Loch Ness ‘monster hunters’ wanted for biggest search in 50 years

ByJustine McDaniel
August 6, 2023 —

Seeking: monster hunters.

The Loch Ness Centre is calling one and all to join a massive search this month for Nessie, the mythical beast said to inhabit the waters of Scotland’s famed Loch Ness – hoping to make it the largest hunt for the monster in more than 50 years.

Experienced Nessie researchers will use modern technology that has never before scanned the waters, said the centre, which runs an exhibition and tours of the lake. They’re asking volunteers and “budding monster hunters” to join in and watch the surface of the 37-kilometre-long lake.

This photo of a shadowy shape that some people say is the Loch Ness monster in Scotland was later debunked as a hoax. CREDIT:AP

The event, scheduled for August 26 and 27, could be the largest surface watch since 1972, said Alan McKenna of Loch Ness Exploration, a volunteer research team that’s working with the Loch Ness Centre. Its organisers hope the “Quest Weekend” will draw searchers to join the centuries-long tradition of looking for the Loch Ness monster.

“It’s our hope to inspire a new generation of Loch Ness enthusiasts,” McKenna told the BBC. “You’ll have a real opportunity to personally contribute towards this fascinating mystery that has captivated so many people from around the world.”

Cradled by green slopes, the vast blue lake sits in the Scottish Highlands, near the city of Inverness and about a 3½-hour drive from Edinburgh. Though Nessie has never been proved to exist, the myth’s attraction – like that of Bigfoot or Sasquatch – has endured over the decades, sparking research, exploration and stories.


Loch Ness is a large, deep, freshwater loch in the Scottish Highlands.CREDIT:MICHELE RINALDI

McKenna told The Post on Saturday that he’d heard from many reporters and “friends from around the world” since the announcement of the project.

During Quest Weekend, the researchers will use airborne drones that make thermal images of the water with infrared cameras, according to the centre. They’ll also use a hydrophone that picks up acoustic signals – “any Nessie-like calls” – underwater.

Meanwhile, they’ll stage six surface-watch locations, and anyone who signs up to join will indicate what area they plan to observe. (They can also note whether they believe in “Nessie, nonsense, or possibilities”.)

“The weekend gives an opportunity to search the waters in a way that has never been done before, and we can’t wait to see what we find,” Paul Nixon, Loch Ness Centre’s general manager, told the Scottish Daily Express.

The Loch Ness Centre, which recently reopened after a renovation, did not immediately respond to The Washington Post’s request for comment.

Loch Ness is deep and vast, holding the largest volume of freshwater in Britain, according to the Inverness-Loch Ness tourism website. Theories about the monster said to lurk in those depths go back centuries, and they still draw enthusiasts and researchers to the lake today.

Many ideas about what type of creature could be under Loch Ness’ surface have been floated over the years, ranging from an extinct prehistoric reptile called a plesiosaur to swimming circus elephants. In 2019, scientists who analysed DNA in water samples from the lake said they found genetic material from eels but no evidence from sharks, sturgeons or prehistoric reptiles.

The earliest record of a Nessie sighting comes from 565 AD, when an Irish saint was “said to have driven a beast back into the water”, the Inverness website says. Twenty-one more sightings were recorded between the 1500s and 1800s.

Remains of a Plesiosaur, which is believed to have inspired the legend of the Loch Ness Monster, are displayed at Sotheby’s in New York on July 10.CREDIT:REUTERS

The legend took off in the 1900s, when newspapers carried the story of Aldie MacKay at the Drumnadrochit Hotel, who reported seeing a “whale-like fish” or beast in the water in 1933, according to the Loch Ness Centre. The following year, Nessie became “an international sensation” thanks to a photograph – decades later debunked as a hoax – that seemed to show a head and neck coming out of the water, according to Visit Inverness Loch Ness.

In the 1970s, a group called the Loch Ness Phenomena Investigation Bureau set up “camera watches” on the loch, according to the UK National Archives, monitoring the loch for activity. They conducted the last major surface watch, McKenna said on Loch Ness Exploration’s Facebook page. In 1987, another team swept the loch with sonar.

In total, the Official Loch Ness Monster Sightings Register has recorded 1148 sightings. Three have been reported this year and six were reported last year, according to the register. People who snap photos often report a break or wake in the water or a dark-coloured hump or object appearing out of the water.

“As we watched a black lump appeared out of the water and sat for approximately 30 seconds before disappearing once again under the water,” one mother and daughter reported to the register in October 2022.

The late August hunt may offer enthusiasts the hope of making their own report. And even those who can’t travel to Scotland can check out a daily live stream of several spots on the lake, run by Visit Inverness Loch Ness.

Viewers who see something strange can take a screenshot, then report the sighting (the official register asks people to report to the webcam operators). The tourism website’s guide to the live streams notes that things like weather, wildlife and paddleboarders can “make a great Nessie shadow in the right light”.

To be considered as an official sighting, the footage must show “clear facial features of an unknown creature”, the website stipulates.

But, it adds, “We want you to spot the mystical legend that is our beloved Nessie.”

The Washington Post

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=NESSIE

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=CRYPTOZOOLOGY

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=LAKE+MONSTERS

DINOSAURS

British researchers find fossils showing Loch Ness monster-type creature 'plausible'

New fossils shed light on dinosaur habitat

By Andrew Mark Miller | Fox News

The discovery of new fossils is leading British scientists to conclude that the past existence of a Loch Ness monster was "plausible."

The development came when a group of researchers found the remains of small long-necked marine reptiles known as plesiosaurs in a 100 million-year-old river system in the Sahara Desert, the Telegraph reported.

Believers in the Loch Ness monster have long believed that the lake-dwelling creature could be a prehistoric reptile similar to the plesiosaur, but critics have maintained that the monster could not live in freshwater.

The new finding, made by researchers at the University of Bath, suggests otherwise.

LOCH NESS MONSTER: A HISTORY OF THE LEGENDARY BEAST

Scientist Thayne Smith Lowrance with a sonar device during one of his many attempts to find the legendary Loch Ness Monster, Scotland, February 1999. (Tom Stoddart Archive / Contributor)

The discovery, published in the journal Cretaceous Research, compares the creatures to river dolphins and the fossils found include bones and teeth from ten-foot long adults.

"What amazes me is that the ancient Moroccan river contained so many carnivores all living alongside each other," David Martill, co-author of the paper, said.

LOCH NESS MONSTER 'GIANT EEL' THEORY SUPPORTED BY NEWLY SURFACED VIDEO

Another one of the authors, Dr. Nick Longrich, said the scientists "don’t really know why the plesiosaurs are in freshwater."

Pilot Tom Dinsdale displays a model he made of the storied Loch Ness "Monster." Dinsdale claims he saw the "monster" and even made movies of it when he was at Loch Ness, Scotland (Getty Images)

"It’s a bit controversial, but who’s to say that because we paleontologists have always called them ‘marine reptiles’, they had to live in the sea?" Longirch said. "Lots of marine lineages invaded freshwater."

LOCH NESS MONSTER MYSTERY SOLVED? STUDY CLAIMS ANCIENT DINOSAUR DISCOVERY INFLUENCED DELUSION

A press release from the university stated that the findings show the Loch Ness Monster was "on one level, plausible."

"Plesiosaurs weren’t confined to the seas, they did inhabit freshwater," the press release explained. "But the fossil record also suggests that after almost a hundred and fifty million years, the last plesiosaurs finally died out at the same time as the dinosaurs, 66 million years ago."

A tourist boat passes Urquhart Castle on Loch Ness in Drumnadrochit, Scotland, on September 5, 2019. (Photo by Andy Buchanan / AFP)

The legend of the Loch Ness monster has commonly been attributed to a plesiosaur that somehow managed to survive the mass extinction event that killed off the dinosaurs.

