Godzilla Croc

You know that urban myth about gators in the New York City sewer system....well it ain't New York and it ain't in a sewer and it's a croc not a gator.

A small crocodile called Godzik, or Little Godzilla, which escaped from its cage in southern Ukraine at the end of May, is still at large and apparently enjoying itself, an official said Friday.

The 70-centimetre (two-foot, four-inch) long Nile crocodile, which swam away during a publicity show on a beach on the Sea of Azov, is defying attempts to recapture it.

Dariel Adjiba, of the local office of the emergencies ministry, said the reptile had apparently made its home on an abandoned barge which ran aground in the shallow sea, where it could often be seen sunning itself.

AFP Photo: Close up of a nile crocodile in captivity. A small Nile crocodile called Godzik, or...

Godzik had been with a travelling circus for about a year when it escaped at Maryupol on the northern shore of the inland sea.

In the old days this kind of thing would give rise to the myth of dragons, sea monsters and die vurm.


SEE:

Strange Sea Creatures

I Thought I Saw A Putty Cat

Congo's Ghosts

The Fountain Of Youth

Turning Off The Nile

I Don't Do Mornings

Nessie was an Elephant?

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Monsters, Lake monsters, Loch Ness, Ness, Nessie, sea serpent, Scotland, myths, legends,cryptozoology,
frilled, shark, dinosaur, fossil fish, living dinosaur, prehistoric shark, Japan, video, rare, animals, biology, marine biology, fish, living fossil
fish, animals, biology, science, Ukraine, croc, crocodilet, python, ophites, ophidian, gnostics, serpent worship, India, Christianity, Abrahamic, Judeaism, Islam, totems, primitive peoples, religion, rituals, magick, rites, cave paintings,archeology, archeologist, San, 70,000yearsago,
San people, South Africa, Kalahari, Sheila Coulson, Norway, University of Oslo, python, ophites, ophidian, gnostics, serpent worship, totems, primitive peoples, religion, rituals, magick, rites, cave paintings,archaeology, archaeologist, H.P. Lovecraft, lambton worm, Lair of the White Worm, Bram Stoker, Ken Russell, Die Vermis Mysteries, serpent, worm, myths, legends,cryptozoology,
frilled, shark, dinosaur, fossil fish, living dinosaur, prehistoric shark, Japan, video, rare, animals, biology, marine biology, fish, living fossil

‘This thing meant business’: 1976 sea creature encounter off southwestern NS revisited

Kathy Johnson | Posted: July 7, 2021


CAPE SABLE ISLAND, NS – It was 45 years ago, between July 5 and 9, 1976, that five Cape Sable Island fishermen fishing off southwestern Nova Scotia on three different boats, on three different days, had encounters on the same fishing grounds with a sea creature unlike anything they'd seen before.

It’s certainly an experience 69-year-old Rodney Ross has never forgotten.

He's the only fishermen of the five still alive.

1976 story in the Yarmouth Vanguard. - File Photo


The encounters

The late Eisner Penney was the first to have an encounter – on July 5, 1976 – when fishing on Pollock Shoal, about eight to nine miles off the southern coast of Cape Sable Island, recalls Ross.

“Eisner seen it on a Monday,” Ross says. “When he got done fishing he was headed home and noticed this thing chasing him was out of the water, probably 10 to 15 feet out of the water and it chased him three, four miles or more and kept picking up steam. He didn’t lose it until he got into real shoal water – what we call the horse race – and it went under.”

When Ross set sail with his father Keith for Pollock Shoal two days later, they were unaware of Penney’s encounter.

“We went there Wednesday," he says. "We were fishing, doing pretty good, the tide started to go, so dad went down in the cud to get something to eat.”

Ross continued fishing on the deck. Back then they hauled by hand. No machines. He was getting one or two fish every sound.

But then, he says, it was like everything died.

"The gulls disappeared. The hags disappeared. I made three or four sounds, but nothing," he says.

"I could hear this noise like a swishing noise. It was thick fog . . . I seen this black thing coming through the water. It was like a hump, three or four feet out of water – this hump with two big eyes."

