The History of the Loch Ness Monster

This article documents the history of the world's most famous lacustrine cryptid, Nessie of Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands. Nessie has a long, fascinating, and oftentimes tumultuous history dating all the way back to the 6th century and continuing right up to the present day. In this article, which is organized by decade, I will cover the sightings and evidence (including photos and videos) that have been recorded, as well as the multifarious zoological hypotheses that have been advanced over the years to account for the data.

Early sightings (pre-1930s):

Contrary to statements commonly trotted out by skeptics and journalists, there have indeed been sightings of large, unusual, unidentified creatures in and around Loch Ness prior to the rash of sightings that catapulted the beast to worldwide fame in the early 1930s. The first reported sighting was by Saint Columba in either 565 A.D. or 580 A.D. in the River Ness. A ferocious water beast reportedly attempted to eat a man, but retreated after Columba invoked the sign of the cross.

In 1696, it was reported by an English soldier stationed at Loch Ness that the local populace spoke of a "floating island" that was regularly seen in the loch. This so-called "island" was said to traverse the loch, the way a living creature would.

Several sightings were also reported in the late 19th century.

Loch Ness researcher Roland Watson has written a book about Nessie sightings prior to the 1930s titled The Water Horses of Loch Ness. For anyone seeking more detailed and comprehensive information on mysterious cryptozoological occurrences at Loch Ness in the pre-1930s era, the book can be purchased here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/books/dp/1461178193 (I am not affiliated with or connected to the book, and I am adding this link merely for informational purposes).

1930s: Nessie's Rise to Fame

The beast rose to international notoriety after a flare of sightings occurred in 1933 following the construction of a new road next to the loch. In the 1930s, naturalists speculated upon the creature's identity. Dutch zoologist Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans suggested that the monster was a landlocked version of his hypothetical sea serpent, Megophias megophias, a giant long-necked, long-tailed pinniped which he had first hypothesized in his 1892 book The Great Sea Serpent. Meanwhile, Rupert T. Gould suggested that it may be something like a long-necked newt or salamander. A newspaper account stated that the monster "bore a striking resemblance to the supposedly-extinct plesiosaur." Others have suggested that the creature may be a gigantic eel. The plesiosaur hypothesis has, by far, been the most popular, and has permeated popular culture the most, but has received harsh criticism from the majority of the scientific community. The first photograph of the cryptid was taken by Hugh Grey on November 12, 1933, and has been dubbed the Grey Photo. The photo is blurry and indistinct, and some skeptics have suggested that it merely shows a dog swimming towards the camera while carrying a stick in its mouth. Conversely, cryptozoological researcher Roland Watson has conducted an in-depth, intensive analysis of the photo, and claims that, if the photo is magnified, what appears to be a head is visible on the far right side of the photo, with the mouth open wide in a gaping expression, and what appears to be a fish-like eye. Perhaps the most famous – and infamous – photo of the creature was taken by a gynecologist from London named Robert Kenneth Wilson on April 19, 1934. Known as the Surgeon's Photo, it shows a swan-like head and neck peering above the surface of the water. The photo became the definitive photo of the monster, and firmly cemented the image in the consciousness of the general public of a plesiosaur-like animal as the most likely identity for the creature, although it would eventually be exposed as a hoax 60 years later.

1960s–1970s: The Golden Age/Nessie Renaissance

In many ways, the 1960s and 1970s (especially the latter) can be thought of as the "Golden Age" of Nessie research, or a "Nessie Renaissance" (analogous to the Dinosaur Renaissance that occurred in paleontology at around the same time). In 1960, aeronautical engineer Tim Dinsdale recorded a film of a hump moving along the surface of the water and leaving a wake behind it. Skeptics have claimed that it shows a boat, with some even claiming that a man standing on the boat is vaguely visible. However, an analysis by JARIC claimed that the object was "animate". This film, although short and not very detailed, is often trotted out as evidence by supporters of the existence of the creature. 

