http://www.kryptozoologie-online.de/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=400
[Original in German, Translation by Google]
The Tasmanian Globster
of Shielagh »12/05/2004 18:59
Perhaps once in a decade, first indefinable tissue clumps is found on any beach in the world and all the world thinks it is a dinosaur or a giant octopus. In most cases, exposed a rapid examination of the enigmatic DNA chunks of meat as a remnant of a decaying basking shark or Walblubber (adipose tissue). But exceptions prove the rule, for what was at that time in August 1960 found by truly apocalyptic storms on a deserted coast of Tasmania is even leading zoologists still a complete mystery. Both pastoralists Jack boats and Ray Anthony and her employer Ben Fenton drove straight into a secluded area Westtasmaniens their cattle together when they discovered a huge mass of tissue, a large lump of protoplasm, near the River interview. The sea had washed the thing obviously far beyond the flood boundary on land. According to her, it measured a good 6 by 5.4 meters, was about 2 feet tall and weighed an estimated 5 to 10 tons. He showed no signs of decomposition and did not smell. Fenton told some people of the Fund and sketched him, but at first no one seemed very interested. Only one and a half years later, he succeeded GC Cramp, a board member of the Tasmanian Museum, to persuade them to put together a team of zoologists in order to pursue the matter. In the expedition Bruce Mollison and Max Bennett took on the "Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation" (CSIRO) and LE Wall and JA Lewis, members of the "Tasmanian Field Naturalist's Club". Cramp localized the mysterious object from the air and directed the team through the difficult terrain to the discovery site. The expedition reached its destination on 7 March 1962 and noted that the alleged corpse still lay almost exactly where it had been located one and a half years earlier. The researchers reported their findings in Hobart, Tasmania and the front page of the "Mercury" of 9 March 1962 carried the headline "! Seeungeheuerfund could arouse worldwide interest Almost as big as a house" , a drawing of the object was the product and can be seen here: http://www.strangemag.com/globstergifs/ ... anglob.gif An excerpt from the text of the "Mercury": hard and rubbery and extremely well preserved. Gulls, Tasmanian devils, wild cats and crows have for months herumgenagt it and picked, but without success. [...] It was originally covered with fine hairs that were compared by the shepherds with greasy wool. [...] The animal had a hump in front of about 1.2 meters in length and gradually slimmed down to "back" down to about 15 centimeters. In the front area were located on each side of 5 or 6 gill-like, hairless slots. Front 4 large, pendulous lobes were visible, and between the central pair, there was a smooth, maw-like opening. Expedition members discovered no visible eyes, ears nor a defined head or a recognizable bone structure. The meat was off-white, fibrous, and surrounded by a thick, hard and extremely resistant skin. Mollison, leader of the ground troops said at the time: "There is a tendency always to believe not that one is faced with an unknown animal Man is always looking for some explanation and tries everything piece together reasonable, but here can piece together is nothing [.... .] The more I looked, the more I was convinced that this is not originated from a known animal. " On 16 March 1962 sent the Australian government - from a second expedition to investigate the find - a little surprised by the worldwide publicity of the story. This time participants were scientists from various faculties, including again some of the CSIRO. The discovery had now also received a name: "Globster". The researchers took a tissue sample and brought it to Hobart, where they could not agree on the identity of the corpse. Professor AM Clark of the University of Tasmania was the discovery of the remains of a huge stingray. Anyway, it was in his eyes not a whale. A whale bears under the skin, an insulating layer of fat called blubber, which can be peeled in the course of decay and has frequently led to misinterpretations been washed up fabric scraps. A 5 to 10 ton, solid mass without bones and muscles like the Tasmanian Globster has nothing to do with Walblubber. Mollison said during an interview, the "monster" was "neither fish nor fowl" was. "It was not a whale, no seal, no elephant seal and not a squid." The Australian government finally decided that it must have been a whale. Senator John Gorton commented in this regard quite short: "In layman's terms, and in light of the scientifically careful formulation, says the report, that the monster is a big lump of rotting blubber, which was peeled off probably by a whale." In later conversations said Bruce Mollison: "Its meat is [...] rubber-like, either by fire or by various chemical substances destructible. Yet it is not rubber, any meat in the traditional sense, no flesh. It is something that defies any classification in a scheme . [...] I hacked with a hunting knife in the ivory-colored meat, but it was too tough to dislodge a decent chunk. It was like thick leather. " It appears that the Australian Government has not sufficiently before its official statement on the Fund informed. Boneless, of fibrous, durable and consistent with gill slits, it was certainly not a whale. So What was behind the mysterious Tasmanian Globster? He does not seem to do not fit into the known classification of the animal kingdom. For some reason there are no veil-like photographs of the carcass - all that remains for us is, sketches, reports and logs. . The track of the object itself is lost also in the dark, Ivan T. Sanderson reported in 1972 in "Saga's UFO Special" about the find and wrote: "We have destroyed a creature from outer space?" The idea of giant protoplasmic chunks that without land use of a spaceship on Earth is fascinating, but we should settle on the list of possible explanations quite far down ... The Tasmanian Globster represents one of the most mysterious cases of cryptozoology, he is still a mystery and is probably without the discovery of a second representative of its type remain such also.