South Side fisherman Rodney Ross looks through his collection of memorabilia about the sea creature he and four other fishermen including his father Keith seen between July 5 and 9, 1976, on the Pollock Shoal off Cape Sable Island’s southern coast. 

KATHY JOHNSON

What is that?

At first he thought it was a sunfish and called to his dad to come out and see what he thought it was. He peeked out and said, "sunfish," but when the thing came back seconds later, his father didn't know what to think.

"He realized it wasn’t a sunfish. We watched this thing 15, 20 minutes. It would swim down by, pretty near go out of sight, swim back up to the westward and not one time would it look at us. It never went under. A whale, you can hear them a mile away. Not once did this thing blow."

"It was like it was ignoring us except for this one time. He turned and was looking right at me.”

Ross estimated it was about 70 to 80 yards from the boat.

“Dad went up and started the engine. We knew something was going to take place. It started coming for the boat. It kept coming, rising out of water. The last of it – it was about 15 feet out of water and opened his mouth. He was coming aboard. He was after me," says Ross.

"Dad waited until it was about 15, 20 yards away and opened it wide open and we shot ahead. I ran up underneath the house, turned and looked and could see this big body come out of water. He just clipped the stern of the boat."

"This thing meant business. If we had sat there, we would have been gone. He would have been half way on to the boat.”

Ross says the sea creature “looked liked a giant sculpin with big eyes, bigger than the rest of its body."

"It was full of barnacles, coral and had these rows of teeth – tusk looking things in his mouth. It didn’t have a whales tail, sort of like a cod tail.”

A drawing by the late Keith Ross of what the South Side Sea Monster looked like.

 “My father was no artist, but it did look something like that,” said Rodney Ross.

Their getaway

If it wasn’t for his father’s quick thinking to start the engine and wait until it got just close enough that it couldn’t turn, Ross shudders to think what would have happened.

“If people would have found wreckage of our boat, they would have thought we were run over by a steamer. Who would have thought we got ate by a sea monster?”

At the time of the encounter Ross says the boat was weighted to an anchor.

“We just shot up over the anchor and we could hear it hit the stern of the boat. It kept coming and kept raising out of water probably 10 to 15 feet out of water with its mouth wide open. If it had kept coming the top of his mouth would have been over my head.”

Dumfounded, the two fishermen sat there for about an hour and never spoke.

But "by and by," he says, they heard it again.

The swishing noise.

"We didn’t press our luck. We hauled anchor and took off. We seen this boat on our radar, so we steamed down to the boat. It was Eisner Penney, the guy that seen it Monday. I said to him, 'Eisner you want to get out of here if you see what we just seen,' and I remember him saying just as plain, ‘You don’t have to tell me what you seen because I seen it Monday.'"

That was enough fishing for everyone.

Penney threw everything in the middle of his platform and they all headed in.

As reported in the 1976 Yarmouth Vanguard. - FIle photo


"If there's a devil, that was it"

When fellow fisherman Edgar Nickerson initially heard about the sea creature encounter, he had laughed, according to an interview and story in the July 14, 1976, Yarmouth Vanguard newspaper.

“I thought it was funny. As a matter of fact, on Friday I bragged on my radio that I had Pollock Shoal all by myself,” he had said in the interview.

Only they weren't alone.

Nickerson and his 15-year-old son Robert were pulling gear when the sea creature appeared.

“It kept coming up. I thought it was a whale and I kidded to my son that it was coming after him," he had told Vanguard journalists Fred Hatfield and Alain Meuse 45 years ago.

"I turned on my sounder. That usually scare whales away. But not this thing. It kept coming and coming."

"It was a horrible looking thing I tell you. If there’s a devil, that was it.”

Photos of four of the fishermen from the 1976 Yarmouth Vanguard: Keith Ross, Rodney Ross, Edgar Nickerson and Eisner Phinney. 

PHOTOS BY FRED HATFIELD AND ALAIN MEUSE - File photo

After the encounters, nobody went fishing for a few weeks, Ross says.

