonstrated this to corvid’s rare bird standard above, the mystery wouldn’t go away. Instead, we’d have an explosion of seaserpentologists, and American primatologists would go apeshit (literally) over having something new to study, something that might not go extinct due to bushmeat hunting or deforestation on another continent in the next decade or two.

    Consider how much fun a sasquatchological Jane Gooddall would have, winning the trust of a bigfoot group to the extent that she worked out their social arrangements. Compare that rich life to people running around in the woods, saying to the camera, “I think there’s a ‘squatch in these woods.” That difference is what’s being lost under mystical cryptozoology.

    Almost every animal that’s emerged from the cryptozoological mists has proved to be more interesting in real life, not less. We all lose from such mysticism.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Cameron McCormick 11:25 am 04/16/2012

    For those interested, I’ve set up a a page with links to the relevant .pdfs, that ridiculous 12-part series on ‘Cadborosaurus’ I did, photos of the Naden Harbour carcass, and the eyewitness sketch compilations.

    Link to this
  5. 5. calliarcale 12:59 pm 04/16/2012

    “I’ve no idea at all what a “common home-quarterbacking habit” is, and frankly the rest of the article isn’t much better.”

    A more common phrase would be “Monday morning quarterback” or “armchair quarterback”. The quarterback on an American football team is often responsible for a number of decisions during gameplay, and it is a common pasttime for fans to meet the next day to discuss what the quarterback *should* have done in order to save the game. “Home-quarterbacking” is a variant of the phrase that I hadn’t previously heard. What they’re implying is that anybody who makes this sort of an argument is unqualified, inexperienced, and lacking in any real familiarity with the things in question yet confident in their pronouncements against them. It is, in short, an insult, and thus completely in keeping with the remainder of their piece. ;-)

    Moose and humped sea monster sightings — I wouldn’t rule out moose for those also. Moose do have quite a prominent hump, and a cow might be accompanied by her calf, which could itself be mistaken for another hump of the same animal.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Heinrich Mallison 1:57 pm 04/16/2012

    ah, that gave me a good laugh, thank you Darren!
    Oh, and thank you Cameron for the page – much appreciated :)

    Link to this
  7. 7. Tamara Henson 2:00 pm 04/16/2012

    Good Summary Darren but did you know Dale A. Drinnon pretty much beat you with the punch to this article? A few weeks ago he wrote a detailed analysis of caddy reports and compared them to known animals. Like you he pretty much agrees that most sightings are moose and elephant seals with a few fish thrown in. Unlike you he believes in living plesiosaurs. I am not convinced and still think a long-necked seal is more likely.

    By the way Dale independently came to the same conclusion I did that the Mokele-Mbembe is a known species of soft-shelled turtle and wrote a pretty good article on it.

    Link to this
  8. 8. puppygod 2:10 pm 04/16/2012

    I can’t help but wonder how many of the sightings are not of animals, but rather stuff like flotsam or, perhaps, submarines at periscope depth. The latter might be less relevant for contemporary sightings, but inter-war and post-war seas and oceans were full of submarines that were still relying mostly on atmospheric oxygen and spending most of their time barely touching waves from beyond. And today we have Great Pacific Garbage Patch which, by infinite monkeys theorem, should contain some cadborosaurus-shaped stuff.

    Link to this
  9. 9. amjustwondering 4:08 pm 04/16/2012

    As a researcher sympathetic to cryptozoology and other highly speculative studies usually considered pseudosciences, I find this identification of Hagelund’s sea serpent to be one of the very most excellent and satisfyingly definitive resolutions of an alleged anomaly I have ever encountered. Thanks for you professional help. If only you would publish your other articles on alternative subjects such as the impossible to obtain article in Fortean Studies #7 on Sea Serpents …

    Link to this
  10. 10. Mark Young 6:21 pm 04/16/2012

    “intimated a relationship with thalattosuchian crocodyliforms”.

