Original Notice of the Patagonian Plesiosaur

1922, eleven years before Loch Ness was in the news

Nahuelito photo from Lake Monsters Facebook page

Above is an early depiction of the Pattagonian Plesiosaur of Lake Nahuel Huapi, which was a media sensation before the Loch Ness monster was publicised in the 1930s. In parallel to "Nessie" the creaure of that lake is known as Nauelito, which might be translated as "Nahuelie." Sightings were rarely reported to the outside world until recently, but this is one location which consistently produces both reports of Plesiosaur-shaped creatures and also photographs purporting to show them

One of the photographs was reproduced by the owner of the Lake Monsters facebook page and it is reproduced below. I made the remark that the creature image in it looked interesting bu/t that it needed to have better contrast to make it out

Jay Cooney turned up the contrast and it resulted in the image below (Dale D also worked on this version to create the best possible contrast between the creature and the water.) The result is very similar to some of the images coming out of Lake Champlain and pictured on this blog recently

Mrs. Moir's Loch Ness Monster Sighting above and the Umfuli SS sighting below. All of these creatures seem to be described as being about the same absolute size, about 30 feet long overall visible ( 9 meters)
The strong similarity between all of these creatres widely scattered in time and space is a good reason to think there could well be something substantual to the reports and they are all describing the same species

Umfuli SS, after Captain Cringle

Nahuelito.Video 1993.Photo 1988.

Nahuelito.Video 1993.Photo 1988.

http://marcianitosverdes.haaan.com/2008/07/el-monstruo-del-loch-ness-los-primos-de-nessie-21/
Video at:

Post by Lake Monsters.

The December 25, 1986, Guillermo Barzi Canale a winemaker entrepreneur who was with his family on board a boat, said he saw "a displacement of very large water with something like black fins and leaving a trail" .
He also claimed to be the only one of the eight people who were on the boat that could see "a head as big snake, one of the extremes."

All returning from a picnic that had been made ​​in Lynch Bay, near Forest The Myrtles. It was 16:30 and they headed to Cumelén.
"Where the bay ends in Quetrihue tip, a good fishing spot, we decided to attempt to prove the pique" explained Barzi. "My kids threw two lines to the water and rode a stretch, but as there was no fishing resolved







by giving ended the attempt. Before they began to pick up the line, cut the contact of the boat and we stopped. They came with 120 or 130 meters of yarn rewound and while I stood on the seat of the boat in order to observe a little scenery to distract me ... and at that







moment I saw it.
"The monster saw when we stopped the boat and started to observe the landscape," continued Barzi. "was something big, like about fifty feet long, it moved quickly, at a speed of 25-30 kilometers per hour .







"My first reaction was to think to see it on a submarine, but then told me that was not possible. I evaluated a lot of things, a logical reaction to a strange and unexpected sight, since it could be a big school of trout, with two of them making tip or some deer, it is usual to cross the area. But none of the possibilities conformed me. Then I managed to shout to my companions, 'Guys, look the monster!'.
"In particular I saw a very large water displacement, a













 trail in V who was cutting the water surface in contrast to Feel us, and behind many borbollones wake in the water and kind of black fins, like dolphins







or sharks. At one point, I was the only one I saw, but I will continue to keep-I caught sight of a head as big at one end snake.
"The monster went about fifty yards from where we were, and what I saw was cutting the water surface in




the opposite direction to our revealing between a wake

and gushing water species of black fins ".
The daughter of businessman, Martina Barzi obtained a photograph, taken with a telephoto lens of 300 mm to about 150 meters from the object, and displays the wake in the water. The account of the meeting was published in the newspaper Black River , along with a photo of Martina.


SIGHTINGS AT END OF THE CENTURY
In early November 1987, a group of workers Bariloche Atomic Center returning from their work duties in a micro, announced the sighting of "a large spine emerging from the Nahuel Huapi and moving at high speed, leaving a
trail. "
This supposed phenomenon was seen by about thirty people in the area of Playa Bonita [1] .
That same year Alfredo Passo , former commander of Austral Airlines captain sightseeing cruise of Lake Nahuel Huapi to observe an object moving rapidly away and diving.
A crew of wildland firefighters, employees of Entel (a crew of 6 men of the Fire Fighting Service), an employee of the Department of Forests and several other people who were at the marines of the lake January 29, 1988 saw a similar phenomenon: "a wake" foam on the lake, about fifteen meters, appeared on the end of a "dark spot", similar to the back of an animal,

;;which was moving towards the west.








Then on Sunday 30, several other tourists
and barilochenses saw. On Route 237 and the Costanera Avenue a row to observe the monster was formed.
That was minutes before 8 pm. It was a sunset no wind. He was described as a "dark back" about 10 to






15 meters in diameter that moved from east to west leaving many bubbles [2] .
"We saw a very large displacement of water, a wake in 'V' that was cutting the water surface and the wake behind borbollones and many species of black fins, like







dolphins or sharks. Also, at one end a head appeared like a serpent, very large ... "

On Thursday February 4 Bariloche neighbor who declined to be identified managed to film the monster. Daily Black River reported [3] :







"The scene, taken with a small apparatus VHS, was released on Friday in the 'Writing 88' program, which airs on Channel 6 in this city, and shows for about "fifteen to twenty seconds," the image of a animal or object large, moving swiftly through the waters of Nahuel Huapi.





