Plug

Member of The Crypto Crew:
http://www.thecryptocrew.com/

Please Also Visit our Sister Blog, Frontiers of Anthropology:

http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.com/

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

http://cedar-and-willow.blogspot.com/

And Kyle Germann's Blog

http://www.demonhunterscompendium.blogspot.com/

And Jay's Blog, Bizarre Zoology

http://bizarrezoology.blogspot.com/
Showing posts with label Anton Oudemans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anton Oudemans. Show all posts

Monday, 3 March 2014

Sea Giraffes Appendix

We had discussed the matter on the blog before at
But Jay Cooney and I had been discussing the matter again more extensively and these are some of my illustrations I had sent to him then. They had been waiting here unpublished until now.

Giraffe like "Caddy" (Off the West Coast of NA) compared to Corinthian SS (Off East Coast of NA)
Both of these sightings compared against Oudemans' composite model


Newspaper drawing of Corinthian SS (Inaccurate) compared to Oudemans SS composite reconstruction
Below, my statistical averages drawn from thousands of Longneck reports worldwide as matched against Hutchinson's SS, Bay of Meil in the Orkneys, 1910



Plesiosaur neck inserted for purposes of comparison
(Plesiosaur skeleton shown at bottom)

Hutchinson's SS off Orkneys (Scotland) is as high as the whole giraffe, not just the neck. That makes the neck approximately twice as long as the giraffe's neck and probably more. Below, Hutchinson's diagram of how he figured the height of the sea serpent "Periscope" by judging it against the mast of their boat and triangulating. Mr Hutchinson had submitted his report directly to Tim Dinsdale in 1960.


Below, Corinthian, Meil Bay, and my composite "Merhorses" (Mine in the brown colouration phase, both redbrown and greenish or olive brown both being regularly noted in such sightings with the reddish brown seen much more commonly. The giraffe-like mottled effect is one infrequent variation on the brownish one) Please note that in opposition to Heuvelmans' "Merhorse" description, the mane is stiff and stands up like a "fin"and the eyes are not large. The "Horns" appear to me to be the same material as the "Fins"




 
 
Neck Flexibilty possible in the long-necked Plesiosaur Muraenosaurus,
 from an illustration supplied by Scott Mardis
 
In the case of these sightings showing the whole length of the neck above the surface, the body can be assumed to be almost vertical below the surface.
 
 

Thursday, 9 January 2014

Champ compilation

Jay Cooney just republished Scott Mardis' report from Lake Champlain previously posted here but in this case Id like to draw attention to another one of Thomas Finlay's illustrations for the Bizarre Zoology blog. There was a poster to illustrate Lake Champlain and its monster that Id like to mention here.

First off, Samuel de Champlain never described Champ, he spoke of a monstrous fish that was most likely a large gar. The name he used was like the native name for the Long-nosed gar in the region, but he gave the dimensions of an Alligator gar. Since in either event this giant gar has become extinct more recently, it is probably a moot point as to which species the fish originally belonged to.

Now Id like to reproduce two sections off of Thomas Finlay's work, but only the second one is what the discussion shall be about:


Right hand panel which contains the background information and Thomas' original copyright notice












And the bottom which has the reconstructions. The scientific name is irrelevant and means nothing. It presupposes an unproven and I think highly unlikely relationship for the creature.

The pointed fin on the back of the one model obviously corresponds to the hump on the back of the other creature model, and in the majority of the reports this is referred to as a hump.


In comparing the two versions of Champ it is obvious that one has a much larger head than the other and in fact this corresponds to certain reported creatures from Lake Champlain that have fairly big, horse-shaped heads (Indicated by the inset below) this corresponds to a series of reports which are distinguished not only by having large heads with horselike freatures (Including the typical placement of the eyes far back and near the top of the head, and the nostrils at the tip of the blunted snout which dialate to a large size, but also noticeable ears at the back of the head, and an overall coating of rough shaggy hairs, which can include the mane. Typically the neck is thickish and not especially long , and in such cases as David Miller's sighting off of British Columbia, there is a good cause for assuming the scale and distance have been misjudged (I the Miller case, going by the scale the creatures's head is six feet long and three feet thick going by the scale, which are figures that contradict most of the similar sightings by a wide margin)Since several such sightings on Lake Champlain even include Moose antlers, it would seem these sightings ordinarily refer to swimming moose. The Olsen videotape at Lake Champlain is evidently one of these and the shape of the head does appear to indicate antlers with the head turning at different angles and thus "Changing shape" (in the bad focus)
Stills from the Olsen video together with the most likely culprit, a swimming moose.