    Ah if only…

    Link to this
  11. 11. Gwen! 6:28 pm 04/16/2012

    For considering itself a branch of science, “common” cryptozoology is often ridiculously critical and snobbish about science and logic in general… frankly, the Row has a better chance of being a genuine cryptid animal than Caddy, and even the Row is mostly wishful thinking.

    This reminds me of the common interpretation of that supposed “pterosaur”, the Olitiau. Nevermind that the man who reported it, Ivan T. Sanderson, was an American cryptozoologist who knew what pterosaurs looked like. And nevermind that he said it was a bat, described it as a bat, and identified it as a bat to his native companions–who recognized it because he described it as a bat. It was big and bats are not big, so it must have been a pterosaur, which conveniently fits what many cryptozoologists and crypto-enthusiasts would like to believe. What a coincidence!

    Link to this
  12. 12. michaels07 7:21 pm 04/16/2012

    We don`t know what the animal represents.If Ogopogo exist exists that may be the answer.

    Link to this
  13. 13. deinonychusdinosaur 10:26 pm 04/16/2012

    Cryptozoologists are rather biased when it comes to the existence of cryptids. I once wrote an article on the ancient astronaut theory and I received many rude comments from claimed cryptozoologists and ancient astronaut “theorists” (with no evidence whatsoever).

    Link to this
  14. 14. naishd 4:58 am 04/17/2012

    Thanks indeed for comments, much appreciated. Tamara (comment 7): yes, I see that Dale produced a very lengthy and detailed article on the various ‘Cadborosaurus’ sightings. He and I have been discussing this on facebook. As stated above, the idea that some or many of the sightings might actually be of swimming deer and seals is novel to neither my text above or to Dale’s – it’s been mentioned by a few other interested parties, and Michael, Cameron and I have certainly been discussing it when preparing our recent manuscripts and illustrations. I find it odd that Bousfield and LeBlond haven’t considered these suggestions in their own writings – they simply assume that the sightings represent their new hypothetical species.

    Darren

    Link to this
  15. 15. naishd 5:22 am 04/17/2012

    While I’m here… I’m really fascinated in the swimming and diving behaviour exhibited by moose. Most texts on deer talk about the swimming, many also say that moose can dive. I’ve been to talks that _describe_ moose diving behaviour – I recall one where the speaker said that moose were timed staying down for 6-8 minutes at a time -and there’s even a children’s book that includes an illustration of a moose diving down to the lake floor, 3 m or so from the surface. But – does anyone know of published technical research on this topic? Zheleznov-Chukotsky & Votiashova (1998) report moose diving and remaining submerged for up to 1 minutes at a time, but I wonder if there’s more in the literature. I haven’t seen Labutin (1976). Furthermore, does anyone know if moose have ever been reported diving in marine waters? Say, to feed on seaweed?

    Darren

    Ref – -

    Labutin, Y. V. 1976. Does the moose dive? Hunt and Hunting Management 4, 10-11.

    Zheleznov-Chukotsky, N. K. & Votiashova, E. S. 1998. Comparative analysis of moose nutrition of the Anadyrsky and Omolonsky populations (far north east) in different seasons. Alces 34, 445-451.

    Link to this
  16. 16. naishd 5:34 am 04/17/2012

    Oh – just checked, apparently some moose dives are as deep as 5.5 m. That’s crazy. Wonder if this is another of those neat bits of behaviour that’s never been filmed.

    Darren

    Link to this
  17. 17. Dartian 8:37 am 04/17/2012

    Darren:
    Wonder if this is another of those neat bits of behaviour that’s never been filmed.

    It has.

    Link to this
  18. 18. David Marjanović 9:53 am 04/17/2012

    the idea that the carcass might be the substantially mangled remains of a shark has already been mentioned in print

    So the “head” would be just the braincase, right?

    and if you do not have enough evidence (especially photographs), EVEN IF YOU KNOW you saw a particular species, NO ONE WILL BELIEVE YOU.