Numerous expeditions have been organized throughout the decades to search for the creature. One of the largest and most intriguing was the Big Expedition of 1970, in which hydrophones were planted in Urquhart Bay to monitor any sounds or movements indicative of the presence of large animals. Clicking noises reminiscent of echolocation were recorded, followed by a swishing noise possibly suggesting the tail movements of a substantially-sized aquatic animal. According to biologist Roy P. Mackal of the University of Chicago, who was present on the expedition, out of the multitude of sounds known to be produced by known species of aquatic animals, none matched the mysterious recordings from the loch that were obtained on the expedition. Mackal would eventually write a book about the monsters, titled The Monsters of Loch Ness. Published in 1976, the book documented all of the evidence (photographic, film, and sonar), that had been accumulated up to that point, and then discussed the myriad expeditions and attempts to search for the monster. It then delved into a discussion of the most plausible candidates for the creature's identity, with mammalian, reptilian, amphibian, and piscean candidates all being considered. Each candidate was assessed in a checklist that compared its physical characteristics to those of the Loch Ness cryptids as deduced from eyewitness accounts, photos, and films. In the end, Mackal arrived at the conclusion that an unknown species of long-necked amphibian, possibly related to the large predatory embolomers that existed during the Carboniferous period some 300 million years ago, was the candidate that matched the evidence from Loch Ness the most, with a gigantic eel coming in at a close second. 

Another researcher who contributed much to the search for the Loch Ness Monster was Robert H. Rines, founder of the Academy of Applied Science, who led two expeditions to the loch in 1972 and 1975. These led to two of the clearest and highest-quality – yet also highly controversial – photos ever taken of the Loch Ness Monster. One of them shows a diamond-shaped object that resembles the flipper of a large aquatic animal. This came to be known as the "Flipper Photo". Another photo shows what appears to be a gargoyle-like head with horn-like protrusions. This came to be known as the "Gargoyle Head Photograph". Another photo shows what appears to be the head, neck and torso of a large, long-necked aquatic animal that superficially resembles a plesiosaur. This came to be known as the "Neck & Body Photograph". At the same time that these photos were taken, sonar contacts concurrently suggested the presence of large animate moving objects in the water. The photos and sonar contacts from the Rines expeditions led many scientists to tentatively accept the reality of the existence of a large unknown animal in the murky depths of Loch Ness. British naturalist Sir Peter Scott even bestowed upon the elusive beast a scientific name: Nessiteras rhombopteryx, which roughly translates to "the Ness wonder with the diamond-shaped fin", referring to the rhomboid appendage photographed by Rines' team in 1972. Critics charged that the binomial given to the beast by Scott could be interpreted as an anagram for "Monster hoax by Sir Peter S." Rines countered that it could also be interpreted as "Yes, both pix arre monsters." The conversation – and the ensuing controversy – over the Rines photos was the closest that the Loch Ness cryptids ever came to gaining official scientific recognition. 

1980s: Research Continues

Meanwhile, expeditions and searches continued. In 1987, Operation Deepscan scanned the entire loch, and although some large anomalous sonar contacts were detected, the expedition did not yield spectacular results. 

1990s–present: The Modern Era

Since the 1990s or so, activity at Loch Ness regarding Nessie has somewhat quieted down compared to earlier decades, with fewer sightings reported each year. In 2009, Robert Rines speculated that Nessies may have become extinct, possibly as a result of increasing pollution. He subsequently attempted to locate a body of one of the creatures at the bottom of the loch. While some interesting objects were photographed lying at the bottom of the loch, nothing definitive was found. Rines himself died on November 1, 2009, having left behind an astounding legacy of unparalleled exploration and insight into the Loch Ness phenomenon. 