“We didn’t go back there that year. When three different boats on three different days seen this creature in the same area, something was there.”

Ross remembers coming home the day after seeing the sea creature and going to visit his neighbours Weldon Cox and Seaton Nickerson, who were retired fishermen that had made a living on the water all their lives.

“They always waved for me to come over, so I went over and told my story. They looked at me and said back in 1930s . . . they told me the names of two fishermen who had an encounter with a creature off here, much the same as what we seen," says Ross, who can’t remember the names he was given.

Ross notes all of the sightings were two days apart and all of the fishermen who saw the sea creature were on fishing boats that were green.

Over the years, he's collected clippings and mementos about the encounter, and about other sea creature encounters that people have sent to him.

South Side fisherman Rodney Ross still has the handline fishing gear he was using the day he and his father Keith encountered a sea creature on the Pollock Shoal off Cape Sable Island’s southern coast. “This is the actual one that I was using back in 1976. We called it a Christmas tree. My father-in-law made it for me.” 

KATHY JOHNSON - Saltwire network

Ongoing interest

Back in the 1970s or 1980s, Ross gave a talk to the students at the Barrington Municipal High School about the encounter. He still has all the thank you letters and pictures drawn by the students of what they thought it looked like. Whatever they had seen was dubbed the South Side Sea Monster.

“When my father was living, people used to call him all the time,” says Ross. “We had a guy come from Florida one time; he was telling us about how many different things they discover every year. It could be ants, could be anything. Wartime they used to dump stuff in really deep water … it could have been something got into that,” he says, and was deformed.

Or something that was in an underwater cave had gotten out, or some sort of prehistoric thing, speculates Ross.

“Who knows what’s out there? It’s a big ocean,” he says.

Ross says he's usually contacted several times a year from someone wanting to know about the encounter.

Last fall Ross he was contacted by award winning author Max Hawthorne of New York who wanted to include Ross’s experience in a book he was writing. The book, 'Monsters and Marine Mysteries,' was just released several months ago. “I’m one of the chapters," says Ross.

Ross has only publicly spoke about his encounter a few times over the years. One of his presentations made in 2017 – South Side Sea Monster Story – is available on YouTube.

Thank you letters and drawings by students from the Barrington Municipal High School are among the keepsakes in Rodney Ross’s collection about the sea creature he seen in 1976 that was dubbed the South Side Sea Monster.

 KATHY JOHNSON


What's in the ocean? Sea serpent stories

Throughout the years there have been numerous documented sightings of sea serpents, mermaids, mermen, giant lizards and squid, monstrous fish, and a great sea monster in waters off Nova Scotia’s coastline.

The Serpent Chronologies, Sea Serpents and other Marine Creatures from Nova Scotia’s History, published by the Nova Scotia Museum in 2015, “is an annotated, systematic, account of reports of sightings of large serpents and other mysterious creatures recorded in Nova Scotia waters.” It includes Mi’kmaw petroglyphs, elements of captured oral history and documents excerpted from both the popular press as well as the scientific literature over the centuries, reads the abstract.

“Where appropriate, these are discussed in terms of the culture of the times, as well our current understanding of natural history. Illustrations have been created where there was sufficient information recorded, and based on these and the descriptions provided, these drawings reflect the nature of the creatures described in a modern context." it reads. "It becomes evident that the chronology of such reports is a reflection, to a great part, of the state and development of both popular and scientific cultures of Nova Scotia throughout these times.”

The book, available to download as a PDF, chronicles documented sightings from the 1600s up to 2003, when there was an encounter with a sea serpent in Alder Point, Cape Breton.

Written by Andrew J Hebda, the author concludes by saying, “As was pointed out in the beginning: Some of these are true accounts of events while others may be exercises in creativity in writing. In some cases, it is not obvious which is which.

"We should keep in mind what the late Dr. Fred Aldrich was reported to have said when commenting on marine marvels in the North-West Atlantic Ocean: 'We know more about the backside of the moon than the bottom of the sea.'”