"While the vision is no different from other known oral testimony and graphics, filming shows the movement of the evocative object, the trail of water leaves behind,






and at least two successive dark spots, as if it were the
spine fins or partially submerged animal.
"It generated some skepticism that the author of the film had not wanted to publicize your name, mainly because the testimony coincided with the circulation of






photographs of dubious veracity. No but one of the drivers of the TV audition, Fitz Roy Madsen , referred this newspaper that "it is a neighbor and accredited professional of this city, who offered to divest the material provided is not given to its identity. '"






Shortly after Joseph Ulesia , the Balseiro Institute in Bariloche , along with 26 companions, see a large animal moving quickly through the water toward the island Victoria [4] .






The following year, 1989, a group of 31 tourists, led by Isabel Muller see an animal about 20 meters with large fins on the back. That same year the professional photographer Jorge Brodo and his friend Juan Bucetta shoot an animal about 20 meters long flexible and undulating movements that moves on the lake.
In 1995 a group of tourists who wandered Formosa lakeshore aboard a micro see the back of a large animal that leaves a trail.
Following tradition, this monster was given the name Nahuelito. Like many other lakes with "monsters", the Nahuel Huapi is poor in nutrients and could hardly sustain a population of monsters between 10 and 15 meters long. However, the myth of the plesiosaur a milestone for Patagonia. And there are many who still believe in their existence possible, if only to encourage tourism in these latitudes.
There is talk of other monsters in Argentina, as "Joselito" they say, off the coast of Arenas Verdes appears in Puerto Quequén, Necochea and Lobería. The latter name is because the first observation occurred on March 19, the day of San José.
To be continued ...

---

[1] Anonymous, Again Nahuelito , Black River [Rio Negro], Black River, Friday January 22, 1988.

[2] Anonymous, he returned to show the monster of Lake Nahuel Huapi: many witnesses , Clarin , Buenos Aires, February 2, 1988.
Anonymous, A monster in the lake , Clarin , Buenos Aires, February 3, 1988.
[3] Anonymous, They manage to film the strange animal Nahuel Huapi Lake , Black River , Black River, Sunday 7 February 1988.
[4] Anonymous, A monster in the lake Nahuel Huapi?, Clarin , Buenos Aires, February 26, 1987.

Central and South American ?Sauropods on s8int

Photo: Dr. Requena reports finding artifacts of an unknown, advanced civilization in Venezuela who had sculpted extinct creatures incuding several versions of the diplodocus dinosaur. Modern Mechanix, 1934
http://s8int.com/WordPress/tag/living-dinosaurs/

From the above named article:
“Evidence that Venezuela was the cradle of civilization is offered in a volume on his archaeological discoveries which is being published by Dr. Rafael Requena, private secretary to President General Gomez. The publication of this book will lift the veil of secrecy which has shrouded Dr. Requena’s discoveries since they were announced briefly a year ago.
Most startling among the relics unearthed by Dr. Requena from the ancient tombs that dot the shores of Lake Valencia are images of pre-historic animals.

Among these, well sculptured in clay and kiln baked, are models of the diplodocus, a four footed monster with a goose-shaped body, surmounted by a dorsal fin, the neck of a giraffe and the jaws of a crocodile; a gliptodante [glyptodont], a squat four-footed beast with a hideous frog shaped head, bulging eyes and two rows of humps along its back; the prehistoric marine turtle and its equally great land-loving brother and carved from stone, the head of a hadrosaurus.

Alongside these relics were discovered the jaw bone of a dinosaur and pieces of the armor plate of the hadrosaurus…”

Photo:Closeup and comparison of one of Requena’s sauropods. From photo at top of page.

The same web page indicates that scuptures similar to this in the Mississippian Mounds of the Missippippi delta -Below.

In this case, there is once again very little difference between the "Sauropod Dinosaur" depictions and the more usual Plesiosaurian Water Monsters (Which in South America means in particular the "Patagonian Plesiosaurs") See the map below:

The five pointed stars in a bundle on the Bolivian border represents an area where there are continuing traditions and reports of "Diplodocuses living in the swamps" much the same as the African Mokele-mBembe, and similarly probably just the same Longnecks as described elsewhere

 

The following excepts quote mainly from George Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures (2002):

South American dinosaurs:

 A few rumors of huge, amphibious beasts in South America are on record, but no local Indian names have surfaced. In 1882, an odd, 40-foot saurian was killed on the Río Beni, El Beni Department, Bolivia. It was said to have two additional, doglike heads (Probably added on by taxidermy) sprouting from its back, a long neck, and scaly armor. “A Bolivian Saurian,” Scientific American 49 (1883): 3.  

The explorer Percy Fawcett mentioned dinosaur- like animals briefly on several occasions as occurring in the Río Guaporé area on the border of Bolivia and Brazil, in the Madidi region of La Paz Department in northwestern Bolivia, and in swamps around the Rio Acre in Acre State, Brazil. Percy H. Fawcett, Exploration Fawcett (London: Hutchinson, 1955). Leonard Clark heard rumors of an animal resembling a sauropod dinosaur from Peruvian Indians around the Río Marañón, Peru, in 1946. Leonard Clark, The Rivers Ran East (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1953). In 1975, a Swiss businessman hired a seventy five- year-old guide named Sebastian Bastos, who told him that the Amazonian Indians knew of animals 18 feet long that overturn canoes and kill humans. Bastos himself had survived an attack several years earlier. Liverpool Daily Post, January 3, 1976. [The 18-foot-long creature is evidently "A Kind of giant fish"  (a toothless shark or catfish) according to a different mention by Fawcett-DD]

As a parallel quote we can quote from our good friend Tabitca
http://cryptozoo-oscity.blogspot.com/2009/05/bolivian-and-south-american-living.html