Meanwhile, research and controversy continued to surround the loch and its elusive denizen, and sightings and photos have continued to come in, showing that Rines might have been premature in declaring that Nessie has vacated the premises. There were several sightings in 2011, including a sighting by the Hargreaves on June 15 in which a head and neck were seen protruding out of the water. In August, Marcus Atkinson photographed a sonar trace that appeared to show a large, superficially serpentine object in the loch. It has been suggested that it could be a school of fish or a bloom of algae, although Roland Watson has stated that it is unlikely to be algae, as the water is too dark and murky for algae to be able to photosynthesize in water as deep as the area where the sonar trace was observed. 

The George Edwards Controversy (2011–2014):

 

In November 2011, George Edwards photographed what appeared to be a grey hump breaking the surface of the loch. In August of 2012, Edwards released his photo to the public. However, analysis by other Loch Ness researchers, including Steve Feltham and Steve Plambeck, quickly demonstrated that Edwards's photo was a hoax, and that he had really photographed a fibreglass model of Nessie that had been used in a 2011 documentary at the loch. In 2014, George Edwards filed a complaint to the Drumnadrochit Chamber of Commerce in which he stated that Nessie researchers Adrian Shine and Tony Harmsworth were harming the local tourist business, and recommended that Shine's Loch Ness Centre exhibition be shut down. Tony Harmsworth responded with a letter of his own in which he censured Edwards for his blatant hoaxes and misinformation (such as claiming that he discovered a nonexistent geological formation at the bottom of the loch called "Edwards Deep"), and said that Edwards's hoaxing was harming the reputation of the Loch Ness tourism industry by reinforcing the prevalent belief that Nessie is nothing but a scam invented to attract tourists. The Chamber of Commerce did not print Harmsworth's article, and instead printed an article about an award that Edwards had recently won. In response, Harmsworth resigned his position as Editor of the newsletter. The consternation and rivalry between Edwards and the other Nessie investigators received attention in local newspapers, with many headlines proclaiming that a war was being fought over tourism on the banks of Loch Ness. In my personal opinion, the entire Edwards affair is a sad waste of time that should never have occurred, and serious cryptozoological investigators into the Loch Ness phenomenon should just ignore it. It has done nothing but damage the reputation of serious cryptozoological research at Loch Ness even further and perpetuate the image in the general public's mind that the Loch Ness cryptid is nothing more than a marketing gimmick used to attract tourists to the loch.

The Future:

With the George Edwards controversy having recently concluded, the future of the Loch Ness cryptids is as unclear as the peat-stained waters of Loch Ness itself. I personally hope that there will be no more silly hoaxes or misleading claims in the future, and that investigators use proper scientific methodology in their search for the elusive beast. In my opinion, researchers should not attempt to take photographs or videos, as we already have dozens of those, and they have proved nothing. The only thing that will finally prove once and for all that an unknown animal really does exist in Loch Ness is tangible, physical evidence – a specimen. I personally think that Mackal's biopsy harpoons were an excellent idea, and I think it is a shame that Mackal's team never had an opportunity to use them. In the future, I think cryptozoological researchers operating at Loch Ness should attempt to use innovative tactics such as biopsy harpoons to obtain biological material (such as a carcass, a skeleton, or a tissue sample from a living animal). I sincerely hope that investigators will use rigorous scientific methodology to ensure that their findings are obtained and presented with adequate integrity. If that happens, then we have a much higher probability of obtaining a specimen. When that day finally comes, the hard work of the researchers who have painstakingly searched the dark depths of the loch for the past 80 years will not have been in vain, and one of the world's greatest and longest-enduring zoological mysteries will have been solved after being shrouded in ambiguity for nearly 1,500 years.

The Prehistoric Survivor Paradigm (PSP)

One of the most common schools of thought within cryptozoology is a hypothesis known as the Prehistoric Survivor Paradigm (PSP). The PSP asserts that extant representatives of taxa presumed extinct are likely to be responsible for cryptid sightings. Some researchers, such as Roy Mackal, Karl Shuker, and Scott Mardis, have been sympathetic to the PSP, while others, such as Darren Naish, have been very critical of it. In this article, I will explain my views on the PSP.