Reports that a creature was living in the Loch Ness lake date as far back as the 6th century.

The first written account was recorded in 565 A.D. in a biography of St. Columba. According to the text, the creature bit a swimmer and was prepared to attack another man when Columba intervened. He ordered the beast to "go back" and it obeyed.

Hundreds of years later, the legend started to grow. After the construction of a road adjacent to Loch Ness was finished in 1933, giving onlookers an unobstructed view of the lake, a couple allegedly saw an enormous animal they compared to a "dragon or prehistoric monster" cross in front of their car and disappear into the water. The incident was reported in a Scottish newspaper and numerous sightings followed.

Alleged sightings continued throughout the 1900s, including a search by the so-called the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau that conducted a 10-year observational survey recording an average of 20 sightings per year and in the 1970s underwater photographs of what appeared to be a "flipper" were made public.

Additionally, several sonar explorations, most notably in 1987 and 2003, were undertaken to find the elusive beast — to no avail.

Over the years, more photographs have been taken, but most were discredited as fakes. In 1994, it was revealed that the famed "surgeon photograph" that alleged to be a photo of the monster was a hoax masterminded by a revenge seeker. The image was actually a plastic-and-wooden head attached to a toy submarine.

Fox News' Julia Musto contributed to this report

Andrew Mark Miller is a writer at Fox News. Find him on Twitter @andymarkmiller and email tips to AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com.

CRYPTOZOOLOGY 

With drones and webcams, volunteer hunters join a new search for the mythical Loch Ness Monster

JILL LAWLESS
Sat, August 26, 2023 

LONDON (AP) — Mystery hunters converged on a Scottish lake on Saturday to look for signs of the mythical Loch Ness Monster.

The Loch Ness Center said researchers would try to seek evidence of Nessie using thermal-imaging drones, infrared cameras and a hydrophone to detect underwater sounds in the lake’s murky waters. The two-day event is being billed as the biggest survey of the lake in 50 years, and includes volunteers scanning the water from boats and the lakeshore, with others around the world joining in with webcams.

Alan McKenna of the Loch Ness Center said the aim was “to inspire a new generation of Loch Ness enthusiasts.”

McKenna told BBC radio the searchers were “looking for breaks in the surface and asking volunteers to record all manner of natural behavior on the loch.”

“Not every ripple or wave is a beastie. Some of those can be explained, but there are a handful that cannot,” he said.

The Loch Ness Center is located at the former Drumnadrochit Hotel, where the modern-day Nessie legend began. In 1933, manager Aldie Mackay reported spotting a “water beast” in the mountain-fringed loch, the largest body of freshwater by volume in the United Kingdom and at up to 750 feet (230 meters) one of the deepest.

The story kicked off an enduring worldwide fascination with finding the elusive monster, spawning hoaxes and hundreds of eyewitness accounts. Numerous theories have been put forward over the years, including that the creature may have been a prehistoric marine reptile, giant eels, a sturgeon or even an escaped circus elephant.

Many believe the sightings are pranks or can be explained by floating logs or strong winds, but the legend is a boon for tourism in the picturesque Scottish Highlands region.

Such skepticism did not deter volunteers like Craig Gallifrey.

“I believe there is something in the loch,” he said, though he is open-minded about what it is. “I do think that there’s got to be something that’s fueling the speculation.”

He said that whatever the outcome of the weekend search, “the legend will continue.”

“I think it’s just the imagination of something being in the largest body of water in the U.K. … There’s a lot more stories,” he said. “There’s still other things, although they’ve not been proven. There’s still something quite special about the loch.”

200 monster hunters armed with drones join the biggest search in 50 years for Scotland's fabled Loch Ness creature


Rebecca Rommen
Sat, August 26, 2023 

The 1934 "surgeon's photo" of the monster, now deemed a hoax

Getty Images

200 volunteers are searching for the Loch Ness monster this weekend.


The operation in the Scottish Highlands is the biggest of its kind in 50 years.


The search for "Nessie" has been underway for 1300 years.

The fabled Loch Ness monster is attracting the biggest search operation in 50 years. The elusive monster, affectionately nicknamed "Nessie," is a fixture of Scottish folklore and is believed to inhabit the deep lake in the Scottish Highlands.

The legendary beast has eluded capture and definitive proof it was reportedly first spotted in the 6th century. The modern myth of Nessie began more recently when, in 1933, a hotel manager claimed to have seen a whale-like creature in the loch.

The famous "surgeon's photograph" of 1934 allegedly shows the marine creature's head and neck. It was published in the Daily Mail and continues to make waves despite most now agreeing that the photo was an elaborate hoax.

This weekend, 200 monster hunters are trying to do what those before them failed to accomplish, the Washington Post reports.

They are descending on the Highlands better equipped than their predecessors, using flying and underwater drones to survey the lake, which is 788 feet deep and 23 miles long.

They are also employing infrared cameras to determine heat spots and a hydrophone that can pick up acoustic signals 60 feet below the loch's surface.

These are not just people "with binoculars and a tub of sandwiches," insists Paul Nixon, head of Loch Ness Center. The expedition is the most elaborate in the 1300-year search for Nessie, the New York Times reports.

Many have speculated that Nessie is a dinosaur lost in time

View of Loch Ness, Scottish HighlandsGetty Images

Alongside the 200 volunteers on-site, almost 300 people have signed up to follow a livestream from the search, the BBC reports.

Paul Nixon added: "The interest in our weekend of activities has been fantastic, and to see how people worldwide are still fascinated by the story of the loch and Nessie."

The effort is the biggest since 1972, when the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau carried out a study. In the meantime, other efforts to find Nessie have persisted. In 1987, 24 boats outfitted with echo sounders swept the loch's length in Operation Deepscan.

Many speculated that the creature was a plesiosaur dinosaur, a marine reptile that went extinct 65.5 million years ago. They somehow became trapped in Loch Ness when a geological rupture cut it off from the sea.

In 2019, scientists reported Nessie could be a big eel.

This weekend's operation, "The Quest," will span the 23-mile-long loch. Participants are asked to document everything they see from organized surface-watched locations.

"We are looking for breaks in the surface and asking volunteers to record all manner of natural behavior on the loch," said Alan McKenna of Loch Ness Exploration to BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland program.

Alan Rawlinson, business development manager at Visit Inverness Loch Ness, told The Washington Post that the intrigue surrounding Nessie and Inverness draws more than one million visitors annually.

 

Unraveling the Loch Ness Monster’s eel connection

Newly published research in the journal JMIRx Bio challenges the popular theory linking the Loch Ness Monster to giant eels, revealing statistical evidence against their existence.

Peer-Reviewed Publication

JMIR PUBLICATIONS

 

IMAGE: LOCH NESS LAKE IN THE SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS WITH A WATER RIPPLE AND UNKNOWN OBJECT IN THE DISTANCE. view more 

CREDIT: JMIR PUBLICATIONS

(Toronto, July 24, 2023) In a new study published in JMIRx Bio, one of JMIR Publications’ new overlay journals, scientist Floe Foxon explores whether the Loch Ness Monster, a creature in Scottish folklore, could be a giant eel. Using previous estimates of the monster’s size to predict the probability of encountering a large eel of a similar size, the study found that giant eels could not account for sightings of larger animals in Loch Ness, a freshwater lake in the Scottish Highlands.

For decades, speculations about the Loch Ness Monster have captivated the world’s imagination, with some suggesting that giant eels may be responsible for many sightings. This research, however, casts doubt on the eel theory. The study used catch data from Loch Ness and other freshwater bodies in Europe to predict the likelihood of observing eels as large as previous estimates of the Loch Ness Monster’s size.