    And no one should believe you as long as you can’t provide reasons to believe.

    Link to this
  19. 19. naishd 9:58 am 04/17/2012

    David (comment 18)…

    “So the “head” would be just the braincase, right?”

    Absolutely, yes.

    Darren

    Link to this
  20. 20. Heteromeles 10:08 am 04/17/2012

    And no one should believe you as long as you can’t provide reasons to believe.

    Or as they say at 4Chan: Pics or it didn’t happen.

    Link to this
  21. 21. CaptinCrypto 10:57 am 04/17/2012

    Extending from a specific to a generality does not apply in cases like sea serpent mysteries.The head of Cabdorosaurus might well be like the head on a moose. the head of my dog is like the head on a bear.Doesnt mean all dogs are all bears!!!I say boo to this research.What Bousfield and Lenblong did took guts.HOw many new species of actual LIVE sea serpents have YOU discovered lately.

    Link to this
  22. 22. Jerzy Again 11:34 am 04/17/2012

    I saw a photo of a diving moose. Although it could be misidentified Cadborosaurus. ;)

    Link to this
  23. 23. Gwen! 11:44 am 04/17/2012

    Bousfield and Lenblong haven’t discovered any, so I’d say they’re tied with Darren at 0/0.

    Link to this
  24. 24. Jerzy Again 11:46 am 04/17/2012

    BTW, I introduce Jerzy Scale of Suspension of Disbelief.

    Things can be ranked by how much suspension of disbelief they require. Believing in tasmanian tiger surviving until 2012 requires relatively little disbelief, it is fundamentally compatible with our knowldege of the world. Believing in yeti needs much more disbelief. Higher still are grey aliens. Near the top are ghosts and headless horsemen.

    The Cadborosaurus ranks too high on disbelief scale for me.

    You are free to refine the classification of Scale of Disbelief. It is also possible to construct phylogenies – are thylacines and yeti more likely to be believed together than grey aliens?

    Link to this
  25. 25. Hydrarchos 12:01 pm 04/17/2012

    Thanks for this. Strangely, I don’t think I’ve ever heard elephant seals suggested as a candidate for “Cadborosaurus” before, but they certainly could be responsible for some sightings. Dale Drinnon’s “photo comparisons” are, however, not exactly convincing – I suspect the “long-necked” representations have far more to do with stereotyped images of what a “long-necked sea monster” looks like rather than anything to do with any real living animal or any particular sighting.

    Moose I can definitely believe are responsible for some sightings, not just of “Caddy” but of sea/lake monsters across the Northern hemisphere. I’ve read accounts of “water horses” from Scotland, Ireland and Scandinavia that sounded incredibly like moose – they are described as enough like a horse to be possible to mistake for one in poor light (thus at least having ungulate-like legs), but capable of diving into (sometimes very small) bodies of water and disappearing from sight for long enough for people to think they “normally” lived underwater. The only trouble with the accounts from Ireland and Scotland is that moose aren’t supposed to have lived there (at least in historic times, IIRC), but of course folkloric creatures get imported when people travel…

    However, the Naden Harbour “carcass”, even with the other 2 photos, still looks like nothing more than a big piece of kelp to me.

    Link to this
  26. 26. David Marjanović 12:44 pm 04/17/2012

    What Bousfield and Lenblong did took guts.

    So what? Does that automatically make them right somehow?

    Have you ever encountered the word foolhardy?

    However, the Naden Harbour “carcass”, even with the other 2 photos, still looks like nothing more than a big piece of kelp to me.

    Oh snap! :-)

    Link to this
  27. 27. busterggi 1:16 pm 04/17/2012

    Excellent article, any chance you’ll be back on Monster Talk about this?