We will start with an overview of some of the prehistoric creatures that have been hypothesized to survive as cryptids. Various sightings of winged, superficially-reptilian flying creatures have prompted some to suggest that pterosaurs might still be alive, and are responsible for such reports. I find this hypothesis unlikely, not because I am too closed-minded to accept that large flying animals could have survived to the present without being discovered, but because the reports that we have simply do not match anything we know about pterosaur biology. Most reports are very vague, and describe generic bat or bird-like flying monsters. Pterosaurs were not flying monsters. They were highly-specialized, bizarre animals that probably did not resemble anything familiar to the average layperson. We now know that they were quadrupedal, probably had an endothermic physiology, and were covered in superficially fur-like integumentary structures known as pycnofibres. None of this matches up with the reports, and it is very suggestive that the reports seem to describe inaccurate depictions of pterosaurs -- i.e., the depictions that the average layperson seems to have in mind when they think of pterosaurs. Many of the reports also sound like either bats or birds.

Taking this into account, I hypothesize that "pterosaur" sightings most-likely consist of misidentified bats and birds. However, it is possible that some of the bats and birds could potentially be unknown species.

Another group of Mesozoic sauropsids said to have persisted discreetly into the 21st century is the sauropods. As anyone familiar with dinosaurs or cryptozoology will already know, an African cryptid known as the Mokele-Mbembe is thought by many to be a relict sauropod. I used to subscribe to this hypothesis in the past, but I have now realized that it is flawed. As with the pterosaurs, reports do not match up well with modern depictions of sauropod anatomy and behavior. Sauropods were terrestrial animals with legs held directly underneath their bodies. By contrast, Mokele-Mbembe is usually described as a semi-aquatic creature with legs on the sides of its body. This description is more reminiscent of a reptile such as a monitor lizard or a turtle, rather than a dinosaur. Therefore, if Mokele-Mbembe exists, I think it is unlikely to be a sauropod.

At this point, it probably seems like I am anti-PSP. But in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. I strongly believe that science is all about pragmatism, not dogmatism or ideology, which are the domain of politics. Therefore, I take a pragmatic approach to my cryptozoological research, and the PSP is no exception.

Case in point: Plesiosaurs.

One of the most well-known hypotheses within cryptozoology is that plesiosaurs have survived to the present-day, and are responsible for reports of unidentified long-necked animals in oceans and lakes around the world. I used to think this hypothesis was unlikely, for various reasons. However, now that I have done some more research, I have arrived at a different conclusion. I now feel that the plesiosaur hypothesis fits well with the cryptozoological data, and is actually quite a plausible hypothesis. For more information on this matter, see the article that I wrote about plesiosaurs in May: http://www.mysteriouszoology.blogspot.com/2014/05/plesiosaurs.html

In addition to plesiosaurs, several other marine prehistoric survivors have also been proposed in the cryptozoological literature, including mosasaurs and archaeocete whales. I currently do not see any good evidence for these animals' continued existence, although I remain open-minded about the whole situation.

To conclude this portion of the article, I currently find that, of all the proposed prehistoric survivors, plesiosaurs are the only ones that I think marshal a relatively compelling case. However, my opinion could very well change if further evidence comes to light in the future.

I will now discuss my stance on the general concept of the PSP. One of the greatest criticisms of the PSP is that it is unreasonable to suggest that prehistoric taxa could have survived into the modern era without leaving a conspicuous fossil record between the time of their presumed extinction and the present-day. While this argument certainly does have merit, I don't think it completely invalidates the PSP. There are numerous examples of ghost lineages; gaps in the fossil record. While the lack of an intervening fossil record is, indeed, a major stumbling block for the PSP, I don't think it can be completely ruled out.

So this is my opinion on the PSP. I believe that it can be useful, and should not be completely discarded. However, in most cases, it does not fit the available data.

Dinosaur Porn

DISCLAIMER: This article is intended to be humorous. I do not, by any means, condone or support bestiality.