The chances of encountering a 1-meter eel in Loch Ness, according to the study, are approximately 1 in 50,000, which could explain some sightings of smaller unknown creatures. The probability of finding much larger eels, however, is virtually zero, debunking the theory that giant eels account for sightings of larger animals.

While acknowledging the potential presence of large eels in the loch, the study concludes that purely statistical considerations do not support the existence of exceptionally large eels.

“In this new work from the Folk Zoology Society, a much-needed level of scientific rigor and data are brought to a topic that is otherwise as slippery as an eel. Contrary to popular conception, the intersection between folklore and zoology is amenable to scientific analysis and has the potential to provide valuable insights into anthrozoological phenomena. This work also champions open access science and nontraditional publishing—the future of scientific publication,” says author Floe Foxon.

This study contributes to a better understanding of the Loch Ness Monster phenomenon and continues the quest to uncover the truth behind one of the world’s most enduring mysteries.

 

###

Original article:

Foxon F, The Loch Ness Monster: If It’s Real, Could It Be an Eel? JMIRx Bio. 2023;1:e49063

URL: https://xbio.jmir.org/2023/1/e49063

doi:10.2196/49063

 

About JMIR Publications

JMIR Publications is a leading, born-digital, open access publisher of 30+ academic journals and other innovative scientific communication products that focus on the intersection of health, and technology. Its flagship journal, the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is the leading digital health journal globally in content breadth and visibility, and is the largest journal in the medical informatics field.

 

To learn more about JMIR Publications, please visit jmirpublications.com or connect with us via Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram.

Head office: 130 Queens Quay East, Unit 1100, Toronto, ON, M5A 0P6 Canada

Media contact: communications@jmir.org

The content of this communication is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, published by JMIR Publications, is properly cited.

---

DOI

10.2196/49063 

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Animals

ARTICLE TITLE

The Loch Ness Monster: If It’s Real, Could It Be an Eel?

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

21-Jul-2023

CRYPTID/CRYPTOZOOLOGY
Second ‘sighting’ of Loch Ness monster in same week


Simon Johnson
Fri, 1 September 2023 

The photograph taken by Charlotte Robinson in August 2018 - PETER JOLLY/NORTHPIX

A girl has claimed to have spotted the Loch Ness monster in the same week other newly released photographs were taken allegedly showing the legendary beast.

Charlotte Robinson, 12, from Leeds in Yorkshire, was recorded in the official sightings register as having seen the mythical creature emerge from the loch around 50ft away.

She said that it had a “a neck and head was in the shape of a hook” and that it disappeared, before reemerging elsewhere for about a minute.


She took a picture on her mobile phone that appears to show something protruding from the loch’s surface, although it is unlikely to settle the decades-long debate over whether a serpent-type creature is living in its waters.

Charlotte Robinson on the shores of Loch Ness, where she believes she took a photograph of the creature in 2018 - PETER JOLLY/NORTHPIX

Charlotte’s picture was taken on Aug 17, 2018, four days after other images that were hailed as the “most exciting ever” when they emerged this week.

Chie Kelly, a translator, who took those photographs, said she had witnessed the creature moving at “steady speed” on the banks of the loch while she was holidaying there.

Her images were only published this week as she feared public ridicule at the time.

Ms Kelly was eventually persuaded to release them by Steve Feltham, who has spent more than 30 years searching for Nessie.

The photos taken by Chie Kelly - Chie Kelly/Peter Jolly/Northpix

‘I couldn’t believe it’

Charlotte’s sighting came on the first day of her holiday at Loch Ness Highland Lodges at Invermoriston with her parents.

“There was something in the water about 50ft from the shore. I took a photo. It had a neck and head was in the shape of a hook,” she said.

“I just took what I saw. It was black – I just don’t know how far it was out of the water. I’m not good at judging distances. But after about a minute it disappeared and then came back up again in a different place.

“It was up for less than a minute the second time. I kind of believed in Nessie, but I wanted to see the proof. I always imagined her as having a long neck and flippers. I have seen something but I’m not sure what.”

Her mother Kat, a business intelligence data analyst, told reporters at the time: “Charlotte said she had taken a photo of a creature in the loch and I said ‘right, sure you have!’ For weeks she’s been going on about seeing the Loch Ness monster.

“But when I saw the picture, I couldn’t believe it. Something’s there. With all the sightings over the years there must be something in the loch.”

Charlotte’s sighting was accepted by the Official Loch Ness Monster Sightings Register, while Ms Kelly’s four days earlier has just been added.
‘Extraordinary week’

Gary Campbell, the keeper of the register, said: “It was some extraordinary week because as well as Charlotte’s sighting there were three others of an unexplained creature.

“It appears that the creature was moving between Dores and Fort Augustus. These pictures by Ms Kelly and Charlotte are the best of Nessie ever taken and are totally baffling. It all adds to the evidence that is definitely something unexplained in Loch Ness.”

Mr Feltham said the photographs taken by Ms Kelly were “the most exciting surface pictures I have seen” and “vindication for all the people who believe there is something unexplained in Loch Ness”.

The first recorded sighting of the Loch Ness monster was made in 564 but the legend captured the public imagination in the 1930s.

It followed Mrs Aldie Mackay, a hotel manager, reporting seeing a “whale-like fish” in the waters of Loch Ness on April 14 1933, which was featured in the Inverness Courier. The story was quickly followed up by the national press.

The Surgeon’s Photo from 1934

The following year, the most famous image of the monster, known as “The Surgeon’s Photo”, was captured and published in the Daily Mail. For decades it was seen as evidence of the monster’s existence.

However, it was described as a fake by The Telegraph in 1975, and is now believed to have been created as part of an elaborate hoax.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for LOCH NESS 

#CRYPTID
Nessie sceptic saw something fishy during Loch Ness walk!
By Louise Glen- louise.glen@hnmedia.co.uk
26 September 20

Corey Sturrock on the banks of Loch Ness where he observed a large eel shape in the water...Picture: Gary Anthony..

A Nessie sceptic has been converted after spotting a giant creature rise out of the water while out for a walk.

Corey (23) and Lauren (22) Sturrock were walking at Dores on Saturday at around 3.40pm when they saw something the “size of a bus” emerge from the depths.

Mr Sturrock, who is a full-time carer for his wife, said he has always dismissed any talk of the Loch Ness monster, but after seeing the eel-like fish believes that there is something lurking in the waters that is quite unbelievable.

Mr Sturrock said he was reluctant to come forward in case people thought he was claiming to have seen Nessie.

But he said there were a number of people on the loch-side who saw the same thing.

He said: “I have been camping and walking on Loch Ness my whole life and I have never believed in the Loch Ness monster.

“But what my wife and I saw was something quite extraordinary and I would like to know if other people have seen the same.

“It was, what looked like to me and Lauren, like a massive eel. It was the size of a bus.

“It was massive.

“We saw the water rippling as if something was swelling, and that is what grabbed our attention.

“We then saw this thing, that looked like a massive eel rise from the water, and then go back under again.

“There was a large swell.

“Other people walking on the same path saw it as well.

“I reached for my phone – but it was all over in a matter of about 10 or 20 seconds – and it only showed itself for a few seconds. By the time I got my phone out it had gone underneath again.

“It didn’t look like all those Nessie drawings with the humps – it was just a large, or very large eel.

“After never believing there was anything in the loch, and no basis for belief in the Loch Ness monster, I would say that perhaps there are large eels in the water – and when they emerge they may look like a monster.

“Whatever it was it was some size.”

Not including Mr and Mrs Sturrock’s experience, seven Nessie sightings have been recorded in 2020 so far.

The latest in the Official Loch Ness Monster Sightings Register was added on August 29 after photos were taken by tourist Mr Van-Schuerbeck.