But then I noticed something odd about the "Tanstropheus" model for Champ: the proportions are approximately the same as in Oudemans' model for the Great Sea Serpent in the later 1800s, but with the neck and tail swapped;  Even the belly contour and limbs are of a similar profile.


And in fact the changeover from Model A to Model B for Champ would seem to be a change in perceptions in the public mind or the conceptions of witnesses rather than a real change in creatures. The changeover from sightings which agreed with Oudemans' model and the more recently common more Plesiosaurian reports has a direct parallel in the perceptions shown in Sea Serpent reports (See link below to blog article discussing the change in Sea Serpent popular peceptions following after the Daedalus sighting)
And this can be demonstrated in the "Caddy" witness' drawings from British Columbia in about the early 1930s for one specific example.

Now the really interesting part is hat the more recent, more Plesiosaurian series of descriptions follows closely after the model of Ivan Sanderson (And the Loch Ness Monster models of Gould and Dinsdale, which are both very close to Sanderson's version)

When the length of the neck of the one larger-Champ model is shortened to be more in line with the majority of reports, the proportions overall are much more like the other model for champ. Furthermore it seems that the both the size of the head and the length of the tail in the smaller creature model should actually be modified to be more like the larger creature model (which has both a smaller head and a smaller tail.)

This eliminates the obvious source of confusion with the swimming moose reports and provides us with the overall composite below
 (Three humps on the back is the most common variation reported both at Lake Champlain and at Loch Ness. My analysis of the Champ reports was done out of the reports included in Zazinsky's book, with additional later information included, and I have indicated several of the reports on this blog before)


This compares very well also with Dinsdale's composite for the Loch Ness Monster as noted (Versions of Dinsdale's composite included both two-humped and three-humped back, and in the version copied below I opted to leave them off which Dinsdale also indicated was a option) And it is also very much in line with my own Longneck statistical composites shown in different revisions below. The black and grey diagrams are most recent and probably the most precise, leaving aside the question of the humps on the back for another discussion another time.




It is important to emphasize that the various reconstructions done by Sanderson, Dinsdale, myself and the other were all done separately and yet they all match up pretty closely: and these composites were variously done for Sea Serpents in general, Loch Ness, Caddy, the Patagonian Plesiosaurs and Australian Longneck sightings each separately and yet they alll match up very closely. I consider that Thomas Finley's reconstructions for Champ show the same general agreement, allowing for the fact that the reports are also becoming more precise over time and so the older reports are less accurate than the newer ones are.

Former blog postings touching on the shubject of Longneck reconstructions outside of Lake Champlain are as follows:

http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2011/06/daedalus-sea-serpent-1848-and-start-of.html

http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2013/07/plesiosaurian-ss-models-check.html

http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2013/08/longneck-loch-ness-monster-composites.html





Monday, 29 July 2013

Kong's Brontosaurus

The following matter takes an unexpected detour from our regular way of looking at things:

 
 
TITLE: Skull Island, Canada
PUB. DATE
March 2008
SOURCE
Skeptic;2008, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p12
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The author reflects on the legend about sea monster called Cadborosaurus in Victoria and the prehistoric dinosaurs appeared in the film "King Kong." He talks about the story of the two civil servants named Langley and Kemp who were told the newspapers in Victoria in 1933 that they have seen huge sea monsters. He shows that the dinosaurs appeared in the fictitious Skull Island in the film could have influenced or inspired the legend.
 
