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---

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Amazon punished its own sellers to limit Walmart's reach, FTC says

Thu, November 2, 2023 



By Siddharth Cavale and Arriana McLymore

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Amazon.com Inc punished its own sellers to limit Walmart's reach as Walmart got into e-commerce, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

In addition to making $1 billion by using a secret algorithm called "Project Nessie" to push up the prices that U.S. households pay, Amazon may have also succeeded in curbing Walmart's ambitions.

In 2014, the arrival of Jet.com triggered fear at Amazon that Jet.com would be able to offer shoppers lower prices online, the FTC said on Thursday, kick-starting Amazon's strategy of removing sellers’ offers from the Buy Box if shoppers could find the same products at lower prices on Jet.com. The Buy Box is the button that allows shoppers to make a purchase directly from a seller.

Walmart acquired Jet.com in 2016.

"Given Amazon's size and a scale, their quantitative analytical might, and particularly, against the background that they had not made a profit on (Amazon.com) for the first 20 years, it's not surprising that they would resort to such tactics against competitors," retail consultant Burt Flickinger said.

Like Amazon, Walmart operates a third-party online marketplace, with merchandise from thousands of independent sellers. On Amazon, millions of independent merchants currently sell goods its marketplace. Both Walmart and Amazon collect fees and commissions from the merchants on their platforms.

By not collecting seller commissions, Jet.com could offer prices that were 10% to 15% lower than what Amazon advertised, the FTC said in a less-redacted version of a previous complaint against Amazon. This, Amazon realized, could result in sellers passing on those savings to customers, the FTC said.

To hamstring Jet.com, Amazon removed some third-party sellers' offers from its Buy Box. The complaint cites one Amazon seller who adopted a policy of making "absolutely sure that our products are not priced lower on Walmart than they are on Amazon" because of pressure from Amazon.

Amazon also deployed what the FTC described as anti-competitive algorithms against Jet.com's most popular products leading to Jet revising its strategy to match the lowest prices elsewhere, the FTC said.

Amazon spokesperson Tim Doyle said the FTC "grossly mischaracterizes" the pricing tool and the company stopped using it several years ago.

Walmart shut down Jet in 2020 and incorporated it into its wider e-commerce business.

Walmart declined to comment as it was not part of the FTC litigation, a spokesperson said.

(Reporting by Siddharth Cavale and Arriana McLymore in New York; Editing by Vanessa O'Connell and Lisa Shumaker)

Amazon Boosted Junk Ads, Deleted Messages to Thwart Antitrust Probe, FTC Says

Leah Nylen and Matt Day
Thu, November 2, 2023



(Bloomberg) -- Amazon.com Inc. doubled the number of junk ads to boost profits and deleted internal communications to thwart a federal antitrust probe, according to fresh details released by the US Federal Trade Commission in a less redacted complaint against the online retail giant Thursday.

Amazon’s founder and former Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos personally ordered executives to accept more ads, even ones the company had internally labeled as “defects,” indicating they weren’t relevant to user searches, according to the new version of the complaint.

The FTC alleges that Amazon’s increased use of ads boosts profits while it harms sellers and consumers, making it harder for shoppers to find products they are searching for. “We’d be crazy not to” increase the number of advertisements shown to shoppers,” the FTC quoted Amazon executives as saying.

One executive compiled a number of the defective ads showing “buck urine” showing up in response to searches for “water bottles” or T-shirts for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team in response to queries for the Seattle Seahawks football team merchandise.

In third quarter 2023 earnings announced last week, Amazon reported advertising revenue of $12.1 billion, making the company’s ad unit its fastest-growing business.

Amazon said its search results consider a number of factors and users can easily refine their results.

“Amazon works hard to make it fast and easy for customers to find the items they want and discover similar options by providing a mix of organic and sponsored search results,” Amazon spokesperson Tim Doyle said. He also cited a study by a London marketing firm that found consumers find Amazon ads relevant and useful.