A spokesman for the register

said he spotted an “unexplained phenomenon” when he looked back at photos taken near Point Clair.

A long-distance walker was also convinced earlier this month he captured the shadowy shape of the Loch Ness Monster while hiking between Fort Augustus and Invermoriston.

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/nessie-sceptic-saw-something-fishy-during-loch-ness-walk-213374/

Fossil Discovery Suggests Nessie, the 'Mythical' Creature, Could Have Existed

NESSIE IS NOT A PLESIOSAUR SHE IS A GIANT EEL

Story by Rosemary Giles 

One of the most famous mythical creatures in the world is the Loch Ness Monster. Spurred on by alleged sightings of the beast, along with occasional photographic evidence, amateur investigators constantly visit the Scottish loch with hopes of capturing proof of their own. While many of the photographs of Nessie have been revealed as fakes, people haven't stopped their searches. Many are still trying to find an explanation for what the monster could be.

Historically, one of the assumptions was that Nessie could be a plesiosaur, an extinct marine reptile. This theory was dismissed for a number of reasons, including the fact that this creature was only found in saltwater. A discovery by scientists in Morocco might just change this belief, however. Nessie could have indeed been a plesiosaur.

Descriptions of the Loch Ness Monster

There are many varied descriptions from people claiming to have seen the Loch Ness Monster. In 1933, a couple said they saw a "dragon or prehistoric monster" cross the road and go into the water. Then, in 1934, the famous "surgeon's photograph" was taken, showing a creature with a small head and long neck peeking out of the water. It was this photograph that led people to believe Nessie could be a plesiosaur.


An alleged photograph of the Loch Ness Monster, near Inverness, Scotland, April 19, 1934. (Photo Credit: Keystone/ Getty Images)

The idea of the surviving plesiosaur was bolstered in 1975 when Boston's Academy of Applied Science used underwater photography and sonar to capture an image they believed to be Nessie. It seemed to show a flipper similar to that of a plesiosaur. Other images surfaced as well, one of which appeared to show the head, neck, and torso of the same type of creature.

Plesiosaurs could live in freshwater

Related video: 55 fossils discovered by local curator

Duration 1:02

View on Watch

In a joint discovery, scientists from the University of Portsmouth, the University of Bath, and the Université Hassan II found fossils of small plesiosaurs located in a 100 million year old river system in Morocco. The fossils included neck, back, and tail vertebrae, as well as teeth and a piece of forelimb. They were found in different locations, meaning that they were from many animals, and not one single skeleton.


Rupert van der Werff puts the final touches on a Plesiosaur skeleton. 

(Photo Credit: Gareth Fuller/ PA Images/ Getty Images)

This discovery raised a lot of questions, as it was initially thought that plesiosaurs only lived in saltwater environments. It is unclear whether they lived temporarily in these freshwater environments, or permanently. However, the heavy wear on the teeth indicates that they likely ate the same type of food as the spinosaurus, fossils of which have also been found in riverbeds.

The scientists felt that their theory of plesiosaurs spending lots of time in freshwater environments was also backed up by the sheer number of fossils that they found, meaning that they weren't just traveling to the river to feed.

Could it be Nessie?

The scientists were, of course, asked about the connection between this discovery and the Loch Ness Monster. They said that given the new evidence that plesiosaurs could live in fresh water, there is a chance that Nessie might have existed in Loch Ness. However, they also said that other evidence indicates that the last of the species died roughly 65 million years ago, along with the dinosaurs.



Former Royal Air Force pilot Tom Dinsdale displays a model he made of the Loch Ness Monster which he claimed he saw. (Photo Credit: Bettmann/ Getty Images)


Nick Longrich, one of the researchers, also expressed that the environment in Loch Ness was not conducive to supporting the animal, as it is much too small. He squashed the theory, saying it would be difficult for a plesiosaur to exist undetected by humans. "Something like a plesiosaur, it's large. It's conspicuous. It has to surface and breathe air. If they existed, people would see them come up for air. One would die and wash up on-shore like whales."

Loch Ness Monster Probably A Giant Eel, According To ...

Sep. 5, 2019 — Water samples analyzed for DNA are actually referred to as “environmental DNA” by scientists. After analyzing the samples, scientists determined ...

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=NESSIE

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=CRYPTOZOOLOGY

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=LAKE+MONSTERS

Loch Ness struggles with Scotland's shifting climate
Agence France-Presse
August 4, 2023

Loch Ness, the second-largest Scottish loch by surface area after Loch Lomond Andy Buchanan AFP

Around Scotland's Loch Ness, famous for hosting a mythical monster in its murky depths, another prolonged dry spell earlier this year has heightened fears of a different kind.

The drier than usual start to 2023, alongside other gradual climate shifts, is having implications for everything from native wildlife and species -- including Scotland's famous salmon population -- to farming and power production.

"Water is becoming a commodity that's becoming scarce in this part of the world," salmon fisherman Brian Shaw told AFP during a visit early last month, as Scotland reeled from its hottest June on record.

"Everybody's looking to use the water for their own needs."

Figures released in May by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) confirmed what seasoned observers could already see: Loch Ness's fresh waters -- Scotland's largest by volume -- had dropped to their lowest level in decades.

It had not been this shallow -- with a depth of around 109 cms (3.5 ft) at a hydroelectric dam halfway along its eastern shore -- since the early 1990s.

"It's held at this level for several months now," Gordon Mangus, 84, who grew up near the legendary lake and now serves as its harbour master, noted.

"We are used to rain, but we are not used to having quite such dry spells."

The situation is mirrored in other Highlands areas, including Loch Maree to the northeast and Black Isle to the west.

- More dry weather -

"Everybody thinks of Scotland as a wet country, but the droughts are becoming more frequent now, as a result of climate change," explained Nathan Critchlow, the head of water and planning at Sepa.

"We used to see drought very rarely, about once every 18 years. By 2050, we predict you will have very low water levels about every other year.

"So Scotland's climate is changing and we are starting to see the impacts of that change."

On the banks of the River Ness, which flows from the loch into the sea at Inverness, the UK's northernmost city, Shaw pointed to the waterway's visible stone bed as evidence of its diminishing levels.

The director of the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board said the river's depth had been falling steadily for years, but the trend had become more noticeable.

"A dry winter, a really dry spring, a very hot June and the river just got smaller and smaller," he told AFP.

The warmer, drier weather had hit its wild salmon population, Shaw said.

One of the small streams that feeds the river has already dried up, leaving dead fish behind, he added.

"You're starting to see this sort of event happening all the time and I think there's real concern about the future of salmon and a more challenging environment as we go ahead."

While much-needed rain in recent weeks has brought some respite to parts of Scotland, water levels remain depleted to "an alert point" in some areas, according to Sepa.

And Britain's Meteorological Office is forecasting another dry period later in the summer.

- Demand for water -

Demand for water in summer is also intensifying, with more competition for it among farmers, fishermen, domestic users including tourists and hydroelectric firms, according to locals.

SSE Renewables, which runs a hydroelectric scheme at Loch Ness, has faced claims from fishermen and others that it was causing the loch's levels to drop by storing water to generate electricity.

The operator has denied that, saying the months of dry weather had depleted it.

Environmental experts are warning residents and businesses must adapt to the changing weather patterns and to prepare for periods of water scarcity and floods as the average temperature rises.

According to the Climate Change Committee (CCC), an advisory body appointed by the UK Government, Scotland's 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997.

The average temperature between 2010 and 2019 was around 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer than the average between 1961 and 1990.

Wetter weather in some places has arrived in tandem with the temperature rises, mainly in winter, with the annual average rainfall between 2010 and 2019 up nine percent on 1961-1990.

At Loch Ness, before retreating back to his cabin to monitor the boats, Mangus recalled childhood memories, from entering its waters to exploring its shoreline with his father and brother.