 
 
 
 above main image: a still from the film King Kong. above inset image: A sketch made from Kemp’s description many months after his sighting. © 1933 RKO Pictures Inc., © 2005 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
 

Skull Island, Canada

 
The 1933 and 2005 versions of King Kong share many rich details, and a moral. There are those who suggest that moral must be something about the power of love, but I suggest the moral is this:
“Never, ever go to Skull Island.”
Skull Island, the setting for the second act of King Kong, is an utterly nightmarish place. A steaming jungle packed with prehistoric beasts and crawling with unlikely monsters, it is a place where even the insects can drag you away for dinner.
It’s not surprising that this exotic, terrifying place awed Depression-era movie audiences. When Kong opened in 1933, no one had ever seen anything like it. The revolutionary special effects, the scope of imagination, the depth of immersion in another world — all these created a blockbuster experience that still echoes in the popular imagination today.
My story begins on another, sleepier island: Vancouver Island, off the western coast of British Columbia, Canada.
At the southern tip lies the provincial capital city of Victoria, a bustling tourist destination with a busy cruise ship port. Today it bills itself as “the City of Gardens,” but in 1933 it enjoyed worldwide fame for something altogether more mysterious — nothing less than an 80-foot sea monster, called Cadborosaurus.
According to legend, an awesome, primeval monster — a huge serpent with flippers, a mane, and a head something like that of a camel or horse — slides undetected through the frigid waters off British Columbia and Washington State. Could a living dinosaur, a monster out of time, lurk here beneath the waves?
That question hinges on a moment in history.
Imagine yourself in 1933 for a moment. The Great Depression was causing tremendous hardship at home, while daily newspaper headlines carried ever more bad news about Adolf Hitler. As tensions continued to mount between the new Nazi government of Germany and the rest of Europe, war seemed increasingly likely.
The news featured one bummer story after another, and people needed a pick-me-up. In Victoria, that came in the form of headlines proclaiming, “Yachtsmen Tell Of Huge Serpent Seen Off Victoria.”
Two civil servants, named Langley and Kemp, told the Victoria Daily Times that they’d each independently seen huge sea monsters. According to Langley, he and his wife were out sailing when they heard “a grunt and a snort accompanied by a huge hiss,” and then “saw a huge object about 90 to 100 feet off,” of which “[t]he only part of it that we saw was a huge dome of what was apparently a portion of its back.” It was, he said, only visible for a few seconds before diving.
What strikes me about Langley’s monster — and contemporary critics were quick to point this out — is that it swam like a whale, it sounded like a whale, and it looked a whale. Now, whales definitely live in the area: Humpbacks, grey whales, sperm whales, and others. Even today, boatloads of whale-watching tourists leave Victoria’s downtown Inner Harbour every few minutes. Given that we have no data here except a momentary, unsubstantiated, undeniably whale-like anecdote, the Langley sighting seems to me to be a completely trivial case.
But the Kemp case was more interesting. It was his sustained daylight sighting that fueled a Cadborosaurus media frenzy in Victoria and across the continent, inspiring a rash of copycat sightings — and launching an enduring legend.
According to Kemp’s 1933 story, he and his family were picnicking one afternoon in the previous year, on a group of tiny islands just off Victoria, when they saw something extraordinary. A huge creature swam up the channel between Chatham and Strongtide Islands leaving an impressive wake. Kemp recalled, “The channel at this point is about 500 yards wide. Swimming to the steep rocks of the island opposite, the creature shot its head out of the water on to the rock, and moving its head from side to side, appeared to be taking its bearings. Then fold after fold of its body came to the surface. Towards the tail it appeared serrated, like the cutting edge of a saw, with something moving flail-like at the extreme end. The movements were like those of a crocodile. Around the head appeared a sort of mane, which drifted round the body like kelp.”
Kemp estimated the animal was over 60 feet long. Although it was indistinct with distance — it was at least 1200 feet away, maybe 1500 — this was no fleeting sighting. According to Kemp, they watched the monster for several minutes before it slid off the rocks and swam away.
What was it? It sounds to me like a group of sea lions among the distant kelp, viewed at too great a distance and remembered with too great a dollop of imagination. But the interesting question is, “Whose imagination?”
Kemp’s description gives a clue. Despite copycat sightings describing literal “sea serpents,” and despite the serpentine image of Cadborosaurus now popular among cryptozoologists, it’s striking that neither of the original eyewitness reports described serpents at all!
Langley described something like a whale; Kemp described something like a dinosaur. His monster, he said, “gave the impression that it was much more like a reptile than a serpent….”
Responding to the Kemp sighting, one letter to the editor offered an opinion that Caddy might be a sauropod dinosaur called diplodocus. This writer noted Caddy’s long neck and long tail, and called it “probable that it has legs with webbed feet with which it propels itself.”
Kemp seized on this dinosaur idea with enthusiasm, and produced an eyewitness sketch consistent with a sauropod. He agreed, “Diplodocus describes better what we saw than anything else. My first feelings on viewing the creature were of being transferred to a prehistoric period when all sorts of hideous creatures abounded.” He said the creature’s movements “were not fishlike, but rather more like the movement of a huge lizard.”
This combination of elements — a swimming sauropod dinosaur, and the notion of being transported to a prehistoric world full of terrible monsters — sounded very familiar to me. I was reminded of another sauropod, filmed swimming in a primal environment teeming with hideous creatures: Skull Island, as depicted in the blockbuster film King Kong! Comparing Kemp’s description and sketch with stills from the film, the parallels are striking.