In 1931, Harald Westin reported seeing a creature along Brazil's Rio Marmore . He said it was 20-foot long and resembled a 4-legged boa constrictor. Leonard Clark reported that he heard tales when travelling up the Rio Perene in Brazil and was told of herbivorous creatures which sounded much like a prehistoric Sauropod. . "In 1907 Lieutenant-Colonel Percy Fawcett of the British Army was sent to mark the boundaries between Brazil and Peru. He was an officer in the Royal Engineers and was well known as a meticulous recorder of facts. In the Beni Swamps of Madre de Dios Colonel P. H. Fawcett saw an animal he believed to be Diplodocus... The Diplodocus story is confirmed by many of the tribes east of the Ucayali..." (The Rivers Ran East by Leonard Clark, 1953.) Then in 1975, a Swiss businessman was told by a guide called Simon Bastos, about such a dinosaur like creature. The long-necked creature had destroyed Bastos' canoe after he had landed along a riverbank. Bastos was later told that such long-necked creatures frequented deep waterholes, and rarely came out on land.

All hearsay and inconclusive and the report in Scientific America was later thought to be a hoax.[or better, "Is currently thought to be a hoax by all serious researchers"]

Chan Freshwater Monster of Mexico.
Physical description: Like a sauropod dinosaur.
Distribution: Lago La Alberca and neighboring lakes in the Valle de Santiago, Guanajuato State, Mexico..
Present status: Photographs are likely hoaxes. Every September, the locals, who consider the monster a god, offer it gifts. Sources: Leopoldo Bolaños, June 15, 1998, accessed in 2001, http://www.fortunecity.com/ roswell/daniken/62/invest.html; John Kirk, In the Domain of Lake Monsters (Toronto, Canada: Key Porter Books, 1998), pp. 209–211.
[The name Chan or Kan is not mysterious, it means just "Snake" and it is the last syllable in the name Kukulkan, the Mayan name for Quetzalcoatl-DD]

The photo was taken from a plane in Mexico back in 1956.
The pilot claims that this was a large animal but within the photo itself there is nothing to give it scale–plus it’s blurry. This photo has been analyzed over and over–some think its an elephant, but no elephant should have been there either. Color was added to the background to aid the contrast between the object and the background in this faded image.
[This has been reproduced several times and attributed to different lakes, including in  Africa. It is almost certainly a hoax photographing a small model against a painted backdrop-DD]

Nahuelito

FRESHWATER MONSTER of Argentina.
Etymology: Spanish, “Little one of Nahuel,” after the lake.
Variant name: PATAGONIAN PLESIOSAUR. Physical description: Length, 15–20 feet. Rough skin. Head like a snake’s. Neck, 9 feet long. Multiple humps. (Sightings up to twice this size, or up to 40 feet long with a neck up to 18-20 feet long)
Behavior: Surfaces only when the lake is calm. Makes distinctive breathing sounds. Distribution: Lago Nahuel Huapí, Neuquén Province, Argentina.
Significant sightings: In 1910, George Garrett and his son had a brief look at an animal 15–20 feet long as they were sailing along a narrow inlet of Nahuel Huapí.
Sra. Rumboll saw the long neck of an animal leaving a wake on February 16, 1978. Jessica Campbell and others observed an animal with multiple humps swimming in the lake on January 1, 1994. Two years later, Campbell saw the animal twice in one afternoon, once when it swam directly toward her as she sat on some rocks.
Sources: “Local Man Lays Claim to Having Caught Sight of Gigantic Plesiosaur,” Toronto (Ont.) Globe, April 6, 1922; Hans Krieg, Als Zoologe in Steppen und Wäldern Patagoniens (Munich, Germany: J. F. Lehmann, 1940); Jean-Jacques Barloy, Les survivants de l’ombre (Paris: Arthaud, 1985); “Nahuelito: Creature Story Makes Waves,” New Orleans (La.) Times- Picayune, March 28, 1989; Ulrich Magin, “Duck! It’s a Plesiosaur,” Fortean Times, no. 92 (November 1996): 28–30; John Kirk, In the Domain of Lake Monsters (Toronto, Canada: Key Porter Books, 1998), pp. 250–253.

Sighting of a Patagonian Plesiosaur

Patagonian Plesiosaur
FRESHWATER MONSTER of Argentina.
Physical description: Long neck like a swan’s, held high above the water. Behavior: Nocturnal. Can travel on land. Distribution: The lake region of Chubut Province, Argentina, including Lago Blanco; the adjacent region of Chile. Significant sightings: The director of the Jardín Zoológico at Buenos Aires, Clemente Onelli, interviewed a farmer who lived on Lago Blanco in 1897 about strange, nocturnal noises heard along the lake’s pebbly shore. A longnecked animal could sometimes be seen on moonlit nights. On October 18, 1921, prospector Martin Sheffield came across the tracks of a large animal west of Esquel, Argentina, and followed them to an unnamed mountain lake where he saw a plesiosaur- like animal swimming. Onelli organized an expedition, led by José Cihagi and Emilio Frey, that set out to investigate these reports on March 23, 1922. On April 18, despite some bureaucratic problems with permits, the group reached the lake where Sheffield had seen the animal but did not find anything (despite setting off some dynamite in the lake); the group was forced to return to Buenos Aires on April 26 before the southern winter set in. Possible explanation: The Giant otter (Pteronura brasiliensis) is found much farther north, though there is a historical record of its existence from Uruguay. It grows to a length of 6 feet,[without] including the tail. Sources: “Sees Monster of the Reptile Age Swimming in Patagonian Lake,” New York Herald, March 7, 1922; “Not Worried about Mesozoic Monsters,” New York Herald, March 8, 1922; “Protests Capture of Andean Monster,” New York Herald, March 13, 1922; “En busca de la ejemplar vivo de la Epoca Secundaría: El Plesiosaurio,” La Prensa (Buenos Aires), March 13, 1922; “Argentines Start to Catch Monster,” New York Herald, March 24, 1922; “Was It a Hoax? End of Plesiosaurus Hunt,” River Plate Observer (Buenos Aires), May 12, 1922; Leonard Matters, “An Antediluvian Monster,” Scientific American 127 (July 1922): 21; Peter Costello, In Search of Lake Monsters (New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan, 1974), pp. 237–244.