Although the octogenarian blames the hydroelectric dam as much as the changing climate for Loch Ness's shifting water levels, he conceded that what is happening there now is "rare".

‘Monster hunters’ wanted in new search for the mythical Loch Ness beast

 August 5, 2023

LONDON (AP) — The Loch Ness Centre in Scotland is calling for “budding monster hunters” and volunteers to join in what it dubs the largest search for the Loch Ness Monster since the 1970s.

The visitor attraction said this week that modern technology such as drones that produces thermal images of the lake will “search the waters in a way that has never been done before.”

The new surface water search for the fabled “Nessie,” planned for the weekend of Aug. 26 and 27, is billed as the largest of its kind since the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau studied the loch for signs of the mythical beast in 1972.

The Loch Ness Centre is located at the old Drumnadrochit Hotel, where in 1933 manager Aldie Mackay reported spotting a “water beast” in the loch, the largest body of freshwater by volume in the United Kingdom and one of its deepest.

The story kicked off an enduring worldwide fascination with finding the elusive monster, spawning hoaxes and hundreds of eyewitness accounts. Numerous theories or explanations have been put forward over the years, including that the creature may have been a plesiosaur, a prehistoric marine reptile, giant eels or even swimming circus elephants.

The Loch Ness Centre said its team will deploy drones equipped with infrared cameras so they can produce thermal images of the water from the air. A hydrophone will also be used to detect acoustic signals under the water.

Volunteers will be asked to keep an eye out for any breaks or other movements in the water, with guidance from experts on what to look out for and how to record findings.

“It’s our hope to inspire a new generation of Loch Ness enthusiasts,” said Alan McKenna, of Loch Ness Exploration, a voluntary research team taking part in the upcoming search. “By joining this large-scale surface watch, you’ll have a real opportunity to personally contribute towards this fascinating mystery that has captivated so many people from around the world.”

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=NESSIE

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=CRYPTOZOOLOGY

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=LAKE+MONSTERS

#CRYPTOZOOLOGY #CRYPTID #NESSIE

Scientists make discovery on dinosaur believed to be related to the Loch Ness Monster

Tori B. Powell - 


The plesiosaur — an aquatic dinosaur once thought to exclusively reside in saltwater — is now believed to have spent much of its time in freshwater, according to a new study. The discovery is likely to fuel believers of the Loch Ness Monster on their pursuit of proving the legend is real, as some claim "Nessie" was a descendant of the plesiosaur.



Discovery fuels Loch Ness Monster believers
View on Watch
Duration 3:34

"As a scientist, I can never say anything is impossible," paleontologist and lead author of the study, Nick Longrich, told CBS News correspondent Dana Jacobson. "All hypotheses are on the table at some level until they're proven false."

He said a team of paleontologists from the University of Bath, the University of Portsmouth in the UK and the Université Hassan II in Morocco discovered "a lot of different plesiosaur fossils" within a 100-million year old river system that's now a part of Morocco's Sahara Desert. The findings, he said, were "a little surprising."

"It indicates this group was able to come specialized to exploit freshwater environments," Longrich said.

The fossils found included bones and teeth from both adults and one baby plesiosaur scattered along different localities, which indicate where the animal died as well as where the animals lived, scientists said.

"We found a lot of fossils suggesting these things were up there routinely and probably spent much, if not all, of their lives in freshwater," Longrich said.

Some believers of the centuries-old Loch Ness Monster folktale say the creature was last seen alive in the Loch Ness freshwater body of water in the Scottish Highlands. But some scientists doubt that an ancient dinosaur could have survived in the loch's dark and frigid water, as it was formed only 10,000 years ago during the Ice Age.

The recent fossil discovery also suggests that the last plesiosaurs went extinct around the same time as the rest of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago, which contradicts claims from some Loch Ness Monster believers who say the creature was last seen alive as recent as 1975.

"We could find the Loch Ness Monster tomorrow. It could be a plesiosaur," Longrich said. "I think that is, however, extremely unlikely given the evidence we have at this point."

Nonetheless, the study's paleontologists said the possibility of the so-called Loch Ness Monster being related to a plesiosaur is "plausible."

CRYPTOZOOLOGY

Loch Ness monster hunter has spent 28 years tracking down mysterious creature

Steve Feltham has been keeping a keen eye on Loch Ness since 1991 in the hope that he will catch a glimpse of the famous Nessie.

A 56-year-old Nessie hunter has now spent most of his life looking for the creature after spending 10,397 days on his quest.

For more than 28 years, Steve Feltham has been watching Loch Ness for a sighting of the monster – setting a world record for the longest Nessie vigil in the process.


And on Saturday, he recorded a monster milestone of 10,397 days – at which point hunting for Nessie technically accounted for more than half his life.

But Steve says he is prepared to spend the next 10,000 days at the loch if that’s what it takes to solve the mystery.

Steve Feltham has now spent more than half of his life trying to track down Nessie

Steve, who will celebrate his 57th birthday on January 30, said: “It was on July 18, 1991, that I arrived full-time at Loch Ness and I have not regretted a day of it.

“The balance of my life has tipped – I have now spent more time looking for Nessie than not.”

Last year, Steve was the star of a film about him by a director from Oscar -winner Ridley Scott’s company. Others who have called on him over the years include Eric Idle, Robin Williams, the Chinese State Circus and Billy Connolly , who asked him to be a guide for some of his A-list chums for a day.

Steve, who is recognised by Guinness World Records for the longest continuous monster-hunting vigil of the loch, first visited the area aged seven on a family holiday.

Steve Feltham at Loch Ness in search of Nessie in 1991 (Image: IAN JOLLY)

He returned many times, with a camera and binoculars, before leaving his job, home and girlfriend in Dorset to move to the banks of the loch in 1991.

Within days, his brother located a former mobile library, which has been Steve’s home at Dores ever since.

After two years of scanning the loch, Steve caught a glimpse of an unexplained disturbance in the water but didn’t have his camera to hand. He has kept a careful watch since but Nessie has not shown herself again.

The adventurer makes money by creating models of the Loch Ness Monster and selling them to tourists.

Steve said he's 'more convinced than ever' that there is something in legend of Nessie

He said: “I never came here to be a cottage industry. I came here to solve a mystery and so far I’ve given up more than 10,400 of my days to do so and I’m prepared to spend the same time again. I don’t regret a day of it. I have lived my life trying to solve one of the world’s greatest mysteries and it’s been the realisation of a dream.

“When I first came I thought I was looking for a plesiosaur, then a Wels catfish – which it might be – and I’m currently reappraising the evidence.

“The vast majority of sightings can be explained but that still leaves those that can’t.”

About 14 years ago, Steve met his partner Hilary, 52, while she was on a trip from her home in Inverness . But he has failed to convince her of Nessie’s existence.


Steve said: “She is sceptical, which is good because she helps me question things. A large part of what I’ve done is to disprove some of the hoaxes.

“But I am more convinced than ever that there is something and I’m very patient.

“I feel confident I will find bits of jigsaw in the Loch Ness Monster puzzle. I’m also deliriously happy to keep going for as long as it takes.”

---30---

CRYPTOZOOLOGY

Taxonomania: An Incomplete Catalog of Invented Species, From the Pop-Eyed Frog to the Loch Ness Monster

Every now and then fantastical species make their way into the scientific literature, taking the scientific community for a ride.

A jumble of old labels from the mammal collection. Museum für Naturkunde Berlin. 