Re: The Tasmanian Globster
of Marozi »23/10/2010 14:25
A really old thread. Blow Let's dust off a little and correct some: The expert was LE Wall in the Journal Tasmanian Naturalist ( The Tasmanian Naturalist 127: 20-41 ) in 1981 identified as a whale, which confirmed an electron microscopic examination of samples (Pierce, S., S. Massey, N. Curtis, G. Smith, C. & T. Olavarría Maugel 2004 Microscopic, Biochemical, and Molecular Characteristics of the Chilean Blob and a Comparison With the Remains of Other Sea Monsters:. Nothing but Whales. Biological Bulletin 206 : 125-133 .) reason this update is an old movie of Globsters that I found today.
Microscopic, Biochemical, and MolecularCharacteristics of the Chilean Blob and a ComparisonWith the Remains of Other Sea Monsters:Nothing but WhalesSIDNEY K. PIERCE
1,*, STEVEN E. MASSEY1, NICHOLAS E. CURTIS1,
GERALD N. SMITH, JR.
2, CARLOS OLAVARRI´A3, AND TIMOTHY K. MAUGEL4
1
Department of Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620; 2 Department of
Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana46202;
3 Centro de Estudios del Cuaternario Fuego-Patagonia y Anta´rtica Punta Arenas, Chile, and
School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand; and4
Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742
Abstract.
We have employed electron microscopic, biochemical,
and molecular techniques to clarify the species of
origin of the “Chilean Blob,” the remains of a large sea
creature that beached on the Chilean coast in July 2003.
Electron microscopy revealed that the remains are largely
composed of an acellular, fibrous network reminiscent of
the collagen fiber network in whale blubber. Amino acid
analyses of an acid hydrolysate indicated that the fibers are
composed of 31% glycine residues and also contain hydroxyproline
and hydroxylysine, all diagnostic of collagen.
Using primers designed to the mitochondrial gene
nad2, an
800-bp product of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was
amplified from DNA that had been purified from the carcass.
The DNA sequence of the PCR product was 100%
identical to
nad2 of sperm whale (Physeter catadon). These
results unequivocally demonstrate that the Chilean Blob is
the almost completely decomposed remains of the blubber
layer of a sperm whale. This identification is the same as
those we have obtained before from other relics such as the
so-called giant octopus of St. Augustine (Florida), the Tasmanian
West Coast Monster, two Bermuda Blobs, and the
Nantucket Blob. It is clear now that all of these blobs of
popular and cryptozoological interest are, in fact, the decomposed
remains of large cetaceans.
Introduction
Sea monsters have been reported since ancient times. For
instance, Homer described the sea monsters
Scylla and
Charybdis
; the Bible spoke of Leviathan; and St. Brendan
encountered the beast
Jasconius. Later on, world-roving
mariners such as Columbus, Magellan, and Cook described
encounters with sea monsters. Many of these accounts have
been variously attributed to early descriptions of cetaceans
or other large aquatic mammals, to misidentification of
natural phenomena, or simply to overactive imaginations.
Because the deep sea is still difficult to explore, tales of
large marine creatures, new to science, are rarely substantiated
through direct field observations. However, a few
monsters, like the Nordic tale of the
Kraken—a large and
ferocious squid-like animal—may have a basis in reality, as
shown by the recovery last year of an intact colossal squid
Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni
(http://news.nationalgeographic.
com/news/2003/04/0423_030423_seamonsters.html), complete
with hooklike tentacles and eyes the size of dinner
plates.