The most famous Loch Ness monster hoax photo (top) compared with a still from the film King Kong (bottom). Both images feature small models. © 1933 RKO Pictures Inc., © 2005 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
Could the film have inspired Kemp’s story? The timeline certainly works: Kong, it happens, opened in Victoria just six months before Kemp and Langley created the legend of Cadborosaurus. It blew movie-goers away, scared the socks off of people, and stuck in the memories of all who saw it. (Not coincidentally, the legend of the Loch Ness Monster was likewise created immediately after the release of King Kong, and the several key Nessie sightings seem almost lifted from the film. It’s especially notable that the infamous fake “Surgeon’s Photo” looks virtually identical to a shot from the movie.) [it is not, and it definitely has not been proven to be a small model-DD]
Is this similarity between Cadborosaurus and Kong suspicious? You bet.
Kemp’s original sighting was extremely uncertain, as he admitted, because of the tremendous distance involved (well over a thousand feet). He couldn’t make out the key details. For example, the creature’s head was just a blob. It’s likely he saw a distant group of marine mammals swimming and climbing the rocks (as is entirely typical in the area), but was unable to make out what they were at that distance. Perhaps he puzzled about it for a few months before King Kong planted a seed….
When he finally met Langley, heard his sea monster story, and compared notes, Kemp’s memories were a year old, and very probably contaminated by Hollywood.
That’s a recipe for a legend — but as scientific data, it’s a disaster.
Where does this leave Cadborosaurus? As so often in the paranormal world, it seems that the entire legendary edifice, all the sightings that followed, the books and TV programs and place in pop culture, all rests on a foundation of smoke.
Smoke, and the flickering screen of a cinema.

[According to the standard sources, the rumours of Cadborosaurus started to accumulate before the movie King Kong came out, around 1930. Loxton has overstated his case because the movie King Kong could not have been the initial motivation to report "Cadborosauruses" if the reports were already in circulation . However there is a complication as far as Loch Ness is concerned. 
Almost a full year earlier than this article, I posted an observation on the message board of the Cryptomundo site which was as follows:

"The Spicers were both groggy after a long drive and returning
home after seeing the new movie feature King Kong. They said they
saw the Brontosaurus out of that movie originally, and gave several
conflicting size estimates after the sighting. This is an
unconventional explanation, but I think they both projected the image
of the King Kong brontosaurus onto a real area–call it a
hallucination if you will."
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/otternonsense2/

Spicer Report, King Kong Brontosaurus
Rupert Gould incidentally drew the sketch, source
 for all such subsequent sketches, after the
witness' descriptions: this is NOT a witness' sketch.
 
 
 And a little while later I got this message in reply:
Good job with that identification. I think the photo comparison really
proves you right. The Spicer sighting was so strange that it seems
very unlikely that they saw a real creature. It seemed more like they
were describing something out of a monster movie than a real animal.