Photo: Michael Ohl By: Michael Ohl

From time to time, sandwiched between the more comprehensive real articles, brief fictional descriptions will find their way into scientific journals. The motivation for doing so varies, but it’s usually with humorous intent. The problem that scientific journals face in publishing such entries is their scientific nature — that is, their responsibility to publish only articles that make verifiable claims about the natural world. Because the journals expect this of their authors, readers expect the same of the journal and rely on the belief that every article will meet general scientific standards. Unless directly obvious, fantastical works not based on scientific methods can quickly and often irreparably damage the reputation of a journal.

This article is excerpted from Michael Ohl’s book “The Art of Naming.”

Austrian entomologist Hans Malicky used this to his advantage. Malicky is known outside Austria as a prominent expert on caddisflies. In the late 1960s, he chaired the Entomological Society of Austria; in this position, he also published the society newsletter, the Entomologische Nachrichtenblatt. The bulletin primarily published anecdotal and not infrequently irrelevant articles on a range of insect-related news items. As its editor, Malicky pushed for raising the scientific standard. The society saw things a bit differently, it has been said, and Malicky was summarily relieved of his post. A short time later, Malicky submitted an article to the society’s other publication, the Zeitschrift der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Österreichischer Entomologen, using the pseudonym Otto Suteminn. The focus of the piece, which appeared in 1969, was two new flea species from Nepal, Ctenophthalmus nepalensis and Amalareus fossorius.

At first glance, nothing jumped out as peculiar about the article: two new species names, complete with morphological descriptions, location of discovery, and author. At first glance, no one could tell that it was all completely fabricated, and because none of the manuscripts submitted to either of the society’s journals went through a process of peer review — something Malicky had wanted to change as editor — the new editor didn’t notice anything was amiss either. The article was published. While insiders close to Malicky saw what was happening, it wasn’t until 1972 that a short article was printed in the Entomologische Nachrichtenblatt by F. G. A. M. Smit, a well-known flea researcher at the Natural History Museum in London. Its title was “Notes on Two Fictitious Fleas from Nepal.” Smit went through the original article line by line, showing that most of the information was invented. Not only the fleas, but also their mammal hosts, Canis fossor (literally, the “canine gravedigger”) and Apodemus roseus (the “pink wood mouse”), are both fictitious, although some of the flea species used for comparison are real. With a little imagination (and linguistic access), a number of the discovery locations provided reveal themselves to be thinly concealed expressions in Austrian dialect. Thanks to an Austrian colleague, Smit was able to provide an explanation for these names: “‘Khanshnid Khaib’ probably stands for ‘Kann’s nit geiba’ (cannot exist)” and “‘leg. Z. Minař’ can sound like a very vulgar (unprintable) expression.” Whether this form of humor is actually funny must be left to the reader to decide. Despite their debunking, Malicky’s two flea descriptions remain in effect to this day, and Ctenophthalmus nepalensis — the fictitious flea hosted by the fictitious “pink wood mouse” — even has its own Wikipedia page. As for Otto Suteminn — supposedly stationed at a regional museum in Košice, Czechoslovakia — he remained a mystery to Smit. The latter had even sent a letter to Suteminn’s address, requesting to borrow the fleas, but he received no reply, nor had the letter been returned. “Suteminn” itself was a pseudonym for Otto von Moltke, a fictitious knight from the region of Mecklenburg in a book by Karl May — a 19th-century adventure writer treasured by Germans and best known for his tales of the American Wild West. At times, the knight secretly retreats to a magical house, where he performs all manner of scientific experiments under the alias “Suteminn.”


Malicky’s two flea descriptions remain in effect to this day, and Ctenophthalmus nepalensis — the fictitious flea hosted by the fictitious “pink wood mouse” — even has its own Wikipedia page.

In 1978, the Journal of the Herpetological Association of Africa, a journal dedicated to the scientific study of reptiles and amphibians, published the description of Rana magnaocularis, the “pop-eyed frog.” The fictitious author is Rank Fross of the Loyal Ontario Museum, a malapropism of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. It’s a short article, little more than a page in length, composed with the structure and style of a legitimate species description. It opens as follows: “Night collecting along roads in Ontario has revealed a new species of frog strikingly characterized by enormous eyes and a flattened body. The species is described below and the adaptive significance of its diagnostic features are discussed.” The diagnosis: “Eyes enormous, protruding tongue usually extended, body and limbs highly flattened dorso ventrally. Dorso lateral fold absent. Otherwise resembles Rana pipiens.” The species could regularly be found in or alongside busy paved roads, especially in the spring. The discussion section is particularly amusing:


Three questions require attention. Of what significance is the peculiar morphology, why is it restricted to a single habitat and how does it move?

Why is the body so flattened and why are the eyes so large? We believe that these are adaptations to the peculiar habitat. Normally frogs are at least partially hidden from potential predators by reeds, grass or bushes. On the road they are completely exposed, however. In evolving a two-dimensional body, the pop-eyed frog is enabled to escape the attention of all predators excepting those immediately overhead. […]

We were at first puzzled as to how it moved from one place to another, observations on live specimens being lacking. Initially we found the tread-like markings found on the upper surface puzzling. Of what use were the treads in locomotion when they were not in contact with the ground? Analogy with the hoop snake offered a hypothesis; the frogs roll themselves into a ring, insert the extruded tongue in the posterior, and roll themselves neatly along, thereby engaging the treads with the road surface.

The description includes a cartoonish sketch of a frog lying in the street with bulging eyes, its tongue fully extended.

It’s clear that this is a description of the many leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) that are squashed in the road each spring. What’s less clear is whether the name can be considered available, according to the nomenclature rules. There certainly aren’t any amphibian taxonomists who would want to include the name in their species lists. If one used the zoological nomenclature rules as the yardstick, surely it would be possible to find an article violated by this species description, thus rendering the name formally unavailable. Many of the basic requirements appear to have been fulfilled: the description is properly published, and it has a scientific name, diagnosis, description, and explicit designation of type material. It’s highly likely that this flat frog hasn’t really been inventoried as a holotype in the collections of the Royal (or Loyal) Ontario Museum. But it isn’t the purpose of the nomenclature rules to assess the credibility of statements made. Even with serious species descriptions, it’s only in exceptional cases that the inventory number and existence of type material are reviewed.


Even with serious species descriptions, it’s only in exceptional cases that the inventory number and existence of type material are reviewed.

All that remains, then, is the disqualifying factor used in Girault’s case, namely, that regarding hypothetical concepts. Nowhere does the publication state that Rana magnaocularis is a hypothetical concept, and what makes the situation even stickier is the fact that the description is based — at least potentially — on a real, physical animal. Reading between the lines, one must therefore conclude that the author’s explicit intent was to publish a name for a hypothetical concept, which would thus preclude him from the responsibility of adhering to the nomenclature rules. It’s safe to assume that the scientists affected by this case (i.e., amphibian taxonomists) would welcome this opportunity to banish Rana magnaocularis to the group of unavailable frog names, and it’s likely the author would agree.

It’s no accident that when considering whether Rana magnaocularis is nomenclaturally relevant, the intent of the author should be emphasized so strongly. If the consensus were that the author was naming a hypothetical concept, it’s unlikely that anyone would argue that the name signified a tangible biological entity and was therefore made available through its publication. The question as to the author’s intent becomes tricky in cases where it’s not immediately clear. But what’s even trickier is when the author’s explicit intent is to name a species he or she believes is real but whose existence other scientists doubt or view as totally hypothetical.

These two criteria — the author’s intent and the physical existence of a biological basis — could actually be enough to separate the wheat from chaff. When it comes down to it, however, it’s anything but easy, and the Loch Ness Monster will show us why.