For over a century the amorphous, decomposed remains
of large animals have washed onto beaches around the
world. Lacking a skeleton, or other identifiable morphology,
a positive identification of the remains is problematic, especially
by untrained observers. Wild claims, especially in
the nonscientific literature, are regularly made that the blobs
are the remains of sea monsters. For example, the Tasmanian
West Coast Monster is still referred to as a monster,
Received 13 February 2004; accepted 5 April 2004.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: pierce@
cas.usf.edu
Reference:
Biol. Bull. 206: 125–133. (June 2004)
© 2004 Marine Biological Laboratory
125
although an Australian scienti
fic team, led by W. Bryden,
visited the carcass 2 years after it beached and identi
fied it
as a whale (Wall, 1981). Other relics such as the St. Augustine
(Florida) Sea Monster and the Bermuda Blob are
still described by some as the remains of a gigantic octopus
(
Octopus giganteus), even though A. E. Verrill—who
named the St. Augustine specimen sight unseen
—recanted
his identi
fication in favor of whale remains (Verrill, 1897a,
b, c), and in spite of microscopic and biochemical analyses
showing that they were nothing more than the collagenous
matrix of whale blubber (Pierce
et al., 1995)
Last summer another blob washed ashore, this time on a
beach in Chile (Fig. 1). The Chilean Blob rapidly generated
a large amount of media interest around the world, and
several immediate, and varied, identi
fications were made
(including
O. giganteus), almost all by novices with no
more evidence than images of the carcass on the beach
displayed on the Internet. Yet Chilean scientists, including
G. P. Sanino of the Centre for Marine Mammals Research
Leviathan in Santiago, had visited the grounding site and
had identi
fied the remains as that of a whale (pers. comm.).
To augment the gross anatomical observations of the
carcass, we have obtained samples of the Chilean relic and
have used a variety of techniques
—including polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) on recovered DNA
—to establish its
true identity. In addition, we have compared the results with
those we have obtained from several other blobs, including
some that have previously been reported (Pierce
et al.,
1995).
Materials and MethodsSamples of carcasses
All of the carcasses were sampled by others and sent to us
in a variety of states of preservation. The Chilean Blob (Fig.
1) was sampled from its location on Pinuno Beach, Los
Muermos, Chile, within a few days after it was discovered
on 26 July 2003, by Elsa Cabrera of the Chilean Centro de
Conservacio
´n Cetacea. Some of the tissue was preserved in
ethanol, and some was fresh frozen. The material was
shipped to Tampa by overnight express, and the frozen
tissue had thawed by the time it reached us. The St. Augustine
carcass was originally sampled by Dewitt Webb, M.D.,
in 1896. Apparently it was initially preserved in formalin,
which solution it was in when given to us by Professor
Eugenie Clark in 1995 (Pierce
et al., 1995). Bermuda Blob
1, also provided by Professor Clark, washed onto Bermuda
in 1995 and was also preserved in formalin when it was
sampled (Pierce
et al., 1995). Bermuda Blob 2 beached in
January 1997. Professor Wolfgang Sterrer of the Bermuda
Biological Laboratory provided us with both formalin-
fixed
and fresh-frozen samples. The Tasmanian West Coast monster
arrived on the beach in northwestern Tasmania in 1960,
where it sat, mostly buried in sand, until it was sampled in
Figure 1.
The Chilean carcass as it was found on Pinuno Beach. Photo by Elsa Cabrera (© E. Cabrera,
2003).
126
S. K. PIERCE ET AL.
1962. After the existence of the monster was called to our
attention by Leonard Wall
—a member of the scientific party
that sampled it
—Curator A. P. Andrews of the Tasmanian
Museum and Art Gallery in Hobart provided us with a
sample in an unknown
fixative which, by its odor, contained
ethanol. Finally, the Nantucket Blob washed onto Nantucket
Island, Massachusetts, sometime during November 1996. A
sample was collected, frozen, and sent to us by personnel in
the Nantucket Shell
fish Warden’s office.