Thanks,
Dave F.
Posted By: Anon Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:37 am  |

 
Now whereas there were sea and lake monsters reported all around the world well before 1933, I will be the first to admit that something significant happened in 1933. Temporarily at least, the image of the Brontosaurus as the model for water monsters seized hold of the public imagination and it actually displaced the images of the traditional [string-of-buoys]sea serpent and the Plesiosaurian shaped Sea-serpent, the latter including Oudemans' model as well. I am afraid Oudemans may have paved the way for this because as Heuvelmans states, his model for the Sea-serpent does tend to resemble a Sauropod dinosaur because of the very long and whiplike tail.  But you do see the idea of the "Brontosaurus" as the shape the Lake Monster was in in Lake Okanogan and Lake Champlain at the same time, and as is noted in several sources, this is also a decade after the Patagonian Plesiosaur was in the news. This was undoubtedly part of the rise in popularity for Lake Monsters in general, but because of the temporary focus on the "Brontosaurus" as the model for water-monsters, the popular image was getting off on the wrong foot.-DD]

Thursday, 18 July 2013

Plesiosaurian SS models Check

Since Scott Mardis was doing his comparisons with Plesiosaurs on Loch Ness Monsters and Lake Champlain Champs, I decided to do a few of the same with the Plesiosaurian Sea serpent Sighting sketch by L.S. Larkin from Ivan Sanderson's files  to some of the standard sea-serpent sightings composites.

Oudemans' model from The Great Sea Serpent, 1892


The comparison to Oudemans' Sea Serpent from above and then a comparison to Sanderson's model in profile. Unfortunately, Sanderson does not provide a view from above for his composite. Except for the great length of tail allowed by Oudemans, the relative lengths of the head and neck, body and tail are all in the same general comparative proportions. The real differences are in the size and placement of the flippers and in the width of the body. Larkin seems to have exaggerated the relative widths of the neck and back to something approaching caricature. Below is the comparison to my composite model (Final composite, all Longneck sightings worldwide, final average statistics)


 
My composite has been run on this blog before, This time I chose to darken it in, but it seems to have made a problem with the photoshop. Nonetheless the results are similar: longitudinal measures are similar but Larkin has exaggerated his relative widths, and there is an ambiguity about the size and the placement of the limbs. Larkin says he had trouble making the limbs out because of the movement in the water. And because we have made note of another couple of particularly Plesiosaur-shaped Sea Serpents on this blog before, I reproduces them below for further comparison.


The Alvin (Submarine) one below differs somewhat in having a larger head and longer tail than usual, but these might only be false impressions due to poor viewing conditions. I do have one report of what sounds like a legitimate Plesiosaur-Sea-serpent corpse washed ashore and which was reported to me personally, and the witness said it looked like The Alvin Plesiosaur (Charles Berlitz got duplicate documents as stated on my copies)

Tuesday, 9 July 2013

Early Merhorse Art by Thomas Finley, and Longnecked Seals in General

"Merhorse" by Thomas Finley 2013.
Thomas Finley said when he made this illustration:
 "This painting captures an elusive Merhorse both above and below the waves and gives a special over all view of the size of the creature. This is a special request for the Bizarre Zoology Blog Series."
I then objected that Bernard Heuvelmans had made several specifications about the Merhorse, including that it was supposed to have enormous eyes. After some discussion (and submissions of competing artworks by both of us), Thomas Finley developed what we thought was a good and authoritative  Merhorse ex Heuvelmans.
However it seems Jay Cooney had originally intended this painting to represent a more generic giant pinniped which could account for reports contained in the Merhorse category. We can perhaps equate this to Peter Costello's version of the Longnecked Seal theory more than Heuvelmans' version per se (There is a good reason for saying so and we shall be getting to it directly)

 
 This is an image of Bernard Heuvelmans' Merhorse. It comes from a
 series of such illustrations as added in the next blog...
 
Thought to be a head-on view of a Merhorse by Heuvelmans. This could just possibly be an attempt to represent a sighting of the Hoy Island 1919 SS type head-on, assuming this face goes with that type. I feel pretty definitely this is a pinniped at least.
 