An editorial cartoon in the July 21 1976, Vanguard.

Strange Sea Creatures

HAMLET

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Scientists back from a three-week probe in the deep waters off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland discovered a surprising diversity more than 2 1/2 kilometres below the surface.

"Not so long ago, these deep waters were thought to be barren, and what we're looking at and finding is that they're quite rich," said Ellen Kenchington, one of 20 scientists who participated in the research mission aboard the coast guard ship Hudson.

This was deep-water fauna, creatures of the inky blackness and the stuff of Jules Verne: The metre-long dumbo octopus (so named for its prominent fins); the xenophyphore, a single-celled organism better known as "the Green Blob"; and the long-nosed chimera.

Amidst the weird and wonderful are three types of coral key to understanding climate change: Primoa, Paragorgia, and Keratosis, also known as seacorn, bubblegum, and bamboo coral respectively.

An octopus with ears like an elephant? Scallops that hang like bats? Yup, they're real and they live off the East Coast.

The creatures were found after Canadian marine scientists fitted the coast guard ship Hudson with Canada's most powerful deep-sea diving robot, and sent it to explore water too deep for humans.

The octopus was spotted on the second dive at 2,500 metres. When the robot got close enough, the researchers could see the metre-long octopus had fins near its eyes.

"It looks like Dumbo the elephant," Kenchington said, showing off some of the more than 3,000 digital images, hundreds of hours of videos and dozens of live samples taken during the research trip.

It was a creature that had never been seen in the Atlantic before, but Kenchington later found out one had been spotted in the Pacific Ocean.

The robot picked up images of many other creatures, including orange scallops hanging from underwater cliffs, and yellow and pink bubblegum-coloured coral.

More than half of the dives were below the 1,000-metre threshold, and they discovered "at least a dozen" species not previously found in Canadian waters. Particularly striking, she said, was the discovery of a type of bubblegum coral far from the nearest known colony of that species. The largest sea-floor invertebrate, bubblegum coral can live hundreds of years and grow at least a metre off of the bottom.

"How did it get there?" Dr. Kenchington mused. "How are they connected to the nearest neighbours, which are hundreds of miles away?"

SEE:

Sea Serpent

Die Vurm

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Monsters, Lake monsters, Loch Ness, Ness, Nessie, sea serpent, Scotland, myths, legends,cryptozoology,
frilled, shark, dinosaur, fossil fish, living dinosaur, prehistoric shark, Nova Scotia, video, Newfoundland, animals, biology, marine biology, Ellen Kenchington, living fossil

'Ghost shark' with enormous head and giant iridescent eyes discovered off Thailand

"There were only 53 known species of chimaera in the world; this makes 54," 

Story by Elise Poore

 • LIVE SCIENCE

Scientists have discovered a never-before-seen species of "ghost shark" with a massive head, giant, iridescent eyes and feathery fins in the depths of the Andaman Sea off the coast of Thailand.

The elusive deep-sea creature, named Chimaera supapae, is a cartilaginous fish in the order of the oldest fishes alive today, Chimaeriformes. These ancient fish are distant relatives of sharks and rays.

Scientists described the discovery in a paper published March 6 in the journal Raffles Bulletin of Zoology.

"Chimaera are rare in this region of the world," David Ebert, lead author of the study and program director of the Pacific Shark Research Center at San Jose State University in California, told Live Science in an email.

Chimaeras inhabit the continental slopes and ocean ridges of the deep sea. Found at depths below 1,640 feet (500 meters), these ghostly individuals lurk in dark waters, feeding on bottom-dwelling animals such as crustaceans, mollusks and worms. 

Found at depths below 1,640 feet (500 meters), these ghostly figures lurk in dark waters of the deep-sea. (Image credit: David A. Ebert)© Provided by Live Science

"There were only 53 known species of chimaera in the world; this makes 54," Ebert said. Their deep-sea nature makes them difficult to find, especially in the Andaman Sea, where depths in some areas exceed 14,500 feet (4,400 m).