Microscopy
The original conditions of preservation of the relics were
unsatisfactory for electron microscopy. So, small pieces
were cut off of each and soaked, at least overnight, in
several changes of
filtered (0.2 m) artificial seawater. They
were then placed into 2% glutaraldehyde and taken through
the same
fixation, embedding, and sectioning procedures
that were described previously for the St. Augustine and
Bermuda Blob 1 carcasses (Pierce
et al., 1995). The sections
were viewed and photographed with a transmission electron
microscope (Zeiss EM 10 or Phillips Morgagni).
Hydrolysis
Preliminary examination of the samples prepared for microscopy
suggested strongly that all of the remains were
almost exclusively composed of collagen
fibers, as we had
found before with the St. Augustine and Bermuda Blob 1
carcasses (Pierce
et al., 1995). To confirm the collagen
identi
fication, the amino acid compositions of hydrolysates
of the carcass samples was determined as follows. Small
pieces were cut off and soaked in seawater as above. Each
piece was placed into 5N HCl and heated overnight at 100
°
C. The hydrolysate was neutralized with concentrated
NaOH, mixed 1:1 with ethanol, brought to a boil, and
finally
centrifuged at 20,000
g for 20 min. The supernatant was
lyophilized, and the residue was taken up in an appropriate
volume of lithium citrate buffer. The amino acid composition
of this solution was determined with a ninhydrin-based,
HPLC analysis (Pierce
et al., 1995). Amino acid composition
was calculated as residues/1000 amino acids.
Molecular analysis
The Chilean carcass was subjected to two independent
molecular analyses. First, in Tampa (done by authors SEM
and NEC), DNA was obtained from the frozen-thawed,
un
fixed tissue by phenol/chloroform extraction, followed by
ethanol precipitation. The DNA was ampli
fied in PCR using
the temperature pro
file described previously (Carr et al.,
2002). The sequence of the universal primers corresponded
to the vertebrate mitochondrial
nad2 gene—the same sequence
used to identify
Physeter catadon ( macrocephalus)
(sperm whale) as the source of the Newfoundland Blob
(Carr
et al., 2002). A single, 800-bp PCR product was
obtained, then cloned into the pPCR-Script Amp SK (
)
plasmid (Stratagene) and sequenced (model CEQ 8000,
Beckman-Coulter) using the CEQ DTCS Quick Start Kit
(Beckman-Coulter) and T3 sequencing primer.
The second independent analysis of the Chilean Blob was
carried out in Auckland, New Zealand (by author CO).
Genomic DNA was extracted with phenol/chloroform from
three subsamples taken from an original 10-g, ethanolpreserved
piece of tissue which was shipped to New Zealand
by Ms. Cabrera. An 800-bp portion of the mtDNA
control region, proximal to the Pro-tRNA gene, was ampli
fied
by PCR from two of the subsamples, using primer
sequences Dlp-1.5 (Dalebout
et al., 1998) and Dlp-8G
(Lento
et al., 1998; Pichler et al., 2001). The temperature
pro
file consisted of a 2-min preliminary denaturing period at
94
°C, followed by 35 cycles of 30-s denaturing at 94 °C,
40 s of annealing at 54
°C, and 40 s extension at 72 °C.
Ampli
fication and subsequent cycle sequencing were improved
by the addition of an M13 tag to the 5
end of the
Dlp-1.5 primer. The PCR products were sequenced (model
ABI3100, Applied Biosystems) in both directions, using the
BigDye cycle sequencing kit, with M13Dlp-1.5 and Dlp-8G
as the sequencing primers.
In addition to the Chilean Blob, we attempted, in Tampa,
to extract DNA from samples of all the other remains.
However, either because the samples of the other blobs were
too small or because their preservation was wrong, only the
Nantucket Blob yielded ampli
fiable DNA. A single, 800-bp
PCR product was obtained from the Nantucket Blob, using
the temperature pro
file of Carr et al. (2002) and the sequencing
procedure that we described above. Subsequently,
primers designed to the D-loop region of whale mitochondrial
DNA (Wada
et al., 2003) were also used to amplify a
single 1100-bp PCR product from the Nantucket Blob,
which was sequenced as described above using T3 and T7
primers. The ampli
fication conditions were an initial 90-s
denaturation at 94
°C, 30 cycles of a 30-s denaturation at 94
°
C, a 30-s annealing at 55 °C, and a 45-s extension at 72 °C,
followed by a
final 240-s extension at 72 °C.