[As noted on an earlier blog, the common historical Latin-American reference to such creatures is by calling them "Culebron" meaning Snake or Dragon.-DD]

More PostCretaceous Plesiosaurs

The allegation that certain finds of Plesiosaurs in South America postdate the end of the Age of Dinosaurs goes back to the late 1800s. The following is only the most famous example, it is not the only example.

Here is the opening of the article:
AMEGHINIANA (Rev. Asoc. Paleontol. Argent.) - 47 (4): 447-459. Buenos Aires, 30-12-2010 ISSN 0002-7014 ©Asociación Paleontológica Argentina AMGHB2-0002-7014/10$00.00+.50

1División Paleontología Vertebrados,
 Museo de La Plata,
 Universidad Nacional de La Plata - CONICET.
 Paseo del bosque s/n, 1900 La Plata, Argentina.
 joseogorman@fcnym.unlp.edu.ar
2Centro de Investigaciones Geológicas,
 Universidad Nacional de La Plata - CONICET,
 calle 1 Nº 644, 1900 La Plata, Argentina.
augustovarela@cig.museo.unlp.edu.ar

The oldest lower Upper Cretaceous plesiosaurs (Reptilia, Sauropterygia) from southern Patagonia, Argentina

José Patricio O’GORMAN1 and Augusto Nicolás VARELA2
Key words. Plesiosaurs. Mata Amarilla Formation. Upper Cretaceous. Santa Cruz. Argentina. Palabras clave. Plesiosaurios. Formación Mata Amarilla. Cretácico Superior. Santa Cruz. Argentina.
Abstract. Plesiosaurs are recorded for the first time from the lower section of Mata Amarilla Formation, Santa Cruz Province, Patagonia, Argentina. The stratigraphic succession consists of mudstones and siltstones interbedded with medium to fine-grained sandstone, deposited in a littoral environment during the Cenomanian-Santonian; therefore the material is the oldest record of plesiosaurs from the lower Late Cretaceous rocks of Argentina. The remains include teeth, some vertebrae, and one propodium assigned to Elasmosauridae indet. and Plesiosauria indet. The status of Polyptychodon patagonicus Ameghino, 1893, as well as its stratigraphic position are discussed, leading to the conclusion that the material described by Ameghino is probably from the Mata Amarilla Formation and can only be referred to Plesiosauria indet. Analysis of sedimentologic features suggests that the material described here was deposited in an estuarine environment, strongly influenced by tides. The characters of the inferred environment are consistent with the type of preservation of the materials.


......

'Plesiosauria indet.' tooth from Patagonia

Comments on Polyptychodon patagonicus Ameghino, 1893
Polyptychodon patagonicus was described by Ameghino in 1893. The type material of Polyptychodon patagonicus consists of a group of teeth -described but never illustrated- coming from what Ameghino called and understood as “formación Santacruceña” in 1893. Ever since the 19th century there have been different opinions about the age and correct assignment of this material. The discovery of plesiosaur vertebrae and teeth in the lower section of the Mata Amarilla Formation leads to the analysis of the history of Florentino Ameghino’s ideas on the age of the layers bearing the remains, and how this influenced the assignation of the materials to other reptile taxa. Ameghino made the following description of the original materials of Polyptychodon patagonicus:
[The teeth of Polyptychodon patagonicus are open at their base, conical-cylindrical in shape, with sharp-pointed apex, and strongly curved. The outer surface is covered by pronounced longitudinal ridges of enamel, separated by deep furrows; the ridges start at the base, all of them at the same level, ending at different distances from the apex, nearly in the same way as in Polyptychodon interruptus, Owen. I do not know any complete tooth. The largest tooth, which almost lacks the entire base occupied by the pulp cavity, is nearly 3 cm high; and at the broken part at the base, it measures one centimeter in diameter approximately] (Ameghino, 1893, p. 82; translated from Spanish).