Two days ago, I wrote a very serious review of Abominable Science, so today I decided to have a little fun, and write a post that is paleontological in nature, rather than cryptozoological.

Many might not be aware of the fact that dinosaurian pornography has now been published. Ten novels featuring women having sex with dinosaurs are available for purchase on Amazon. They include Taken by the T-Rex, Ravished by the Triceratops, The Balaur's Delight, and Running From the Raptor, among other titles.

When I first read articles about these books, I was initially excited that dinosaurs were getting more attention in popular culture. However, I was pissed off when I saw one of the articles compare it to vampire and werewolf porn. Unlike vampires and werewolves, dinosaurs actually existed in the past, and still exist today in the form of birds. It is absolutely ludicrous to even mention them in the same sentence as mythical beasts such as werewolves and vampires.

In regard to the books themselves, there were some things I like about them, and some that I dislike. For example, I really admire the inclusion of Balaur, a recently-discovered dromaeosaur with two sickle-claws, in one of the books. It's nice to see a relatively obscure dinosaur get some attention.

On the other hand, there are also numerous things I was very disappointed with, including the inclusion of the pterodactyl. Pterodactyls are not dinosaurs; they are pterosaurs. There's nothing wrong with including the pterodactyl, but the author should have made it explicitly (no pun intended!) clear that pterosaurs are not dinosaurs, so as not to confuse readers.

The pterosaur also lacked pycnofibres, and likewise, the dinosaurs all lacked feathers. Velociraptor is known to have been fully covered in feathers, like a modern bird. And there is evidence that Tyrannosaurus rex might have also been at least somewhat feathered during some stage of its lifetime.

I think it's wonderful that dinosaur porn is being published, but these errors need to be addressed. If dinosaur pornographers wish to be taken seriously and have their work develop into a full-fledged, flourishing entertainment industry, then they need to make an effort to preserve scientific accuracy within their works.

I look forward to seeing more accurate dinosaur porn in the future. And perhaps pornographic movies and video games featuring scientifically-accurate dinosaurs might also be made.

A Review of The First Chapter of Abominable Science!

In July 2013, a book called Abominable Science! was released. Written by prominent skeptics Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero, it contained a critical treatment of cryptozoology. Several cryptids, including the Loch Ness Monster, Sea Serpents, Mokele-Mbembe, Bigfoot, and the Yeti were examined.

After the book was published, the authors challenged cryptozoologists to read the book and respond to it. On the SkepticBlog website, the authors pointed out that several cryptozoologists wrote one-star reviews on Amazon that apparently focused on insignificant details, while failing to address the wider issues raised by the book.

Well, call me crazy, but I have decided to take on the authors' challenge. I am going to give an honest, judicial review of Abominable Science! Before I start my review, I feel compelled to note that I did not read the entire book; I only read the introduction and the first chapter. So, since it would be dishonest of me to review the portions that I haven't read yet, I am only going to review those two parts.

The introduction, "Show Me The Body", was written by Michael Shermer. It stated that the discovery of new species is plausible, but a body is required to prove their existence. I had no problem at all with the introduction; in fact, I completely agree with it.

The first chapter, however, is a very different story. I detected many significant flaws in it. First of all, the authors noted that cryptozoology is not accepted by the scientific community, and then proceeded to list some exceptions: Roy Mackal, Darren Naish, Jeff Meldrum, etc. The entire premise struck me as flawed; it doesn't really matter whether or not something is accepted by the majority of the scientific community. Using the scientific community's approval to determine whether a field is acceptable or not is appealing to authority, which is a logical fallacy. It is also worth noting that several ideas, such as plate tectonics and the existence of meteorites, were not accepted by the scientific community in the past, but are common knowledge now. Now, I am not saying that cryptozoology is destined to become widely-accepted in the future; I'm just using these two examples to show that the appeal to authority is fatally flawed.