ResultsFine structure
The microscopic anatomy of all the carcasses, including
the Chilean Blob, is virtually identical (Figs. 2, 3). These
large masses consist almost entirely of pure collagen
fibers
arranged in cross-hatched layers, often perpendicular to
each other. This arrangement is exactly that of the collagen
fi
ber infrastructure of freshly preserved humpback whale
blubber (Fig. 2) (see also Pierce
et al., 1995) and is totally
unlike the
fine structure of octopus or squid mantle,
which consists mostly of muscle
fibers with only a few
collagen
fibers (Pierce et al., 1995). Furthermore, al-
CHILEAN BLOB IDENTIFICATION
127
though the
fiber layers in the blobs are much thicker than
those in vertebrate skin, the arrangement of the collagen
fi
bers in the two sites are similar (See Discussion). Virtually
no cellular remnants, other than bacteria and bacterial
cysts, were found in any of the carcasses, re
flecting
their advanced state of decay.
Figure 2.
Electron micrographs of sections of tissue from various monsters. (A) St. Augustine carcass (from
Pierce
et al., 1995); scale bar 5 m. (B) Bermuda Blob 1 (from Pierce et al., 1995); scale bar 5 m. (C)
Tasmanian West Coast Monster; scale bar
2 m. (D) Bermuda Blob 2; scale bar 5 m. (E) Nantucket Blob;
scale bar
5 m. (F) Humpback whale blubber (from Pierce et al., 1995); scale bar 2 m. In all cases, the
tissues are composed entirely of collagen
fibers arranged in layers of perpendicularly running fiber bundles. No
cellular elements were found. Bacteria were often present amidst the
fibers in the carcasses and can be seen in
A, C, and D (arrows).
128
S. K. PIERCE ET AL.
Amino acid composition
The amino acid compositions of the hydrolysates of all
the carcasses were very similar, and they were also
diagnostic of collagen. The amino acids in each blob
hydrolysate consisted of about 30% glycine residues, and
all contained residues of hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine
(Table 1).
DNA sequences
The 587-bp consensus sequence (Genbank accession
number AY582746) obtained from four sequencing runs on
the DNA extracted in Tampa from the Chilean carcass was
100% identical to the mitochondrial
nad2 gene sequence of
P. catadon
(Genbank accession numbers AJ277029,
AF414121) (Fig. 4). Sequencing of the PCR product ob-
Figure 3.
Electron micrographs of tissue sections from the Chilean Blob. (A) Lower magnification. Scale
bar
2 m. (B) The banding pattern on the fibers is evident. As with the other carcasses, no cellular structures
were present, but bacteria (bottom center of A) were often seen. Scale bar
1 m.
Table 1Comparative amino acid compositions of the blob tissue samples following acid hydrolysis (values are amino acid residues/1000 residues)Amino acid Chilean St Augustine
a Bermuda 1a Bermuda 2 Tasmanian Nantucket
Asp 28 50 52 42 31 45
Thr 22 28 27 19 19 23
Ser 40 45 47 36 50 35
OH-Pro 90 54 79 113 84 146
Pro 213 169 88 182 92 136
Glu 63 82 83 62 78 63
Gly 314 330 339 298 363 280
Ala 96 106 113 94 133 94
Val 13 18 25 21 22 22
Cys 0 0 0 0 0 0
Met 4 0 0 3 1 3
Ile 8 11 14 10 11 11
Leu 25 28 32 23 30 25
Tyr 3 0 0 0 0 6
Phe 12 14 16 12 15 14
OH-Lys 11 15 13 26 7 20
Lys 21 0.4 10 18 12 25
His 6 4 6 0 0 8
Arg 29 48 55 42 51 45
a
Data taken from Pierce et al., 1995.
CHILEAN BLOB IDENTIFICATION
129
tained from the Chilean Blob in the Auckland extraction had
a 552-bp consensus sequence (Genbank accession number
AY 582747) that was 99% identical to the mitochondrial
control region sequence of
P. catadon (Genbank accession
numbers AJ277029, X72203, M93154). The sequence obtained
in Auckland for the Chilean Blob differed by a single
nucleotide from the three
P. catadon sequences in the database
(Fig. 5). The
first 429-bp consensus sequence obtained
from the Nantucket Blob DNA was 99% identical
with the mitochondrial
nad2 gene sequence of Balaenoptera
physalus
(finback whale) (Genbank accession number
X61145); only a single nucleotide was different (data not
shown). The subsequent 1055-bp consensus sequence (Genbank
accession number AY58748) obtained from 2
–4 sequencing
runs on the Nantucket Blob DNA was 99% identical
to the control region of
B. physalus mitochondrial
DNA (Genbank accession number X61145), with only six
nucleotide differences (Fig. 6).
