Member of The Crypto Crew:

Please Also Visit our Sister Blog, Frontiers of Anthropology:

And the new group for trying out fictional projects (Includes Cryptofiction Projects):

And Kyle Germann's Blog

And Jay's Blog, Bizarre Zoology

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

Some Recent Developments in Pseudo-plesiosaur Cases

The first one of these updates came as a result of Michael Newton's posting on May Day. I made my reply to it, but I thought the information might need better exposure:

Friday, April 29, 2011
MICHAEL NEWTON: "Another One That Got Away"

...Dr J.B. Holder, a chronicler of Florida history, introduced readers of Century Magazine to our next globster in June 1892. According to his article—

In the spring of 1885 the Rev. Mr. Gordon of Milwaukee, President of the United States Humane Society, chanced to visit, in the course of his duties, a remote and obscure portion of the Atlantic shores of Florida.

While lying at anchor in the New River Inlet the flukes of the anchor became foul with what proved to be a carcass of considerable length. Mr. Gordon quickly observed that it was a vertebrate, and at first thought it was probably a cetacean. But, on examination, it was seen to have features more suggestive of saurians. Its total length was forty-two feet. Its girth was six. The head was absent; two flippers, or fore-limbs, were noticed, and a somewhat slender neck, which measured six feet in length. The carcass was in a state of decomposition; the abdomen was open, and the intestines protruded.

The striking slenderness of the thorax as compared to the great length of the body and tail very naturally suggested to Mr. Gordon, whose reading served him well, the form of some of the great saurians whose bones have so frequently been found in several locations along the Atlantic coast. No cetacean known to science has such a slender body and such a well-marked and slender neck....Appreciating the great importance of securing the entire carcase, Mr. Gordon had it hauled above the high-water mark, and took all possible precautions to preserve the bones until they could be removed....He counted without the possible treacherous hurricane; the waters of the “still-vexed Bermoothes,” envious of their own, recalled the strange waif.1

Before proceeding, we must note one error in Dr. Holder’s report—to wit, his reference to events occurring in spring 1885. That year’s hurricane season featured eight storms between 7 August and 13 October, with the first to pass Florida’s Atlantic coast occurring on 21 September. Another struck Florida’s eastern coast on 10 October. Clearly, neither date qualifies as “spring.”2

The location of the globster’s discovery is also problematic. The only New River Inlet recognized by name in modern America is found on North Carolina’s Onslow Bay, feeding the Atlantic Ocean after a meandering trip through the U.S. Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune. Florida, however, does have two New Rivers: one rises from the Everglades and flows eastward through Fort Lauderdale, in Broward County, to reach the sea at Port Everglades; the other is a tributary of northern Florida's Santa Fe River, serving as the borderline between Bradford and Union Counties. Since the latter does not reach the ocean, we may safely discount it as Dr. Holder's New River.3

What was the beast described by Dr. Holder, seven years after its brief appearance and four years prior to the arrival of Florida's most famous globster off St. Augustine in 1896? Bernard Heuvelmans considered the question almost a century later, in his classic work on sea-serpents, and dismissed basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus) on the theory that Florida’s waters are too warm, but noted historical strandings of whale sharks along the state’s coast, finally casting his vote for an unidentified “large selachian.”4

That judgment was hasty, however, since basking sharks have indeed been seen in Florida waters. Most recently, a large specimen was videotaped while shadowing a kayaker off Panama City, in March 2011 (see the video at The first basking shark ever documented from the Gulf of Mexico was caught off Grassy Point, on the coast of Sarasota County, on 2 April 1969. It was an adult female twenty-seven feet long, classified as "very thin" for its length, although it tipped the scales at 4,356 pounds. A second specimen, this one a juvenile female, was netted off St. Augustine ten months later, on 24 February 1970. It measured 11 feet 8 inches long.5 Yet another basking shark was observed near Cape Canaveral, Florida, on 25 January 1994. It was allowed to feed and go in peace, its length estimated at 14 feet 7 inches.6

Clearly, then, the globster reported from New River Inlet may have been a decomposed basking shark, but Dr. Holder's vague reference to its "considerable length" leaves us to ponder what he meant—and whether the carcass surpassed the known maximum size for Cetorhinus maximus.