However, subsequent authors considered Ameghino ´s identification (1893) with doubts, probably because of two reasons. First, plesiosaur teeth have been often confused with crocodile or fish teeth, because of their similar morphological characteristics. Second, the association of Polyptychodon patagonicus teeth with Cenozoic mammalian teeth in the same formation was assumed. For this reason Cabrera (1941) stated that if the teeth of Polyptychodon patagonicus were contemporaneous with mammalian remains, then they should be assigned to crocodilians. Welles (1962) followed the same line of thought and mentioned Cabrera (1941), claiming that the teeth could belong to crocodilians. Finally, in a summary of South American plesiosaurs, Gasparini and Goñi (1985) mentioned Polyptychodon patagonicus as a plesiosaur, but with serious doubts about its assignation. Unfortunately, the original material described by Ameghino in 1893 is not available for study. Although there is a record of two teeth of Polyptychodon patagonicus from the “Sub-Patagoniano” of Lago Argentino in the MACN, this material (catalogued as MACN-A 5809) could not be located in the collection.
Concerning the stratigraphic and geographic provenance of his material, Ameghino (1893, p. 76) wrote: [The formation that I have named Santacruceña, covers most of the Austral Patagonian region that is crossed by the Santa Cruz, Sehuen, and Gallegos Rivers] (Ameghino, 1893, p. 76; translated from Spanish). It is clearly evident that the “formación Santacruceña” named by Ameghino, is equivalent only in part to what is nowadays known as the Santa Cruz Formation, as the Santa Cruz Formation is not exposed along the Shehuen or Chalia River (Sehuen River of Ameghino). Contrarily, the Mata Amarilla Formation is the unit exposed along the mentioned river (Feruglio, in Fossa Mancini et al., 1938; Arbe, 1989, 2002; Varela and Poiré, 2008). For this reason it is evident why Ameghino included the Mata Amarilla Formation in his “formación Santacruceña” (Cione et al., 2007). Ameghino’s opinion is quite understandable taking into account the lithological similarity of the Mata Amarilla and the Santa Cruz formations.
In relation to the age, Ameghino (1893, p. 76) assigned his “formación Santacruceña” to the “Eoceno inferior (Paleoceno)”. Due to the problematic association of primates and other Cenozoic mammals with Cretaceous taxa in the “formación Santacruceña”, Ameghino wrote in the final discussion:
 [This fact (referring to the identifications carried out in the paper and the associated Cretaceous age) is meaningful and enough to decidedly tilt the scales in favor of those who believe that the “formación Santacruceña” is even older than the “lower Eocene”, as I considered it from the beginning. It is possible that it becomes necessary to refer the lower part of it to the larámico or upper Cretaceous] (Ameghino, 1893, p. 84; translated from Spanish).
So what seemed to be an association between Polyptychodon patagonicus and mammalian teeth was [possibly] just a lithostratigraphic misunderstanding of Ameghino, who rectified himself in 1906. It is important to emphasize that the original purpose of the 1893 paper was not to solve the stratigraphical problem, but to add new descriptions of the material sent by his brother, Carlos Ameghino. However, since 1893 Ameghino supposed that his “formación Santacruceña” included units of different age. In his work published in 1906, Ameghino separated the outcrops at Río Shehuen initially belonging to the “formación Santacruceña”, and named them “Sehuenense stage”. Ever since then Polyptychodon patagonicus was listed together with taxa from the “Sehuenense stage” instead of being included with those from the “formación Santacruceña”, thus solving the stratigraphic problem. Hence, it can be assumed that there is no real association between Polyptychodon patagonicus and Cenozoic taxa. It is necessary to point out that different authors refer to the “Sehuenense” in different ways. [Emphasis added-DD] Ameghino (1906) used “Sehuenense”, while Cabrera (1941) used “Sehuense”, and Arbe (1989, 2002) “Shehuenense”. We use the first spelling in this contribution because we refer to Ameghino’s original concept (1906). Under the light of the discussion above, and with the new record showing the existence of abundant dental material from the Mata Amarilla Formation assignable to Plesiosauria, there appears to be strong evidence that Ameghino was the first to publish material referred to Plesiosauria from lower Late Cretaceous rocks in Santa Cruz.
Since the original material is not available, the relation between the teeth referred to Polyptychodon patagonicus and the new records described here can only be discussed based on Ameghino´s description and the diagnosis of the genus Polyptychodon Owen, 1841 Tooth morphology described by Ameghino (1893) is common in plesiosaurs: conical, slightly curved teeth, with marked striae. Polyptychodon teeth illustrated by Owen in 1841 seem to bear striae on the entire outer surface The fact that Ameghino never mentioned any difference between his material and the teeth illustrated by Owen could indicate that his material had the same features shown by Polyptychodon. Therefore, the presence of striae on the entire outer surface is a difference between the original material of Polyptychodon patagonicus and the materials described in this paper, which have reduced or even absent lingual striation. The reasons stated by other authors (Cabrera, 1941; Welles, 1962) to reject the identification of the teeth made by Ameghino are thus not valid. The assignment of Ameghinos’s material to Polyptychodon, a pliosaur from the Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian- Campanian?) in England, Germany, Czech Republic, and USA (Welles and Slaughter, 1963, Bardet and Godefroint, 1995) is not valid because no characters support this assignation. Hence, Polyptychodon patagonicus is a nomen vanum and the type material, as well as the teeth described in this paper, must be referred to Plesiosauria indet. [Indefinite Plesiosauruia]