    Link to this
  28. 28. amjustwondering 2:48 pm 04/17/2012

    Ben Roesch is the top hard critic of cryptozoological beached carcasses. He completed a lengthy review of perhaps all the noteworthy ones and found most to be basking sharks. He also identifies the Naden Harbor carcass as one.

    Link to this
  29. 29. naishd 3:49 pm 04/17/2012

    Thanks for further comments. Naden Harbour carcass: even though we know that people were indeed in the habit of faking ‘Cadborosaurus’ carcasses during the 1930s using bits of beach junk (Naish 1997), I do think that the Naden Harbour carcass is the real carcass of a vertebrate animal. A group of us think we’ve identified it and a technical manuscript is planned.

    Regarding comment 28, I mentioned the basking shark identification in my 2001 article, but my actual wording is “Ben Roesch also draws attention to the possibility that the NHT (= Naden Harbour Thing) might be a shark carcass” (Naish 2001, p. 88). So, I perhaps should cite that bit as ‘Roesch, in Naish 2001′. I didn’t as it would imply that Ben contributed to the article (and I wouldn’t want people to think him guilty of that). Ben’s articles in his sea monster carcass series are Roesch (1997, 1998a, b, 1999). So far as I know, the series was never finished (hmm, how familiar).

    As for pdf availability of Naish (2001) (see comment 9), I would love for such to be available, if only I could figure out how to turn a scanned article into a pdf (have tried, and cannot do it). If someone can help, I’m listening.

    Darren

    Ref – -

    Naish, D. 1997. Another Caddy carcass? The Cryptozoology Review 2 (1), 26-29.

    Roesch, B. S. 1997. A review of alleged sea serpent carcasses worldwide (part one – 1648-1880). The Cryptozoology Review 2 (2), 6-27.

    - . 1998a. A review of alleged sea serpent carcasses worldwide (part two – 1881-1896). The Cryptozoology Review 2 (3), 25-35.

    - . 1998b. A review of alleged sea serpent carcasses worldwide (part three – 1897-1906). The Cryptozoology Review 3 (1), 27-31.

    - . 1999. A review of alleged sea serpent carcasses worldwide (part four – 1907-1924). The Cryptozoology Review 3 (3), 15-22.

    Link to this
  30. 30. cityprole 7:04 pm 04/17/2012

    As a card-carrying member of the Pacific Northwest (Canada chapter) I am totally empathetic with relative scepticism, and know first hand that an ‘eye-witness’ account can be mid-bogglingly off..
    I live in a rural area of Vancouver Island, and we often get deer groups stopping by, especially at night, to munch on our acreage..
    One morning a couple of months ago, I looked up from reading and saw a very hairy-backed hump right up against my living-room window..thinking it looked very vulpine, and worried for our outdoor cat, I went to the window to look, and it was a juvenile female deer munching on grass…with her winter coat, I guess..looking very wolf-like, and yes, I’ve seen wolves…it made me laugh out loud and scared the deer a bit…
    Even I can’t always believe my own eyes.

    Link to this
  31. 31. Andreas Johansson 6:58 am 04/19/2012

    Heteromeles wrote:
    Almost every animal that’s emerged from the cryptozoological mists has proved to be more interesting in real life, not less.

    More interesting to you. Not, I suspect, to the “mystics” – they don’t want it to be a real animal with more-or-less interesting biology, they want it to be mythical, significant, perhaps otherworldly. Or at least that’s the impression I’ve got from many sea monster aficionados.

    Hydrarchus wrote:
    I’ve read accounts of “water horses” from Scotland, Ireland and Scandinavia that sounded incredibly like moose

    What makes me a bit sceptical, wrt to Scandinavia, at least, is that mooses are quite common animals there – you would expect most eyewitnesses would know quite well what they look like.

    Link to this
  32. 32. llewelly 8:18 am 04/19/2012

    I had thought “water horse” generally referred to walrus, at least until they were exterminated in the area in question.