 The common names of chimaera—  ghost shark and ratfish — come from their big, reflective eyes and rat-like, tapered bodies. Some species can grow up to 6.6 feet (2 m) long. 

The dead immature male specimen was discovered as part of a deep-sea survey project carried out in 2018. The scientists collected it during a bottom trawl in the Andaman Sea between 2,533 and 2543 feet (772 to 775 m) below the surface. Researchers recognized it as a newfound species by its "massive head with short snout" and its large, oval eyes that are over 32% of its total head length. 

The newly described species is a type of shortnose chimaera, measuring 20 inches (51 centimeters) long with broad pectoral fins. Ebert suspects the creature's feather-like frills have to do with "their ability to maneuver over rocky bottoms of high relief."

C. supapae's big, iridescent, green eyes help the animal see in the pitch-black waters. Its dark-brown skin showed no noticeable lines or patterns, and the fish has a dorsal spine on the top of its head.

The species was named supapae after the late Supap Monkolprasit, a scientist from Thailand who spent her life studying cartilaginous fishes. The genus name Chimaera comes from the Greek mythological fire-breathing creature that has three heads — the head of a lion at the front, a goat's head that extends from its back and a serpent tail that ends with the head of a snake.

"Evolutionarily, these chimaeras are among some of the oldest lineages of fishes with the lineage going back 300-400 million years," Ebert said. "The discovery of new species like this chimaera tells us how little we know about the marine environment and how much is still to be explored."

 

New species of mosasaur named for Norse sea serpent

Jormungandr, a 24-foot aquatic lizard that lived 80 million years ago, is found to be a transitional species between two well-known mosasaurs

Peer-Reviewed Publication

AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

 

IMAGE: 

A RECONSTRUCTION OF TWO JORMUNGANDR WALHALLAENSIS MOSASAURS FIGHTING

view more 

CREDIT: © HENRY SHARPE

Scientists have discovered a new species of mosasaur, large, carnivorous aquatic lizards that lived during the late Cretaceous. With “transitional” traits that place it between two well-known mosasaurs, the new species is named after a sea serpent in Norse mythology, Jormungandr, and the small North Dakota city Walhalla near to where the fossil was found. Details describing Jǫrmungandr walhallaensis are published today in the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 

“If you put flippers on a Komodo dragon and made it really big, that’s basically what it would have looked like,” said the study’s lead author Amelia Zietlow, a Ph.D. student in comparative biology at the American Museum of Natural History’s Richard Gilder Graduate School.

The first mosasaur was discovered more than 200 years ago, and the word “mosasaur” predates the word “dinosaur.” But many questions about these animals remain, including how many times they evolved flippers and became fully aquatic—researchers think it was at least three times, and maybe four or more—and whether they are more closely related to monitor lizards or snakes. Researchers are still trying to determine how the different groups of mosasaurs are related to each other, and the new study adds a new piece to that puzzle.

The fossil on which the study is based was discovered in 2015, when researchers excavating in the northeastern part of North Dakota found an impressive specimen: a nearly complete skull, jaws, and cervical spine, as well as a number of vertebrae.

After extensive analysis and surface scanning of the fossil material, Zietlow and her collaborators found that this animal is a new species with a mosaic of features seen in two iconic mosasaurs: Clidastes, a smaller and more primitive form of mosasaur; and Mosasaurus, a larger form that grew to be nearly 50 feet long and lived alongside Tyrannosaurus rex. The specimen is estimated to be about 24 feet long, and in addition to flippers and a shark-like tail, it would have had “angry eyebrows” caused by a bony ridge on the skull, and a slightly stumpy tail that would have been shorter than its body.

“As these animals evolved into these giant sea monsters, they were constantly making changes,” Zietlow said. “This work gets us one step closer to understanding how all these different forms are related to one another.”

The work suggests that Jormungandr was a precursor to Mosasaurus and that it would have lived about 80 million years ago.