Paleoenvironment interpretation The lower section of the Mata Amarilla is well exposed in LB section, where the plesiosaur remains were found in white sandstone facies with herringbone cross-stratification, showing changes in the direction of palaeocurrents; according to Boyd et al. (2006) this is interpreted as produced by tidal action. So, following the criteria of Boyd et al. (2006), these facies were interpreted as subtidal bars characterizing the shallowest part of estuaries. Finally, this lower section ends with a prograding bayhead delta. In the MAT section, the lower section of the Mata Amarilla Formation exposes only five meters (figure 3). The skeletal remains of plesiosaurs in the MAT section were found in heterolithic, mixed stratified (flaser and wavy) facies, showing alternating decantation and traction processes. Such structures are mostly dominated by shales, characteristic of estuarine central areas, according to Boyd et al. (2006). The paleoenvironment of the lower section of the Mata Amarilla Formation where the plesiosaurs were found is therefore interpreted as a tidal dominated estuary. All the plesiosaur bones and teeth show signs of transport. The material is disarticulated with no evidence that they belonged to the same single specimen. It is interesting to note that the remains are predominantly elements resistant to fragmentation, such as the vertebral centra, the propodium, and teeth. However, the teeth are incomplete, most without roots and some lacking the apex of the crown. Bone damage consists of fractures and elimination of superficial bone but no perforations or fouling were observed. Therefore, the preservation status of the skeletal remains is consistent with the energetic conditions of tidal action, which is consistent with the sedimentological interpretation. In vertebra MPM-PV 1871-2 (Level 2, LB section), the internal cavity is filled with sediment forming a natural cast of the missing part of the vertebra. Clearly, the fracture occurred after lithification, suggesting that part of the damage observed in the material could have been caused by reworking or recent weathering. Finally, although very scarce, some remains of the lower Mata Amarilla Formation are young specimens, possibly lying near the coast, probably an estuary. It has been often mentioned that young specimens, at least those of plesiosauroids, could live in rivers and estuaries (Wiffen et al., 1995).
Biogeographic significance of the new record Late Cretaceous plesiosur records in southern Gondwana were limited to the Campanian-Maastrichthian of Argentina (Cabrera, 1941; Gasparini and Goñi, 1985, Gasparini and Salgado, 2000; Gasparini et al., 2003a,b; 2007), Chile (Gay, 1849; Casamiquela, 1969; Suárez and Fritis, 2002), Antarctic Peninsula (Gasparini et al., 1984; Chatterjee and Small, 1989; Fostowicz-Frelik and Gazdzicki, 2001; Martin et al., 2007), New Zealand (Wiffen and Moisley, 1986; Cruickshank and Fordyce, 2002; Hiller et al., 2005), and the Turonian-Cenomanian of Australia (Kear, 2003). According to those records it is evident that while the early Late Cretaceous is recorded in Oceania, there are no records for the same period in southern South America and Antarctica. The new plesiosaurian material from the lower section of the Mata Amarilla Formation contributes toward completing this gap in the record (figure 9).

Conclusion

The oldest lower Late Cretaceous plesiosaur record in Argentina is presented, becoming the first record of these reptiles for Santa Cruz Province. Analysis of the literature provides strong evidence that Polyptychodon patagonicus Ameghino, 1893, is based on remains of Plesiosauria from the Mata Amarilla Formation. However, the status of nomen vanum is maintained for P. patagonicus because the isolated teeth are not considered sufficient to diagnose a genus or species. The lower section of the Mata Amarilla Formation in the study area was deposited in an estuarine environment with strong tidal influence. The conservation and lack of articulation of the remains is congruent with the expected level of transport in that environment.

Acknowledgments The authors thanks T. Martin (Institut für Palaeontologie, Universität Bonn), F. Goin and J. Gelfo (Museo de La Plata) for providing logistical support in field work, in which also participated J. Cuitiño, G. Pedersen, A. Barrueco, M. Giacobelli, L. Chornogubsky, S. Hoffmann, and J. Schultz. They also thank Dr. Adan Tauber (Museo Regional Provincial Padre Manuel Jesús Molina, Río Gallegos) for authorization to study the material from Santa Cruz, and L. Acosta Burllaile for the preparation of material. C. Deschamps and J. Echevarria (Museo de La Plata) for reading the English version. Likewise they tanks their dissertation advisors, Z. Brandoni de Gasparini, L. Salgado, and D. Poiré for critically reading of the manuscript and for financial support (projects PICT 25276 and CONICET PIP 6237/05). Finally they thank the referees, N. Bardet (Muséum national d´ Histoire naturelle, Paris) and J. Martin (Museum of Geology, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, USA), whose comments have substantially improved both the scientific content and the language of this paper.

-Basically, the record stands as a situation where Ameghino, the original author, named some Plesiosaur teeth as coming from a stratum which he believed to be Cenozoic and after the extinction of the dinosaurs: However, he was using the name for the stratum that different authors treat differently and which could be interpreted as coming from lower down in the Cretaceous. The authors of this article assume that this must have been the case but that is not necessarily so. Several subsequent Plesiosaur finds from South America have been reported as coming from ambiguous or Post-Cretaceous strata. Although the matter has been conveniently explained away, the uncertainty actually still remains and some of the remains could actually be from the post-Cretaceous and associated with early Cenozoic mammals , as was actually originally reported.-DD]

Longnecked Beast on Ancient Peruvian Tapestry

This turned up on my facebook page as purportedly showing a longnecked unknown animal on a Chuimu tapestry (ornamental embroidered cloth meant for a wall covering) from prehistoric Peru.

These appear to be representations of long-necked water monsters and "Dinosaurs" are still supposed to be sighted in the lower-lying jungle areas of Peru and Bolivia. These are not otters, otters do not have such elongated snouts nor such long flat ears. However, if the "Ears" are meant to show the Euryapsid skull openings again, we are once again talking Plesiosaurs and probably even "Patagonian Plesiosaurs." the legs are not very important and they could be representing flippers: I notice that the tail ends of these creatures send in a "Whirlpool" and I have seen the same conventionalization elsewhere,

Notices were also posted that this cloth is a National Treasure of Peru, that it was taken from the country illegally and is loot. I have no connection to this matter and I know nothing of the whereabouts of this cloth now. But if such is the case, I do hope the people of Peru get it back again.

Scott Mardis on Champ=Plesiosaur #3

 

Scott Mardis' earlier comparison of The Moha-Moha to a Plesiosaur wuth theoretical tailfin.

                Another turtleheaded seamonster, the Valhalla SS, this time with a 2-humped back.

                    The turtle-like seamonsters are compared to the Jenkins Nessie sighting (Inset)

Soay_Beast_by_Pristichampsus-Modified by DD. Scott Mardis wanted the Witness' drawing and this is the best I could come up with at the time. Sort of like a smaller edition of the Valhalla SS.