    Link to this
  33. 33. llewelly 8:29 am 04/19/2012

    “What makes me a bit sceptical, wrt to Scandinavia, at least, is that mooses are quite common animals there – you would expect most eyewitnesses would know quite well what they look like.”

    Sea monsters rarely appear when the viewing is good. They prefer dark and stormy conditions.

    Link to this
  34. 34. Andreas Johansson 9:48 am 04/19/2012

    llewelly wrote:
    Sea monsters rarely appear when the viewing is good. They prefer dark and stormy conditions.

    Yeah, but if you see something big and vague in the dark and stormy night, why not think it’s the familiar option?

    I guess I’m just expecting too much rationality of people.

    Speaking of which, is there something beyond phylogenetic roulette about the idea that “Cadborosaurus” is specifically a serpentine plesiosaur? It’s remarkably easy to think of aquatic reptiles that are more serpentine than plesiosaurs, and Bousfeld and DeBlond’s “reconstruction” doesn’t look the least bit plesiosaurian to my (admittedly untrained) eyes. It looks more like an Alces x Basilosaurus hybrid.

    Link to this
  35. 35. Hydrarchos 10:29 am 04/19/2012

    @llewelly: the word “walrus” means “whale horse”, but (at least Irish and Scottish) “water horse” legends describe an animal that comes out of the water to eat the same sort of food as real equines, and can be ridden like one (in some legends, they pose as horses to get people to ride them, then gallop into the water to drown them). I suspect that, like Caddy, the legends involve some conflation between moose and whatever the local large pinniped is, due to people having moved away from the areas where the real animals are familiar and the legends getting vaguer and merging with time.

    @Darren: I would be very interested to hear which real vertebrate animal you think the Naden Harbour carcass is. I can’t really think of anything in the appropriate size range that could decay to look like that, and the whole thing just looks like there’s no skeleton in it, the “head” is a vague blob (like a big algal holdfast), and the rest of it looks floppy and ribbony to me. Maybe if there were close-up photos of the “head” I’d think differently…

    Link to this
  36. 36. llewelly 1:30 pm 04/19/2012

    “I suspect that, like Caddy, the legends involve some conflation between moose and whatever the local large pinniped is, due to people having moved away from the areas where the real animals are familiar and the legends getting vaguer and merging with time.”

    This makes a lot of sense, but the ranges of most pinnipeds have been vastly reduced over the past 500 years or so, (and it’s likely there was a great deal of range reduction before then), so it seems to me (locally) “exterminated” is a often a better fit than “moved away”.

    Link to this
  37. 37. David Marjanović 1:34 pm 04/19/2012

    is there something beyond phylogenetic roulette about the idea that “Cadborosaurus” is specifically a serpentine plesiosaur?

    Complete ignorance of mosasaurs will easily suffice. If all you know is plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs, it’s gotta be a plesiosaur.

    Link to this
  38. 38. Metridia 4:49 pm 04/19/2012

    Not to be confused with the Cadburysaurus, which was persecuted to extinction in the wild by whalers eager for its chocolate-shelled, creamy-centered eggs.

    Link to this
  39. 39. llewelly 6:56 pm 04/19/2012

    But David, if you saw a sea serpent, you would report it as a marine elapid, not a mosasaur.

    Link to this
  40. 40. Andreas Johansson 2:46 am 04/20/2012

    David Marjanović wrote:
    Complete ignorance of mosasaurs will easily suffice. If all you know is plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs, it’s gotta be a plesiosaur.

    By that logic, Hydrophis is a plesiosaur. They can’t be that pig-ignorant, can they?

    Link to this
  41. 41. David Marjanović 7:53 am 04/20/2012

    They can’t be that pig-ignorant, can they?

    I think they can.

    Never forget the sheer proportion of people out there who don’t know lizards from salamanders.