In an email later Thursday, he added: “The claim that Amazon leadership directed employees to accept more advertising defects that would degrade the customer experience is grossly misleading and taken out of context, and does not reflect Amazon’s longstanding dedication to continually improving the customer experience.”

‘Disappearing Message’

The FTC also alleged that the company deleted internal communications using the “disappearing message” feature of Signal and destroyed more than two years’ worth of such communications, from June 2019 to at least early 2022.

Amazon denied that its employees deleted messages, saying the company informed the FTC about the Signal usage, “painstakingly collected Signal conversations from its employees’ phones, and allowed agency staff to inspect those conversations.” Some executives began to use the encrypted communications app after Bezos disclosed in 2019 that his phone had been hacked and alleged the National Enquirer tabloid sought to publish his intimate photos and texts.

The agency sued Amazon in September, accusing the e-commerce giant of monopolizing online marketplace services and stifling competition. The complaint alleges the company illegally forces sellers on its platform to use its logistics and delivery services in exchange for prominent placement and punishes merchants who offer lower prices on competing sites.

Amazon has said it will challenge the lawsuit in court, adding that it “radically” departs from the agency’s mission of protecting consumers and is “wrong on the facts and the law.”

The original complaint was heavily redacted, blacking out information about Amazon’s operations, including details about the company’s scale, its Prime subscriber base and a pricing algorithm called “Project Nessie” that the agency said foisted higher costs on shoppers, belying the company’s claim to prioritize the welfare of its customers.

Over the ensuing weeks, the FTC and Amazon wrangled over what details could be publicly shared, with the company determined to protect information that could provide competitors insights into its e-commerce strategy and business metrics.

Seller Fulfilled Prime

According to the FTC’s new complaint, 98% of Amazon sales occur directly from the so-called “Buy Box” where the company selects one featured offer from among the sellers hawking a specific product.

The FTC alleges that Amazon has illegally tied use of its marketplace with its logistics service – Fulfillment by Amazon – where merchants pay to have Amazon take care of warehousing and shipping. Using the logistics service helps ensure a merchant’s products qualify for Amazon’s Prime subscription service and the featured offer in the “Buy Box.”

Amazon began offering a program called Seller Fulfilled Prime in 2015 that allowed merchants to qualify for the speedy shipping promise without using the company’s logistics service, the FTC alleged. At its peak, 15,000 sellers were using it, according to the FTC. Amazon worried internally that the program was “[s]trategically risky” and could damage the company’s own logistics service, the FTC alleged, with a senior executive saying he was “losing [his] mind” after United Parcel Service Inc. was advertising to merchants that it could fulfill orders.

In 2019, Amazon stopped accepting new merchants into the program.

“Amazon decided to prioritize excluding rivals and foreclosing competition, even if it came at a cost to Amazon’s customers,” the FTC alleged.

In a statement, Amazon said the FTC cited “misleading figures” and its original program didn’t meet “the high standards and expectations our customers have for Prime.”

‘Project Nessie’

The FTC alleged that Amazon created an algorithmic tool, nicknamed Project Nessie, that generated more than $1 billion in additional profits for the company by raising prices in its marketplace.

Amazon and many other online retailers use automated tools to match pricing to what competitors are charging. Realizing that many websites set their pricing tools to correspond with Amazon’s marketplace, the company created Nessie to raise prices on products that other retailers would match, the FTC alleged.

“The FTC claims that an old Amazon pricing algorithm called Nessie is an unfair method of competition that led to raised prices for consumers,” Amazon said in a statement responding to the new details in the less redacted complaint. “This grossly mischaracterizes this tool. Nessie was used to try to stop our price matching from resulting in unusual outcomes where prices became so low that they were unsustainable.”

Bloomberg Businessweek

Unredacted documents in the FTC's Amazon lawsuit shed light on the company's secret price-gouging algorithm

"Project Nessie" is a series of algorithms that Amazon allegedly used to raise prices by over $1 billion in just two years.