Discussion
The molecular results reported here provide irrefutable
evidence that the Chilean carcass was the highly decomposed
remains of a sperm whale. The nearly 100% match
between the two gene sequences obtained in our PCR experiments
and the
Physeter catadon gene sequences leaves
no other possibility. The match between the Nantucket Blob
DNA and the control region mitochondrial DNA of
Balaenoptera
physalus
is equally robust, leaving no doubt about
the speci
fic identity of that relic. The six nucleotide differences
observed were consistent with variation within the
fin
whale species and may indicate a different subpopulation
from the previously published sequence (Arnason
et al.,
1991), although even if this is case, both sequences were
from specimens of North Atlantic origin. Unfortunately, our
attempts to extract usable DNA from the other monsters
were not successful, due most likely to some combination of
Figure 4.
Alignment of sperm whale nad2 nucleotide sequence with that of the PCR product from the
Chilean Blob DNA. The sequences are identical.
130
S. K. PIERCE ET AL.
method of preservation, small sample size, or advanced
stage of decomposition. However, when the microscopic
anatomy and biochemical composition of the Chilean and
Nantucket Blobs are compared with those of the other
remains, similarities are manifest. Thus, there is no doubt
that they are all derived from the same type of organism.
The amino acid composition of the hydrolysates of all the
blobs consists of about 30% glycine residues along with some
hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine residues. Only collagen has
such an amino acid composition (Eastoe, 1955; Kimura
et al.,
1969). While there are some differences among the amino acid
compositions of the blob hydrolysates
—likely resulting from
differences in preservation as well as species
—the results
indicate that all the blobs, including the Chilean and Nantucket,
are large masses of collagen.
The collagenous matrix of the blobs is con
firmed by their
fi
ne structure. They are all composed of bundles of long,
banded
fibers that are similar in their dimensions, not only
to each other, but also to the collagen
fibers in rat tail tendon
(see Pierce
et al., 1995). The bundles of fibers are arranged
parallel to each other in layers, and each layer is sandwiched
between perpendicularly oriented layers of other
fiber bundles.
The fiber layering pattern is similar to the arrangement
of collagen fibers in vertebrate dermis (Moss, 1972), and
identical to the collagen fiber pattern in humpback whale
blubber and in all the other blobs. In addition, the unimodal
fi
ber diameter and the tight packaging of the fibers in the
Chilean Blob and the others is characteristic of mammalian
dermis, including pygmy sperm whale blubber (Craig
et al.,
1987) and our humpback blubber control. Collagen is much
less abundant in octopus and squid mantle, which are composed
primarily of muscle; and the few collagen
fibers
present in these molluscan species are not arranged in the
network (Pierce
et al., 1995) so obvious in the Chilean Blob
and the other blob tissue samples. Thus, both the biochemical
and microscopic analyses show clearly that the Chilean
Figure 5.
Alignment of sperm whale mtDNA control region nucleotide sequence with that of the PCR
product from the Chilean Blob DNA. Nucleotide differences are indicated in
boldface and underlined.
CHILEAN BLOB IDENTIFICATION
131
Figure 6.
Alignment of fin whale mitochondrial control region nucleotide sequence with that of the PCR
product from the Nantucket Blob DNA. Nucleotide differences are indicated in
boldface and underlined.
132
S. K. PIERCE ET AL.
Blob has the characteristics of all the other blobs and is the
remains of the collagen matrix of whale blubber
—as are
they all.
The results, taken together, leave no doubt that all of the
blobs examined here
—St. Augustine, Bermuda 1, Bermuda
2, Tasmanian West Coast, Nantucket, and Chilean
—represent
the decomposed remains of great whales of varying
species. Once again, to our disappointment, we have not
found any evidence that any of the blobs are the remains of
gigantic octopods, or sea monsters of unknown species.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by resources from the Department
of Biology at the University of South Florida. We
thank Dr. Charles Potter of the Smithsonian Museum of
Natural History, Washington, DC, for kindly providing the
sample of humpback whale blubber from a specimen in the
Museum