 

biomarginalia (Presumably Cameron McCormick) writes:
[Regarding]Bernard Heuvelmans’ “Long-Necked" sea serpents: the Hoy “sea serpent" is fascinating, although rather than evidence for a long-necked species of pinniped, I wonder if it was an encounter with a very very wayward (and exaggerated) eared seal. As for the others, it is within the realm of possibility for mirages to create the impression of a long-necked creature (I’ll have to track down that diagram). Confusingly, it is not explained why the Tonny and Orme’s Head encounters are classified unambiguously into this category (and not, say as Super Otters or Many-Humped); amazingly the Orme’s Head sighting was published in the rather improbable venue of Nature. It may be a bit more difficult to publish a sea serpent report there today. [These drawings were published in the recent blog on Longnecked reports in general-DD]
http://www.tumblr.com/liked/by/astronomy-to-zoology/page/4



Bernard Heuvelmans' version of the Long-necked giant Sea lion, his "Megalotaria"

 
Reconstituted J Mackintosh Bell sighting creature, seen off the island of Hoy in the Orkneys, 1919.
This would presumably be a female. Length from nose to tail would be 13-14 feet, the size of a walrus but of course with the neck being more elongated.

 
This would be the hypothetical male and female of the species
As a sort of "Northern Bunyip" it is possible that the male would have a mane of thick hair all over the neck and not just a stripe of hair along the spine: the female's neck would be hairy too, but that would perhaps not be so obvious. The male might be up to 18-20 feet long maximum, the size of an elephant seal, although once again not built the same way and not weighing as much.
 
There is an earlier blog entry giving good reasons why this model is to be preferred to something more closely similar to the original drawings produced to illustrate the sighting.
 
In the version below, taken from Heuvelmans, the reader is led to believe the witness produced these drawings himself. In fact when checking Rupert T. Gould's retelling of the original report, it is clear that Bell had difficulty in making a good representation of the creature and these drawings were made by his wife. the drawing is decidedly amateurish and with wavering uncertainty of the outline
 
The measurements which were specified are actually in conflict with this drawing. The length of the neck is just about equal to the width of the back: the length of the body is about twice as long as the length of the back. The rear flippers are again about the length of the back. The whole length of the creature is about seven times the length of the head, the neck being twice and the body being four times the length of the head, plus the length of the head for itself. The corrected proportions are as redrawn above.  Length including the tail flippers for the male is 20-25 feet long and for the female is 15-18 feet long

 
The head and neck was made under the impression that it resembled the 1893 Lochalsh sighting by Farquahar Matheson out of the illustrations which Gould provided for reference.




 In his account, J. Mackintosh Bell had stated that the neck above water was as thick as an elephant's foreleg and all rough looking. An elephant's foreleg is a much thicker object than is shown in the original drawing and an attempt to make an appropriate corresponding thickness of neck is what is shown in the above paste-up.

There is one good Scientific account and illustration of a longnecked seal, made in the late 1700s and evidently making reference to a creature sighted around the British isles and not actually seen by the artist himself. This is nonetheless the only really substantial documentation of the allegation. In this case, a young male was said to measure 7 1/2 feet long and the projected size of an adult male would then be between 20 and 25 feet long (Pehaps 30 feet long counting the outstretched rear flippers)
(The adult male sea lion is about three times as long as the pup, a statement affirmed by Heuvelmans)

This information was provided by Darren Naish:
 James Parson wrote a paper in 1751 in which he described five “species” of Phoca, among them he mentioned a Dr. Grew’s “long neck’d seal” from an unknown locality. This peculiar seal was actually part of the Royal Society’s Museum, and as such it was included in a Catalog published in 1681, where it was described as follows:From his nose end to his fore-feet, and from thence to his tail, are of the same measure [4]
Grew's original text long necked seal

Heuvelmans' composite is not a good match for the Long-necked Sea lion:

But it IS just possibly a good match for the J Mackintosh Bell/ 1919 Hoy SS, allowing that neither drawing was going to be precisely accurate:
And as a final check, matching the full reconstruction to the Hoy SS proportions, we see there is a severe difference in proportions. The heads, flippers and bodies are not so much different in relative size, but the neck is actually drastically shorter. and that is the major difference, the actual Longnecks have a Plesiosaur-like neck which typically measures 10-20 feet in adults (Estimating a total length of 28 to 55 feet going by Oudemans' charts and reducing the tail lengths appropriately: the average 15 foot long neck belongs to a 40 foot long adult)