 

Recent Nessie at UL, O'Connor Nessie photo at LL: Plesiosaurs swimming

 like sea turtles UR and Lake Champlain monster video  bottom and Left.

 

In this case the swimming monsters are compared to actual swimming Leatherback turtles (UR)

 

 

OConnor_Nessie_cf_Nahuelito

One of those Comparisons I thought might be interesting. If both photos are valid, then the jawline, blunted nose and position of the eye socket are comparable. That is, IF the photos can be trusted

 

I have frequently said that it is not helpful to think of a Plesiosaur as a "Dinosaur" or  "Monster", it is more like a shelless big turtle with teeth. Thinking of it as a turtle is much more valuable in assessing its physiology, habits, tolerances and diet. Also, it seems, how they swim, in particular all these photo tht seem to show how they swim at the surface. I would further suggest this is good evidence for the same sort of creature to be in both Loch Ness and Lake Champlain, probably also Lake Nahuel Huapi (Patagonian Plesiosaurs) and in the seas world-wide but noting especially off of Scotland, South America, and Australia (&New Zealand) Where they are also on occasion compared to big sea turtles

Native_LongNecker_Depictions_Worldwide

"Serpopards" in Africa and later into Asia>Europe

Seem to have been a separate category originally but later identified as Longneckers

Capture of the Cuero

This is the news story as it appeared on the Yahoo Homepage News Summaries:

Jeremy Wade, host of the television show “River Monsters”, hauled in this massive 280 pound stingray in Argentina after a four hour battle. These giant stingrays live in rivers and are the world’s largest true freshwater fish. The animal was later released unharmed. (Photo: Daniel Huertas / Icon / BNPS)

And here is the version from TheSun (Minus the same photo over again)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3969326/Brit-angler-lands-20-stone-stingray.html

Brit angler lands 20-stone stingray

We're gonna need a bigger boat ... Jeremy Wade with the 20st stingray he caught in Argentina

Daniel Huertas/Icon/BNPS

By BELLA BATTLE

Published: 30 Nov 2011

THIS angler landed an a-ray-zing catch — a stingray weighing 20-STONE.

Brave Brit Jeremy Wade grappled with one of the world's biggest and deadliest freshwater fish for four hours before reeling the whopper in.

The 53-year-old caught the monster short-tailed stingray during a fishing trip to Argentina.
The flat fish is one of the heaviest found in the world's freshwater rivers and has been known to kill people with its lethal poisonous barb.
Jeremy, host of the TV series River Monsters, hooked the 280lb specimen while fishing on a small motor boat on the River Parana near Buenos Aires.
After taking his bait of eel, the creature stuck itself to the bottom of the river, prompting an exhausting battle of wills with Jeremy.
The four hour stalemate was broken when the fish became tired and Jeremy was finally able to lift it towards the surface.

Lethal barb ... Jeremy shows the camera his stingray's four-inch defence mechanism

Daniel Huertas/Icon/BNPS

Even then he had to tow it towards the shore using his boat before he could see the huge fish in all its glory.
Jeremy, from Bath, Somerset, had to wear a pair of stab-proof gloves while he handled the creature which was then released back into the water safe and well.
Jeremy said: "This is the largest true freshwater fish that I have ever caught.
"It took me four hours to reel in. It just stuck to the bottom and burrowed itself into the sand and the mud, so it was like lifting a dead weight.
"It was a huge circular shape, humped in the middle and the same colour as the sand. My arms and back were completely shot afterwards, I was so tired."
People are normally only attacked by the mammoth stingray, whose Latin name is Potamotrygon brachyura, when they step on it by accident, as it lies camouflaged in sand.
The fish lashes out with its lethal tail covered in thorny spines that can rip flesh to the bone.
Its two barbed four-inch prongs can also inject a flesh-rotting venom.

Jeremy said: "If you get the barb through an artery or body cavity it can be fatal.
"It normally attacks feet and ankles from where people tread on them by accident.
"It can leave a nasty wound and take six or seven years to stop weeping.
"People in that area of Argentina shuffle their feet forward when walking through the surf so that they kick the side of it and not tread on top of it."
People can see Jeremy land the ray on the new series of River Monsters which will be shown on ITV in January.

---Now my interest here is that I have previously identified the Cuero involved in the "Patagonian Plesiosaur" matter as a sort of a stingray, possibly marked with a pattern of circular markings or ocelli. The name Cuero means hide and the explanation is given that the living creature resembles a cowhide stretched out flat with two eyes bugging out and a mounth on the underside. Another name for it is Manta.

CFZ REPRINT:

Sunday, January 17, 2010

DALE DRINNON: Origins of the Patagonian Plesiosaur

Lately at the yahoo group Frontiers-of-Zoology, I have been going over a site on Patagonian Monsters that I discovered recently, in which Austin Whittall is putting together a book to be published on the subject and under the same name. That site is here:

http://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/

And it holds a wealth of information, most of which is very good and I find no fault in it. He has a lot of useful information on hominids including the Patagon giants (Some of which may have been Bigfoot in my interpretation, not his), and such creatures as Water Bulls that might have been Toxodons and the giant otter Iemisch. However, he completely discounts the creature known as the Patagonian Plesiosaur or Nahuelito. He repeatedly states that the reports of long-necked creatures must have been false, yet he is curiously silent when the same long-necked creatures are seen at sea. For the record and in case nobody was already aware of the fact, Long-necked Sea-serpents are probably the largest category still reported worldwide AND the most regularly represented types of freshwater monsters as well. There is little value in saying that there are no Long-necked Lake Monsters in Patagonia when they are reported in comparable other lakes world-wide.