    Link to this
  42. 42. Owlmirror 1:03 pm 04/20/2012

    (also e-mailed)

    Regarding this:

    [ As for pdf availability of Naish (2001) (see comment 9), I would love for such to be available, if only I could figure out how to turn a scanned article into a pdf (have tried, and cannot do it). If someone can help, I’m listening. ]

    When you say “scanned article”, what do you mean? A TIFF? A collection of JPG images?

    If there is a file or files that you can send me, I am pretty sure that I can convert it (or them) to PDF for you very easily.

    Link to this
  43. 43. Gwen! 4:25 pm 04/20/2012

    David, it gets much worse than that… not too long ago someone actually asked me, “but whales are fish, right?”

    Link to this
  44. 44. Halbred 6:49 pm 04/20/2012

    Gwen, you should punish that person with a phylogenetic answer. “Yes, they are fish. And so are bears, and camels, and turtles, and every other tetrapod on the planet.”

    “Sarcopterygian fish, that is.”

    Link to this
  45. 45. llewelly 10:41 pm 04/20/2012

    Halbred, such a person would not understand “Sarcopterygian”. Instead they would come to the conclusion you had supported their belief that whales were more like goldfish than hippos.

    It would not be punishment unless there was a large audience made up primarily of people who did understand – an audience difficult to find outside of a university biology department.

    Link to this
  46. 46. zombielogic 12:12 am 04/21/2012

    It’s amazing how many cryptids resemble these creatures. Virtually every body of water has its own version. Sometimes I wonder if a creature that may have lived a very long life cycle was seen only once by human eyes and became a legend retold for decades. The Squonk http://www.zombielogicblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/squonk.html

    Link to this
  47. 47. CS Shelton 3:11 am 04/21/2012

    Man, I ought to avoid talking about zoology with the uninformed, but I can’t help it. Even people who are fairly smart tend to be deeply ignorant of the basic facts of a subject if it’s far enough outside their interests. I’m always getting insane questions or assertions about phylogeny from people. “Bats are birds, right?” “I heard dogs are closer to people than apes are.” “So if tuna are warm-blooded, they’re mammals right?” And so on forever. Oh yeah, the other day I got a “bears are closer to pigs than dogs are.”

    I’d be about the same if someone wanted started talking music theory or physics at me, so it’s fair. I just have to accept it until my head explodes.

    Link to this
  48. 48. CS Shelton 3:17 am 04/21/2012

    “bears are closer to pigs than dogs are.”
    My grammar is failing me tonight. Basically, weird person had said
    -base mammal
    –dog
    –pig/bear
    —pig
    —bear
    I can only imagine she saw a show talking about their dietary habits, not their derivation, and got confused.

    Link to this
  49. 49. Andreas Johansson 6:41 am 04/21/2012

    David Marjanović wrote:
    Never forget the sheer proportion of people out there who don’t know lizards from salamanders.

    True, but those people wouldn’t know what an euryapsid was if it bit their legs off. Bousfield and LeBlond are impressively selective in their ignorance if they’re aware of Euryapsida but not of sea snakes.

    Link to this
  50. 50. David Marjanović 7:52 am 04/22/2012

    In the long run, “fish” should be restricted to “actinopterygian” IMNSHO. In terms of Permian or later diversity, that’s already almost the same.

    Bousfield and LeBlond are impressively selective in their ignorance if they’re aware of Euryapsida but not of sea snakes.

    They’ve seen a classification of “ancient reptiles”, so they know that name. :-| I definitely learned of sea snakes long after I knew about euryapsids.

    Link to this
  51. 51. llewelly 8:26 am 04/22/2012

    “… “fish” should be restricted to “actinopterygian” …”

    And hope eradicating the idea that lungfish and coelacanths are “fish” won’t be as hard as replacing Brontosaurus with Apatosaurus. (Among other things, /every/ spellchecker I have ever used came with “Brontosaurus” in its dictionary, but “Apatosaurus” always had to be added by me.)