Stephanie Barnes
·Contributing Writer
Thu, November 2, 2023 


It looks like Amazon is hellbent on keeping its spot as the biggest online retailer — even if that means hurting both sellers and customers. In September, the FTC filed a long-expected antitrust lawsuit against Amazon over its alleged use of illegal strategies to stay on top. Details of the suit were previously withheld from the public, but today a mostly unredacted version was released, including details about Amazon's secret pricing tool, known as Project Nessie. These algorithms helped Amazon increase prices by over $1 billion over two years, the FTC alleges.

As Amazon would argue, Amazon's dominance of the online retail space has helped small businesses reach more consumers. But the FTC would argue that over the years, Amazon has become exploitative in its approach. The company continues to increase third-party seller fees, which are taking a toll on smaller businesses and even causing bankruptcy for some. Amazon previously said these claims were baseless, but the documents revealed today show otherwise.

According to the The Wall Street Journal, the internal documents cited in the original complaint show that Amazon executives were well aware of the effects of the company's policies. In the documents, Amazon executives acknowledged that these policies, which included requiring Amazon sellers to have the lowest prices online or risk consequences, had a “punitive aspect.” One executive pointed out that many sellers “live in constant fear” of being penalized by Amazon for not following the ever-changing pricing policy.

The FTC also alleges that the company had been monitoring its sellers and punishing them if they offered lower prices on other platforms, which the agency says is a violation of antitrust laws. The unredacted documents indicate that Amazon has increased prices by over $1 billion between 2016 to 2018 with the use of secret price gouging algorithms known as Project Nessie. It was also revealed that the "take rate" — aka the amount Amazon makes from sellers who use the Fulfillment By Amazon logistics program — increased from 27.6 percent in 2014 to 39.5 percent in 2018. It's unclear if that has changed in more recent years since those numbers remained redacted.

And Amazon isn't just ruining its sellers’ experience. The complaint also revealed Amazon's increased use of ads in search results. Several ad executives at the company acknowledged that these sponsored ads were often irrelevant to the initial search and caused “harm to consumers" and the overall experience on the site.

The FTC alleges that these policies were the brainchild of Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and former chief executive, to increase the company's profit margins.

“Mr. Bezos directly ordered his advertising team to continue to increase the number of advertisements on Amazon by allowing more irrelevant advertisements, because the revenue generated by advertisements eclipsed the revenue lost by degrading consumers’ shopping experience,” the FTC complaint alleges.

Unredacted FTC suit shows 'Project Nessie' price-raising algorithm made Amazon $1.4B



Devin Coldewey
Thu, November 2, 2023 

Image Credits: FTC


The mysterious "Project Nessie," hinted at in what little was not redacted in the FTC's lawsuit against Amazon, is indeed an algorithmic pricing scheme that raised prices where it could do so safely, generating some $1.4 billion for the company during its years of operation. No wonder Amazon wanted to keep it under wraps!

The FTC's allegations of anti-competitive behavior cover a number of different practices, among them price manipulation. And the poster child for this practice was Project Nessie.

Unfortunately, when the lawsuit was filed, it was full of redactions, and Nessie was clearly the biggest risk, with every mention and entire pages of the section dedicated to it blocked by black bars. But the process in court is that these redactions must be first honored and then defended — and clearly the argument of public interest won out over Amazon's preference.

And so the newly unredacted lawsuit is sporting far fewer stripes, though the occasional proprietary or internal figure is still blocked out. But most importantly, we have a full account of Project Nessie:

Alongside these anti-discounting tactics, Amazon also goes a step further and hikes prices directly and outright. Amazon created a secret algorithm internally codenamed “Project Nessie” to identify specific products for which it predicts other online stores will follow Amazon’s price increases. When activated, this algorithm raises prices for those products and, when other stores follow suit, keeps the now-higher price in place.

Essentially, Amazon observed that other stores tended to follow the Amazon price on some products, but others didn't. Say Amazon raised the price of a sheet set from $25 to $30. Perhaps Bed Bath & Beyond would raise their price too, but Walmart stood tough at $25. That's not great for Amazon because it meant that customers might find that lower price and shop there instead.