Since the sixth century, there have been reports of a large animal — or even a group of large animals — in Loch Ness, a deep freshwater lake in the Scottish Highlands. Along with the Yeti and Bigfoot, the monster known as Nessie is one of the best-known zoological mysteries studied by cryptozoologists. The field of cryptozoology examines legends and myths about large animals for their substance, guided by the belief that a significant number of folktales worldwide are based on truly existent but well-hidden animal species. As one of these mysterious mythical creatures, Nessie has grown enormously popular and plays a huge role in the Scottish tourism industry. Alleged sightings are reported to this day, but even systematic searches using sonar and automatic cameras (a necessary strategy, given the unfathomable depth of Loch Ness, which consequently contains by far the most water of all Scottish lakes) have failed to turn up indisputable proof of the existence of an unusually large animal inhabiting the loch.

One of the most widely circulated theories about Nessie is the suggestion that it’s a surviving plesiosaur — part of a group of sea reptiles that otherwise went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous Period, itself the final chapter of the Mesozoic, or the planet’s Middle Age. Plesiosaurs are characterized by an oblong body, long neck with a small head, and four large, paddle-like swimming extremities. The long neck, in particular, is a regularly recurring motif in popular representations of Nessie. And while there are plenty of scientific reasons that speak against the possible existence of a Plesiosaurus or plesiosaur-type creature in Loch Ness (such as the lake’s geological history or its having too little water and too few nutritional resources, even for a small population), the image of the aquatic dinosaur seems to have become permanently fixed to Nessie.

Many images allegedly show that the Loch Ness Monster exists. The first was taken in 1934 by R. K. Wilson, a respected surgeon, and laid the foundation for the plesiosaur myth. It depicts a large, long-necked creature gliding through the water. The photo was printed in the Daily Mail in 1934 and considered by some to constitute conclusive evidence for the existence of Nessie. However, in 1994, a rigorous study of the image revealed that Wilson had faked the photograph with the help of some accomplices.


Many images allegedly show that the Loch Ness Monster exists. The first was taken in 1934 by R. K. Wilson, a respected surgeon, and laid the foundation for the plesiosaur myth.

The best-known images of Nessie in recent decades were automatic underwater photos taken by patent judge Robert Rines and team. The group produced around 2,000 photos, which were taken in brief, regular intervals during an expedition in 1972 and another in 1975. Six of the photos contained noticeable forms, and of the six, two supposedly showed Nessie. The photos — which are rather grainy, despite their having been extensively retouched using the computer technology of the day — show what the authors were convinced were rhomboidal fins, as well as part of the body of a large animal. Using the camera’s magnification, it was calculated that the back right fin was approximately two meters in length.
The first photo allegedly showing the existence of the Loch Ness monster was taken in 1934 by R. K. Wilson, a respected surgeon, and published in the Daily Mail.

Based on some of these underwater photos, as well as sonar diagrams created around the same time, Rines and Sir Peter Scott — a photographer and conservationist — decided to formally describe and name the monster of Loch Ness. They published the description in Nature, one of the world’s most respected scientific journals, which guaranteed them international attention. The scientific name they selected was Nessiteras rhombopteryx, which is derived as follows: the first part of Nessiteras is obvious, referring to Nessie and thus the name of its home, Loch Ness. The second part ostensibly derives from the Greek teras; the authors write that since Homer, this term has been used to mean “a marvel or wonder, and in a concrete sense for a range of monsters which arouse awe, amazement and often fear.” The specific epithet is a combination of the Greek rhombos, for rhomboidal, and pteryx, for fins or wings. Scott and Rines write that, literally translated, Nessiteras rhombopteryx means “the Ness wonder with a diamond fin.”

The existence of the Loch Ness Monster is anything but obvious, but Scott and Rines substantiate their comprehensive description with information from their photos and other sightings to date. Granted, at first glance there’s not much to see in the photos: a few shadowy and light fields bleed into each other, making any discernible forms hard to interpret. A larger photo shows a white structure that seems almost to suggest a horned head, despite the image’s flaws. Scott and Rines draw what they can from the photos: they describe the approximately two-meter-long fin (the right rear?), areas of the back and belly displaying rough skin texture, and maybe a few ribs. These two small photos, which the authors believe exhibit these structures, represent the actual basis for the Nessiteras rhombopteryx description. All other information provided is guesswork. Based on a fin length of two meters, and with the help of the calibrated photographs, Nessie is said to be 15 to 20 meters in length, with a neck three to four meters long and a small head, which might feature a few horn-like protrusions. The spotty description is completed by two reconstructions that depict a plesiosaurus-type animal, whose body is rather fat and ungainly around the front extremities. The authors pointedly avoid the question as to which animal group Nessie would belong to. The existence of the rhomboidal fins means it would be a vertebrate, no question. According to Scott and Rines, there are no living whale species with even remotely similar fins. D’accord. All that leaves us with is a reptile of some sort, but as the authors concede, any more precise definition would be pure speculation.


Literally translated, Nessiteras rhombopteryx means “the Ness wonder with a diamond fin.”

Scott and Rines could easily foresee that the description of Nessiteras rhombopteryx would be met with criticism. They point out that the nomenclature rules allow species descriptions based on photographs, and that they had to rely on this allowance because unfortunately there wasn’t any type material for Nessie. This isn’t entirely true because technically speaking all that’s missing is the physically available holotype. There was, however, most certainly a type specimen from August 8, 1972, onward because they took a picture of it.

At the end of the description, Scott and Rines state that it “had been calculated” that the biomass available in Loch Ness was sufficient to sustain animals of this size, given the ample populations of salmon, sea trout, and large eels at their disposal. They also believe it possible that 12,000 years ago, at which point Loch Ness was an estuary, it was cut off from the ocean by an encroaching isthmus. A small population of Nessiteras rhombopteryx could thus have been isolated and contained within Loch Ness, where they’ve been living ever since.

It’s worth noting that Scott and Rines open their article with an explanation as to why they want to name the Loch Ness Monster in the first place. Schedule 1 of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act, passed by the UK Parliament in 1975, extends full protection to any animal whose survival in nature is threatened. To fall into this category, the organisms must have both a scientific and a colloquial name. Although Scott and Rines grant that Nessie’s existence remains controversial among specialists, they propose to operate under the principle of “better safe than sorry.” Accordingly, if lawmakers are to undertake measures to protect this species of no more than a few individuals (at best) — should its existence ever actually be proven — then it should be acknowledged, they reason, that its inclusion in Schedule 1 has already been cemented through its formal naming.

Anthropologist and Bigfoot researcher Grover Krantz impersonating Bigfoot on TV. Source: UC Berkeley, Cal Alumni Association

It’s not unprecedented for a possibly fictitious organism to fall under official protection. In 1969, Skamania County in Washington State put Bigfoot on the list of protected species. Bigfoot (also known in Canada as Sasquatch) is the legendary ape-man of the Rockies and Appalachians; alleged sightings continue to this day, but its existence has yet to be proven through indisputable evidence. Various theories regarding Bigfoot’s systematic assignment have been discussed. One of the most popular ideas is that Bigfoot is a descendant of Gigantopithecus, an extinct genus of giant ape from Southeast Asia known to us only through fossils. The Yeti, or Abominable Snowman, is also thought to be related to Gigantopithecus and, thus, to Bigfoot. In his book “Big Foot-Prints,” anthropologist and Bigfoot researcher Grover S. Krantz, who died in 2002, discusses the plausibility of the Bigfoot and Sasquatch legends and suggests a few vague possibilities for scientific names. Should Bigfoot be proven to belong to Gigantopithecus, then Gigantopithecus canadensis would suggest itself as an appropriate choice. Should Bigfoot ultimately require its own genus, then it should be called Gigantanthropus, presumably with the same specific epithet, canadensis. Krantz also considers a possible connection between Bigfoot and Australopithecus, an extinct genus of early humans found in Africa, which would lead to the name Australopithecus canadensis. Gordon Strasenburgh, another Bigfoot expert, had already published in 1971 on potential family ties between Bigfoot and another genus of hominids, resulting in an altogether different name: Paranthropus eldurrelli.