    Link to this
  52. 52. Charles Paxton 5:27 pm 04/22/2012

    llewelly said “Sea monsters rarely appear when the viewing is good. They prefer dark and stormy conditions.”

    Au contraire, when reported weather conditions are almost always “calm”, “barely a ripple” etc etc. If the reported weather conditions are representative of the actual weather conditions then sea monsters are just like regular large marine animals and more easily detectable in flatter seas. The detectability of sea monsters is a non-trivial matter long overlooked by cryptozoologists.

    Link to this
  53. 53. longshao84 1:27 pm 04/25/2012

    I have not read all the response, but the drawing to me looks much more like a sturgeon of some sort than a pipefish, mainly due to the presence of scutes, the shape and position of the pectoral fin, and the lack of dorsal fin. The few lines under the neck might even indicate the barbels.

    Link to this
  54. 54. naishd 2:01 pm 04/25/2012

    You should read our paper. Follow the link above (in the references: Woodley et al. 2011), it’s freely available online.

    Darren

    Link to this
  55. 55. longshao84 2:48 pm 04/25/2012

    Darren I read your analysis in the paper. And I do agree that the bay pipefish is the most probable candidate.

    Link to this
  56. 56. cavenam 10:55 pm 04/25/2012

    I don’t agree or disagree with wether these animals exist and for anyone to state privately or otherwise either way before a study is thoroughly completed is being very presumptuous. No marine biologist that I have ever read or known of will say that we have identified even most of the creatures in our own seas. New variations on marine life are being discovered every day in the seas and oceans of the world especially the deep oceans of which less than five percent have been gone to in submersibles and very little has been mapped even much less explored.
    Now their are many instances of prehistoric animal species going so far in evolution and then just stopping at a point and surviving that way unchanged for millions of years. The Coelacanths are just one of many. Especially from the Devonian period forward. There’s specimens from fresh as well as many from salt water environments such as the Bowfins and the lungfish as well as several species of Lepisosteus or the Gar family. Barely changed any at all since their prehistoric beginnings in the Devonian and Periods before. Archetuethis Dux as well as Collosus up until twenty years or so ago were completely scoffed at by many main stream Biologists and Marine Biologists as Myth. They were supposedly just Sailors bedtime yarns about the Kraken. Fishermans stories about catching weird large headed prehistoric looking sharks in their nets from time to time were regarded by Science as just stories and fables but today we know those fables to be about the now well known and incredible Mega mouthed shark. Now I’m sure some of you will say I’m trying to pick apart Science but you’re wrong. I’m simply saying that for any Biologist or Scientist to say we know everything that’s out there is irresponsible on their part!
    Now I’ve studdied the cadboroughsaurus stories and others for a while now but not from any oppinion for or against but from the visible facts which is the way it should be done in an unbiast fashion. The descriptions from eyewitnesses do differ in detail greatly but this could lead to the fact that not all were seeing what they thought and misidenified what they described but in the same instance many of the descriptions are very similar and that fact alone should bare more research. I’ve studied and blown up many of the pictures from the Naden Harbour Carcass with special attention on every angle I could get on the cranial or head region. When the photos are blown up and looked at very carfully you will notice that there are Orbital sockets as well as an Orbital Ridge visible on the head as well as what looks like and this is not possitive because it’s very hard to see and only visible in one or two angles what looks like nasal ridges on the head. Now mostly Mammals have Orbital Ridges set on top of the head and I know of no fish Species with Nasal ridges on the cramiums.
    This is what I’d like to see from both sides instead of bickering over who’s pride is hurt the most. If both sides study the facts and what proof is known then the truth for this will be found. As long as all this bickering between Cryptozoologists and Scientists and now even the Creationists are trying to weigh in on this then nothing will be solved. An open mind is not a disease its a form of intelligence!