The lengths given by Peter Costello for his big eared model of the long necked seal are a minimum of about 18 feet for females and a maximum of about 30 feet for the males.(In Search of Lake Monsters p 288) This is no way comparable to the basic Longnecks (including the averages of such sightings as alleged at Loch Ness) but is a pretty exact match for the predictions based on the Hoy SS redrawn model. The drawing made at the top of the page by Thomas Finley is a pretty decent portrayal of the type: BUT the big ears in this artwork and as specified by Costello do not go with this type, they go with the Master-Otter and other kinds of Water-Monsters. This model would NOT account for the majority of reports in Loch Ness, Lake Okanagan, Lake Champlain or Lake Storsjon, BUT they might do well to account for SOME of the Irish reports and some of the "Long-Necked Seal" Bunyips that are explicitly described as such (ibid pp 273-276)(at a total estimated length of 5-15 feet long, which I consider a fair match, and not measuring the rear flippers in with the length)

As I had said it before, I prefer to refer to the Long necked Sea Serpent reports collected by Heuvelmans as "Megalotaria longicollis" to represent two types, the majority being the Longneck longicollis but this series as typified by the 1919 Hoy Sea Serpent retaining the genus name Megalotaria (Big Sea lion). I would have preferred to retain the name Megophias preferred by Oudemans for the Longicollis creature, but I have heard some very persuasive arguments why that name should not be maintained. Incidentally the colloquial term "Long-neck" as a reference to the long-necked plesiosaurs (and as distinguished from the short-necked plesiosaurs) runs back as far as the middle 1800s (the middle of the 19th century, and old enough for the term to be understood since before the American Civil War. References to Oudemans' composite creature as a Long-neck or a Long-necked seal were not merely descriptive, they were making a direct acknowledgement that his Megophias looked like a long necked Plesiosaur) Thus the uses for Long Necked seal and Long Necked Plesiosaur are almost equally as old as each other: it cannot be objected that the term is a modern one or that Heuvelmans made it up.
 

Tuesday, 18 June 2013

The top end of Oudemans' Sea-serpent scale

 
I have been indicating Oudemans' table of sizes and proportions on page 492 of the Great Sea-Serpent and I have indicated that I think that proportions of the more visible parts of the Sea Serpent's body are correct in the first few (Smallest) columns (Always remembering that the long tail probably means the wake in most cases) Why then does the table continue on to what are truly monstrous sizes? To quote Oudemans' text that refers to this table: "I have ventured to draw up the following table of the animal's proportions for ten individuals [10 sample sizes-DD], differing in age or sex.
I am far from asserting that these dimensions will [Absolutely] prove to be correct if ever an individual should fall into the hands of men, but I am sure that they are approximately correct .
Perhaps you will in no case admit the possibility of the existence of an animal of 250 feet [in length]! Well, I leave it to you to fix yourself the utmost possible length of our Sea-serpent!"

[By Oudemans' count, the number of sightings estimating a total length of over 100 feet is around 10% of the total number of reports, and of course that '100 feet' now has to be reduced for some length of tail. Dropping off that top 10% of size estimates makes the largest legitimate size range of sightings equivalent to the HMS Daedalus Sea-serpent and in fact the text does state exactly that]

What I think has happened (And as a matter of fact, what I think I can prove about what happened) is that the largest reports that Oudemans tallies refer mainly to mistaken views of big whales, taking them for Sea-serpents, either singly or several in a line at once. In the instance above at far right, the actual sighting taken to be the midsection of a Sea-serpent is actually a sighting of the whale, and the extended lengths of head and tai are imaginary. The two figures in the center are Oudemans' reconstruction drawing for the Sea-serpents and the whale figure is repeated at far left purely for scale. This is a humpbacked whale.

In the case of the largest Sea-serpent tabulated, Oudemans clearly states above the table that the measurements are from the HMS Osborne Sea serpent sighting. The blog entry dealing with the HMS Osborne sighting is the earlier one on " VOID Sea Serpent categories", and the link to the discussion is below:



http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2011/06/void-sea-serpent-category-4-many-finned.html