1 Bernard Heuvelmans, In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents (London: Rupert Hart-Davis Ltd., 1968), p. 131.
2 “1885 Atlantic hurricane season,” Wikipedia,
3 “New River (North Carolina),” Wikipedia,; “New River (Broward County, Florida),” Wikipedia,,_Florida); "New River (Santa Fe River)," Wikipedia,
4 Heuvelmans, p. 131.
5 Stewart Springer and Perry Gilbert, "The Basking Shark Cetorhinus maximus from Florida and California, with Comments on its Biology and Systematics," Copeia Vol. 1976, No. 1 (12 March 1976): 47-8.
6 Barry Choy and Douglas Adams, "An Observation of a Basking Shark, Cetorhinus maximus, Feeding along a Thermal Front off the East Central Coast of Florida," Florida Scientist Vo. 68, No. 4 (Autumn 1995): 313.
Posted by Jon Downes at 10:40 PM Labels: globster, michael newton

Dale Drinnon said...
There is a further complication in that the same Florida carcass is separately listed by Heuvelmans as an occurance in August,1896 in his table of Strandings and captures (p 586) but in the text credited as being retold in the Shipping Gazette of 1886 (p. 140). The story is attributed to the captain of the ship Crescent City and the location as Carabelle, Florida. 1896 is a typo and Carabelle, Florida is on the New River Inlet [The location is plotted on the endpapers map of R.T. Gould's The Case For The Sea-Serpent as the Florida location]. Those two things together make it much more likely that this is indeed the same carcass-but all in all, a less trustwothy story being told about it.

Best Wishes, Dale D.

Thus it is more likely that the 1886 magazine was referring to events in August of the prior year and it transmogrified into a "1896" date on Heuvelmans' table: The carcass which fouled the anchor line got turned into a live shark monster that towed the boat in a contrary direction by means of making an odd story more interesting: and the usual account of the carcass was indeed off in the date since the month of August IS specified in the other report, rather than the obviously-incorrect reference to "Spring." The Shipping Gazette publication of 1886 preceedes the more accurate account in Century Magazine by six years.

Now as to another matter which involves this blog.

Markus Hemmler was folowing the recent repostings and he noticed the additional statement I had made on the Gambo and Ambon reposting. He sent in a message to the Frontiers of Zoology group on Yahoo:

Hi Dale.

In the article about Gambo and Ambon you mention a "third report of a similar carcass off of South Africa [...] also likely to be another decayed basking shark". Have you found this in his archives or was it published elsewhere?

Best regards


After which came my reply:
It was easier to find than I thought. Here is the cited source link:

The caption reads:
This is an armored sea creature washed up on a beach. This creature's history is a bit murky It's reported to have washed up on a South African Beach in 1931, but since this is a color photograph that's unlikely to be the case. If anyone has additional information we'd be glad to receive it. We note that it appears to look very much like a Mosasaur, an armord sea creature supposedly extinct millins of years ago. Click and Drag Photo to resize.

In fact the outer skin seems stripped away, so that you are looking at the muscle surface and not "Armour"

And in fact the vertebrae issuing out of the "mouth" is probably actually a continuation of the animal's own spine, the "Head" woulsd then actually be only the part of the body that was left fairly intact. "Globster" shows the outline added for emphasis, "Globster 1" is the original photo and "Globster 2" shows the comparison to a Mosasaur.

Best Wishes, Dale D.


"Globster 1"

"Globster 2"

And then Markus' final reply which cleared up the entire problem:

I've asked you because I've wondered about such a carcass of South Africa. After your first description I had an idea what were talking about and this is the confirmation. Now it's clear to me, thank you Dale.

This carcass washed ashore in 1991 in Chile not South Africa. There was the usual confusion among people and various "experts" but our creationist friend is one of the funniest...

Out of the "mouth" of the "Mosasaur" comes the vertebrae and continues into the upper lobe of the tail. You can also see the decomposed lower lobe of the tail. On the right side of the picture approximately in the middle of the picture you can see the claspers, so it's a male shark.

It was identified from chilean scientists as basking shark btw.

Regards Markus

So then I added the final remarks:
This conversation has been most interesting I would like to post it on the blog so that others who might otherwise not know the story might become better informed of the truth in this case.

Best Wishes, Dale D.
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8

No comments:

Post a comment

This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.