But take another situation, where Amazon raises the price of a keyboard from $30 to $40. Perhaps the maker of that keyboard is the only other place that sells it, and they had matched Amazon's price so as not to lose sales. So now they can safely raise it to $40 too. Bonanza! Amazon gets an extra $10, and no one can find a cheaper price anywhere. Of course, the customer loses $10.

By systematically analyzing which products and which competitors resulted in "safe" price increases like the latter, Amazon could arbitrarily raise prices and extract additional profit from customers like you and me. (For the record, the feature is in fact what I guessed it was from the little we could see in the original redacted document.)

The FTC just hit Amazon with a major antitrust lawsuit

Now, Amazon disputes this characterization of Nessie. In a comment issued to The Wall Street Journal when the outlet reported some of this information last month, they said the tool was intended to "try to stop our price matching from resulting in unusual outcomes where prices became so low that they were unsustainable. The project ran for a few years on a subset of products, but didn’t work as intended, so we scrapped it several years ago."

The documents cited by the FTC paint a different picture. The project ran for five years, and whatever intentions Amazon had for it, it generated about $1.4 billion in additional profits. Amazon is quoted as deeming Project Nessie "an incredible success," which somewhat contradicts their more recent statement. And if it was strictly about preventing "unsustainable" low prices, it doesn't make sense that it would only target retailers that would match Amazon's markups.

That it was "scrapped" is also questionable, since in 2022 the CEO of Worldwide Amazon Stores Doug Herrington suggested turning on "our old friend Nessie, perhaps with some new targeting logic" to boost retail profits. Nessie has indeed slipped under the waters, but the FTC is clear that it could just as easily emerge again if Amazon liked. Now that the heat is on, however, that seems unlikely.

I asked Amazon about these seeming contradictions and the company declined to comment beyond its original statement. They may, however, have more detailed refutations in store in their own court filings, though on this matter of Nessie, they may well decide that discretion is the better part of public opinion.

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

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.

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

#CRYPTOZOOLOGY  #CRYPTID  #NESSIE

Loch Ness Monster register keeper says sightings are 'getting more credible all the time'

Gary Campbell has recorded more than 1130 alleged sightings of Nessie over 25 years, with six added to the books this year.



By Mike Merritt
24 MAY 2021

Gary Campbell is keeper of the Official Loch Ness Monster Register


After recording more than 1130 alleged ­sightings, the man who keeps a log on Nessie is celebrating 25 years of monster chasing – but admits the mystery may never be solved.

Gary ­Campbell, keeper of the Official Loch Ness Monster Register claims “the sightings are getting more credible all the time”.

He also said the ­fascination of Nessie is as strong as ever. The ­chartered ­accountant, 56, from ­Inverness, has already accepted six ­sightings this year – following 13 last year.

This photo taken at Loch Ness by Charlotte Robinson is rated one of the best by Gary

Gary stressed that the majority of claimed ­sightings do not get included. He said: “Anything that is later proved to be a hoax or can be subsequently explained is removed from the register. I never expected to be doing it this long but, after 25 years, nobody has solved the mystery – so I expect I will be doing it to the day I die. There have been three credible accounts which have really stood out over the years.

“Richard White, in 1997, who took a series of photos of something coming out of the water.

Richard White's alleged photo of Nessie is highly-rated by Gary

“Glasgow postman Bobbie Pollock who, in 2000, took a video of an object swimming in ­Invermoriston Bay. But the best picture was taken by a 12-year-old girl on holiday with her parents.”

Little Charlotte Robinson was visiting from ­Yorkshire in 2018, when Nessie popped up about 50ft away.

Gary added: “It has been a good start to the year already. I think this proves that Nessie’s not gone anywhere.”

SEE

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for NESSIE 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for CRYPTID 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for CRYPTOZOOLOGY 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for LAKE MONSTERS 

#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/

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.