It’s not unprecedented for a possibly fictitious organism to fall under official protection. In 1969, Skamania County in Washington State put Bigfoot on the list of protected species.

But let’s return to the question of whether Nessiteras rhombopteryx is nomenclaturally available, which remains unanswered. Is it a valid name, according to the zoological nomenclature rules? Description, diagnosis, name, publication — check, check, check, check. The discussion is therefore focused instead on whether Nessiteras rhombopteryx names a hypothetical concept, in which case it wouldn’t fall under the purview of zoological nomenclature. Many people would surely assert that Nessie is a creature of myth and legend, lacking a biological manifestation in Loch Ness or anyplace else on Earth, which would therefore indicate a hypothetical concept. However, an important tenet of taxonomy is that, first and foremost, what is published is valid. Based on the publication, there’s no doubt that both Scott and Rines are thoroughly convinced that Nessie exists. In other words, the description of Nessiteras rhombopteryx was not published explicitly for a hypothetical concept, and it’s doubtful that the opinion held by many, if not most, scientists—that is, that Nessie is not real—could be reason enough to strike the name from the list of animal species in Great Britain. So there’s a lot to suggest that Nessiteras rhombopteryx can be accepted as a real, earnest, and, yes, valid name.

Interestingly, Scott and Rines compare their new species Nessiteras rhombopteryx with other mythical sea serpents, but specifically those that have also been formally named. The oldest is the Massachusetts Sea Serpent, named Megophias monstrosus in 1817 by naturalist Constantine Samuel Rafinesque-Schmaltz. It wasn’t until 1958 that Bernard Heuvelmans — the founder of cryptozoology and one of its most colorful characters — described Megalotaria longicollis, another fabled species with the appearance of a plesiosaur said to live in North American waters. After comparing their photos to the other species’ descriptions, however, Scott and Rines conclude that the older names aren’t applicable to the “owner of the hind flipper in the photographs.”

The Gloucester Sea Serpent of 1817, via Wikimedia Commons.

Bernard Heuvelmans did more than just provide an American sea serpent with a name. Following the Second World War, Heuvelmans — who was born in Normandy in 1916 and was torn for many years between his two great passions, jazz and biology — began to systematically study enigmatic, mythical animal species. His two-volume “Sur la Piste des Bêtes Ignorées”(On the Track of Unknown Animals) from 1955 was a bestseller and made him famous overnight. The book provided the cornerstone of modern cryptozoology.


Bernard Heuvelmans’ two-volume “Sur la Piste des Bêtes Ignorées”(On the Track of Unknown Animals) was a bestseller and made him famous overnight. The book provided the cornerstone of modern cryptozoology.

In this work and others, Heuvelmans published scientific names for a host of mythical creatures whose existence is disputed. In 1969, for instance, he described Homo pongoides based on the so-called Minnesota Iceman, a humanoid body frozen in a block of ice that was exhibited in malls and state fairs throughout the United States and Canada in the 1960s and 1970s. Heuvelmans believed that Homo pongoides represented a human species closely related to the Neanderthals that had presumably gone undetected until somehow being shot in the Vietnam War. There’s a lot to suggest that the Minnesota Iceman was a hoax.

Like the Minnesota Iceman, the Yeti also has Heuvelmans to thank for its scientific name: Dinanthropoides nivalis. Heuvelmans translated the name as the “terrible anthropoid of the snows.” If the Yeti, like Bigfoot, potentially represented a survivor of the extinct giant ape genus Gigantopithecus, then Dinanthropoides would be its younger synonym because the former name was published in 1935 by Gustav von Koenigswald. If this were the case, Heuvelmans concludes, then the Yeti’s scientific name would be adjusted accordingly to Gigantopithecus nivalis.

In this fashion, Heuvelmans works his way through the world of cryptids — the world of marvelous animals that so determinedly elude human detection. Not all are as popular as the Yeti, but Heuvelmans wants to use proper scientific names as the key to acknowledging their existence: the long-necked sea cow, 18 meters in length and quite possibly a sea lion (Megalotaria longicollis); the merhorse, an 18-meter-long, whiskered sea monster (Halshippus olaimagni); and the “Super Otter” (Hyperhydra egedei), a sea serpent 20 to 30 meters in length resembling an otter.

Whether Heuvelmans’s names would pass the test of the zoological nomenclature rules is questionable. But there is as little possibility here to oppose the status of a hypothetical concept as there was for Nessie. Even if Heuvelmans were the only person worldwide to believe the cryptids he named actually exist — which he isn’t, by the way — one would have to accept that the names were published for biological entities believed to truly exist. Whether parts of the Code beyond this stipulation were violated would have to be tested for each individual case.

Let us return to a central theme of this book: The Code is a convention developed over many years and by many minds, meant to standardize and thus simplify the management of droves of taxonomic data. How taxonomy — the science of recognition, description, and naming — relates to nomenclature — the rules for creating and managing names — is a regular topic of debate. In most cases of species description, the entities addressed by taxonomy and nomenclature coincide so elegantly that it can be difficult to tell the difference between them in everyday scientific work. The taxonomic process of species recognition and description is so closely intertwined with the naming process that it doesn’t seem necessary to differentiate between the two. Both taxonomy and naming are trained on the same object: a species or other biological entity waiting to be both described and named. As for “naming nothing,” however, the difference is especially striking. In these cases of cryptozoology, the object range for taxonomy is empty because most systematic scientists would agree that the species being described do not exist. The process of naming, however, continues as it always has and as it always should. It’s a linguistic process not an empirical one — it needn’t be bound to reality. Empirically oriented taxonomy and linguistic naming finally overlap when it comes to the range of validity determined by the zoological nomenclature rules. The Code applies only to those names intended for tangible biological entities. By excluding names for hypothetical concepts, the verdict has been issued for most of the names mentioned in this chapter. They don’t fall under the purview of the nomenclature rules and therefore don’t belong in the catalog of life. Were a bureaucratic taxonomist to adopt the view that some or even all of these names were formally relevant to the nomenclature, the question would remain as to what could be gained from this stripe of formalism. Whether the list of all organism names includes a few dozen cryptids — which could turn out to be either fairytale creatures or actual species — is mostly irrelevant to the big questions surrounding the inventory of global species diversity. Considered within this context, names like these are merely the stuff of academic jest, humor notwithstanding.

The publication of Nessiteras rhombopteryx in Nature, one of the best-known and most highly regarded scientific journals in the world, would ultimately prove to be its Disaster of the Year in 1975. The publication, which came out in early December, was followed by a global media response: The whole world was talking about Nessie and its new name. It was precisely the type of media presence a scientific journal like Nature had always dreamed of — and all because of a single scientific article. Before the year was out, however, Scottish parliamentarian Nicholas Fairbairn made a surprising discovery. He had played around with the letters of Nessiteras rhombopteryx and found it was an anagram of “monster hoax by Sir Peter S.” He informed the New York Times by letter, and by December 18, the Times had printed a brief note on the matter, citing the anagram as proof that Nessiteras rhombopteryx was a canard. For Nature, although Rines had countered that the letters could also be rearranged to spell “Yes, both pix are monsters. R.,” it was reason enough to realize it had been given the runaround. We’ll never know whether Robert Rines and Peter Scott had intentionally planted this anagram or it was merely a happy accident. Certainly, that a name formed with such serious scientific intent should contain within itself an admission of deceit constitutes a particularly beautiful example of the art of naming.

Michael Ohl is a biologist at the Natural History Museum of Berlin and an Associate Professor at Humboldt University in Berlin. He is the author of “The Art of Naming,” from which this article is excerpted.