    Link to this
  57. 57. cavenam 11:52 pm 04/25/2012

    Another missleading fact on both sides about this Naden Harbour Carcass is the statement of it being Jeuvenile. If you look on the better pictures or for that matter the picture on this site here you’ll notice the animals head end is propped on a box. If you look on this wooden box directly beneath the creatures head you will see letters stencilled on the box. These letters can be used to approximate the creatures length. Now stencils being used during this era for crating were primarily 31/2″ to 4″ high. Using a mapping program the scale size to the letter in the photo is approximatly 1/4″ The overall length of scaled specimen in the photo minus the distance taken up by how the animal is laid out in a serpentine manner which is obvious from the photo. works out to aproximately 124″ including the tail which in scale makes this animal a good ten feet long without the extra foot os so taken up by the curviture of the body position. That’s what it would be if it were laid out straight which it isn’t. Meaning you can add at least an extra foot and a half or so on to make up for that. So this is not quite the baby that it’s being made out to be by both sides. We’re talking about a possibly 11 1/2′ to twelve foot carcass here. Now don’t take my word for it either. If you have a scale program on your computer run the measurments youself. Also if you concentrate on just the tail section of the photos under magnification and the main stream wont like this but like I said magnify the photo’s for yourself if you have the capability to thats either hair or stringy fur that’s visible on the end of that tail and last I checked no fish that I have come across have had hair or fur. Only mammals and the rare acception of bird downey and reptile downey. What this creature is I have no Idea but it’s not a fish. Pinneped of some type? Defleshed with only the spine remaining very possibly but the cranial area is all wrong for the known forms even the long necked pinnepeds. Even the prehistoric ones as the Author of this piece should attest to with his background. If you noticed the whiteish molted look of the skin just above the tail and you’ve ever seen a dead waterlogged fured mammal this is where the fur has seperated from the skin and fell away. I’ve seen this many times with several types of dead water soaked mammal carcasses. Once in the water for so long the fur seperates and falls away from the underlying layer of skin leaving this white molted look. The skin from the tail is also possibly whats hanging from the bottom of the tail with the hair or fur hanging down. Now some are going to come up with scenarios of other weird things that this could possibly be but if you’re truthfull with yourself and open your eyes and look you can see it for yourself. Magnify it and you’ll be able to see it very clearly and no fish that I know has fur or hair! Now like I said before I don’t pretend to know what this animal is and I refuse to speculate about it. I’m just stating the facts about whats in the picture of that carcass and it’s not a fish of any kind and it’s not a baby animal it’s over ten feet long!

    Link to this
  58. 58. David Marjanović 6:47 am 04/29/2012

    way before a study is thoroughly completed

    Doesn’t the paper by Woodley et al. (2011) count as a thoroughly completed study?

    When the photos are blown up and looked at very carfully you will notice that there are Orbital sockets as well as an Orbital Ridge visible on the head as well as what looks like and this is not possitive because it’s very hard to see and only visible in one or two angles what looks like nasal ridges on the head. Now mostly Mammals have Orbital Ridges set on top of the head and I know of no fish Species with Nasal ridges on the cramiums.

    Doesn’t this sound a lot like a shark braincase?

    thats either hair or stringy fur that’s visible on the end of that tail and last I checked no fish that I have come across have had hair or fur.

    Doesn’t flesh that rotted in water often look like this?

    and it’s not a baby animal[,] it’s over ten feet long!

    That’s not an argument. Many 3-m-long whales are still babies. Besides, “juvenile” doesn’t mean “baby”, it just means “young”, “immature”.

    Link to this
  59. 59. crocpeggy 2:52 am 11/23/2012

    Hello Dr Darren Naishm,i love your article “The Cadborosaurus Wars”, i want to translate in chinese language and post in my website http://www.twotm.com!make more asia people can read your article.

    if you comfirm i can translation and post,please reply me~i will write down your author name and refs!

    you can contact my email crocpeggy@yahoo.com.hk

    i look forward from you soon!

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article

X