A commonly repeated description of Nahuelito, the Patagonian Plesiosaur is as follows:

'it is curious that the great majority of tales coincide with the description of an animal of about 10-15 meters long, with two hunches or humps, leathery skin and, occasionally, a swan-like neck. It is striking that this characterization is so similar to the descriptions made by the Mapuches two hundred years before.'

That happens to coincide exactly with my own statistical composite, the composite Tim Dinsdale made of the Loch Ness Monster, and other similar composite drawn from such reports worldwide. I have done statistical analyses of most Long-necked Lake monsters worldwide and they are generally very close together in averages. (Ogopogo and other Canadian Lake monsters do ot turn out to be Long-necked creatures in most cases. Champ is one at times, though)

Whitall objects to this and says that the corresponding Mapuche water-monster is the Cuero (hide, or cowhide) which is not described as being like that at all. From that point he goes on to say that the reported creatures were not originally long-necked and that the Cuero tradition cannot be applied to a Plesiosaur-shaped creature.

The Cuero is supposed to be a flat creature like a spread-out spotted goatskin or cowhide with no discernable head but bugged-out eyes and a sucking mouth underneath. Under the name Trelquelhuecuve it is said to have many poisonous spines or claws but under a different name it is just said to have the one claw or stinger in its tail. Its general shape and especially the placement of the mouth, but most of all the sting in its tail, mark it as a kind of stingray. Oddly, Whittall is somewhat indifferent to this explanation and says there are no freshwater stingrays in Patagonia: on the contrary, Eberhart indicates an unidentified stingray is reported in the Rio Negro (Black River) which is near to lake Nahuel Hapi where Nahuelito is supposed to live.

The problem is - and this almost took my breath away when I realised it - every single writer on the subject before has been misled by the same mistake. They were identifying Nahuelito with the wrong tradition. Nahuelito was not what was called Cuero but was instead something else called (in Spanish) Culebron. Culebron means 'Big Snake' and it is used to cover several different traditions. It is the local-usage equivalent of 'Dragon.'














I found illustrations meaning to show Cuero and Culebron from Spanish-language sites off the internet and I have mutilated them in the name of scientific research. The Spanish-language information on this Culebron says that it is a plumed serpent equivalent to Quetzalcoatl and it is being shown with plumed wings to swim through the water with (as a water monster Culebron) I cut the wings short so that it could be shown that actually the creature they are talking about is built like a plesiosaur, in this case one third of the length apiece is head and neck, body, and tail. The same creature is also described with humps on the back, four limbs, and sometimes a mane.


















So THAT is what the native-tradition Patagonian Plesiosaur actually IS, and the tradition does go all the way back to the original discovery of the country in Conquistador days.

Another thing that bothers Whittall is a supposed carved likeness of Nahuelito printed in Suckling and Eggleston's book The Book of Sea Monsters. Whittall rightly says the art style is nothing like the indigenous art of the area, and he is right: the illustration is made up. However, I did discover from the Spanish-language sources that Culebron is depicted in rock art of the area, but it would not look anything like that. If anything, the 'Plumed Serpents' alluded to would look like the objects in the hands of the central god figure in the Sun Gate at Tiahuanaco, for the culture cited in the Spanish sources was using that style.

Your post set my mind ticking so I did plenty of research during the last days and I have just posted on Culebron at my blog. It has all the information (sources are given and linked) that I could find on the subject (am still checking other sources) you will find something interesting about a snake shaped stone baton found in Patagonia.

I also posted on freshwater stingrays and the cuero to add plenty of juicy information on the matter (sources too).

I guess open discussion is the best way to test ideas and to give cryptozoology the scientific standing that it deserves.

Gracias y Saludos! Austin

10:48 AM

I think in this case the "River Monsters" stingray does resemble the tradition of the Cuero closely enough that I would consider it likely the same species (provisionally of course)

--By the way, I have subsequently kept in touch with Austin and we are now listed together as business asociates of a sort. 
For some odd reason, after I did the reposting of the January 2010 blog entry above, Austin took it rather badly. He posted an update on his Patagonian Monsters blog (Which I have not ceased to support on this blog, his link has been prominently on display the entire time) in which he said he had already established at the time of the original posting that the Cuero was probably a stingray. And yet it is clear from the original quote above that he had only reconsidered the matter after our discussions.
Austin had forgotten the point was not even whether or not the Cuero was a stingray, which I had been saying since the 20th Century, but as specified my point was The Cuero was a separate Cryptid from the Patagonian Plesiosaur, what was later called the Patagonian Plesiosaur or Nahuelito more likely corresponds to what was then called a Culebron. And Austin Whittall had clearly gone along with my suggestion as of January 2010, as he indicated in the statements made on my blog then and quoted above.  And as of January 2010, there was no misunderstanding.

For the record and as I told Austin when this recent problem came up, my first internet posting identifying the Cuero as a stingray was made in October 2006 and posted in three places simultaneously, and had a reference to a printed text dated 2002. Austin seems to have completely forgotten about that part. Furthermore I had told this idea to Ivan Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans when they were alive, since we are talking about various versions of my Cryptozoological checklist.As of January 2010, the checklist was being printed in the CFZ yearbook, after a delay of about five years while the CFZ had it but did not publish it, but that is now he official print copy of the document (Simultaneous to these statements by Whittall)

And I would hope that Austin would drop the matter rather than to make himself look any more foolish.

Best Wishes, Dale D.