http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Burton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embolomere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptoclidus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._T._Gould http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Mackal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiosaur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness_Monster
Megalenhydris barbaricina by =avancna
Top skeleton drawing is Cryptoclidus_by_banchero from Deviant Art, using the common human (6 foot man) marker for scale. The reconstruction below is by deinonychusempire-on Deviant art and the combination was posted on an earlier blog. Cryptoclidus had a body size (bulk) equivalent to that of an elephant, or just about an elephant seal plus tail and long neck, which is in turn just about right to match sonar traces and most witness' size estimates for the Loch Ness Monster. One, two, or three basic humps on the back are possible by different reconstructions but I prefer the idea it is variable-contour following the LongNecked Sea Serpent reconstruction of Heuvelmans (See below). The average estimated total length is about thirty feet freshwater and sixty feet in the oceans, which is in itself cause to consider that the estimates made at sea are less accurate.(Ibid)
The fact that Scott Mardis' comparisons (and my own) consistently come out as close to Cryptoclidus
is likely to be singularly significant.
I have found Dinsdale's composite to be the most accurate reconstruction and applicable in most parallel cases such as in Lake Champlain and in Patagonia and Australia. A few of Heuvelmans' reconstructed Sea Serpent models from the next book are close to Dinsdales' but most likely falsely split off from it to form new and wrongly differentiated species of Sea Serpents:
Cryptoclidus_erect_necked_April-2010_Tetrapod Zoology. Notice the shape of the head as measured against the actual skull is not quite right in the reconstruction.
Needless to say, I dispute Darren's statements on the matter of prehistoric survivals and the availability of Coelacanths to provide a parallel example, but I also want no part of "Cadborosaurus willsi" as it has been defined, or any of the rest of the statements about Sea Monsters, which I consider to be misrepresentations of the database as well as being incorrect notions besides.