“This fossil is coming from a geologic time in the United States that we don’t really understand,” said co-author Clint Boyd, from the North Dakota Geological Survey. “The more we can fill in the geographic and temporal timeline, the better we can understand these creatures.”

Coauthor Nathan Van Vranken from Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College added, “The tale of Jormungandr paints a wonderful picture and helps contribute to our understanding of the northernmost regions of the interior seaway, especially with the mosasaurs, and discoveries such as these can pique scientific curiosity.”

A line drawing of the skull of Jormungandr walhallaensis

CREDIT

© Henry Sharpe

ABOUT THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY (AMNH)

The American Museum of Natural History, founded in 1869 with a dual mission of scientific research and science education, is one of the world’s preeminent scientific, educational, and cultural institutions. The Museum encompasses more than 40 permanent exhibition halls, galleries for temporary exhibitions, the Rose Center for Earth and Space including the Hayden Planetarium, and the Richard Gilder Center for Science, Education, and Innovation. The Museum’s scientists draw on a world-class permanent collection of more than 34 million specimens and artifacts, some of which are billions of years old, and on one of the largest natural history libraries in the world. Through its Richard Gilder Graduate School, the Museum offers two of the only free-standing, degree-granting programs of their kind at any museum in the U.S.: the Ph.D. program in Comparative Biology and the Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Earth Science residency program. Visit amnh.org for more information.

---

JOURNAL

Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History

ARTICLE TITLE

Jormungandr walhallaensis : a new mosasaurine (Squamata: Mosasauroidea) from the Pierre Shale Formation (Pembina Member: Middle Campanian) of North Dakota

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

30-Oct-2023

Disclaimer: AAAS a

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.

SPIRIT ANIMAL TALES

'Sea calf' born to cow washed out to sea by Hurricane Dorian


A cow that was rescued after being carried four miles from shore by Hurricane Dorian gave birth to a "sea calf" with mismatched eyes just a few months later. Photo courtesy of Ranch Solutions LLC

March 20 (UPI) -- A cow that was washed four miles out to sea by Hurricane Dorian gave birth to an all-white calf with mismatched eyes in North Carolina.

Ranch Solutions, the company hired to rescue wild cattle that were swept out to sea from Cedar Island by Hurricane Dorian in September 2019, said one of the three rescued cows that managed to swim ashore four miles away at Cape Lookout National Seashore gave birth to a calf just a few months later.

The company it was difficult to get photos of the "sea calf" for some time because it would flee with its mother at the sight of humans.

The calf has white hair and mismatched eyes - one brown and one blue


Albino deer caught on camera in Tennessee field


March 17 (UPI) -- A woman who spotted an unusual animal in a Tennessee field captured video of an albino deer.

Natalie Simmons said she and friend Ashley Summerford initially thought there was a goat with a group of deer in the field off Concord Road in Brentwood.

Simmons said it wasn't until they stopped to take video of the animals that she realized the white creature was an albino deer.

Albinism, a genetic disorder that causes an animal's body to be free of pigment, is believed to occur about once in every 20,000 deer births.

Albino deer are a protected by a 2001 Tennessee state law that banned hunters from shooting the animals.


Snake gives birth to two-headed baby in reptile catcher's car


A tiger snake captured by an Australian snake catcher gave birth after being loaded into his car and one of the babies was found to have two heads. Photo by Direct Vet Services/Facebook

March 20 (UPI) -- An Australian snake catcher called out to relocate a female tiger snake from a resident's yard said the serpent gave birth in his car -- and one of the babies had two heads.

Steward Gatt, aka Stewy the Snake Catcher, said he was called out this week to relocate a female tiger snake from a resident's yard in Ardeer, Victoria.

Gatt said he captured the snake in a bag and loaded it into his car, but when he opened the bag a little while later he discovered the reptile had given birth to several babies, including one with two heads.

The catcher took the snakes to Direct Vet Services in Point Cook.

"As cool as it was these animals are not generally viable so it was euthanized on humane grounds," the clinic said in a Facebook post.

The rest of the babies were found to be healthy and were released back into the wild alongside their mother.