The authors then discuss discovery curves in large marine animals, and cite a study by Woodley, Naish, and Shanahan that estimated the number of pinnipeds remaining to be discovered. They stated that, while the authors initially estimated a relatively high number of around 47 or so, they later retracted their estimates, and found that only a few species of pinnipeds remain to be discovered. While this is true, it is also worth noting that at least one of the authors of the study actually used this argument to support cryptozoology! 

On Darren Naish's blog, Tetrapod Zoology, he stated that there might perhaps be one or two pinniped species remaining to be discovered, and that this -- surprisingly -- matched up with the cryptozoological literature on "Sea Serpents", which predicted that only one or two long-necked "Sea Serpent" species existed. (I am aware that Naish has now changed his opinion, but he supported it at the time that he participated in this particular study). So at least one of the authors felt that this study actually supported cryptozoology.

So Abominable Science! apparently took this particular study out of context, and used it against cryptozoology.

Another thing that caught my attention was when the authors claimed that the discovery of cryptids is implausible because all of the recently-discovered large species are similar to known species, are not radically different from most other animals, and are not very spectacular or striking. The authors claimed that the last spectacular, striking discoveries were the okapi, Komodo dragon, and mountain gorilla, and that these discoveries occurred more than 100 years ago, and in remote wilderness regions, not highly-populated regions like the Pacific Northwest and Loch Ness. They also point out that the aforementioned three creatures were eventually found and described, unlike cryptids such as Sasquatch and Nessie, which continue to elude detection after decades of searching.

I have to concede that the authors do bring up a good point here; it is true that the majority of undiscovered species are probably going to end up being similar to already-discovered ones. However, this does not preclude the existence of a few radical unknown species.

However, it is not true that the okapi, Komodo dragon, and mountain gorilla were the last large, spectacular discoveries. Since the 1990s, various large mammals have been discovered in Vu Quang, Vietnam. These include the Saola or Vu Quang Ox, discovered in 1992, and the Giant Muntjac, discovered in 1994. It is worth noting here that the Saola is actually a unique and specialized ungulate that displays characteristics of both antelopes and cattle. It is therefore placed in its own monotypic genus. Various other large, distinctive, and unusual mammals have also been reported from Vu Quang.

I also found it rather strange that the Komodo dragon was used as an example of an unusual, spectacular species outside the normal range of zoological diversity, while the Saola wasn't mentioned at all.

The dragon belongs to the genus Varanus, which numerous smaller lizards belong to, and all varanids are believed to be genetically very similar. Apart from size, the Komodo dragon isn't really unique at all.

Meanwhile, the Saola is so unique that it is classified in its own monotypic genus, and, as I said, it shares characteristics of both bovines and antelopes.

And it was discovered 80 years after the Komodo dragon.

In addition to the Vu Quang animals, there are also numerous other examples of substantially-sized animals that have been discovered recently. Since I can't possibly list them all here, I recommend that readers should peruse other resources for more information. The Encyclopaedia of New and Rediscovered Animals, published by Dr. Karl Shuker in 2012, is an excellent book about this topic. It contains information about practically all of the large, spectacular species that have been discovered in recent years.

The time discrepancy of 100 years is somewhat of a red herring. As pointed out in an article on the Tetrapod Zoology blog, the vast majority of recently-discovered large mammals have been discovered using old-fashioned methods; in only a select few cases did modern technology play a significant role in their discovery. The same techniques that were used to discover large animals in the early 20th century are still being used today. It is true that the world's population has vastly increased over the past 100 years, but there is still plenty of unexplored wilderness left in the world. So the time difference doesn't even really matter as much as the authors think. But in any case, even if the time span did make a difference, we still have the various Vu Quang discoveries from the 1990s, as stated above.

In regard to cryptids inhabiting highly-populated regions, I should note that the amount of uninhabited wilderness in western North America is vastly underestimated by many people. I do agree that there probably isn't enough wilderness in the eastern half of North America, but the western half still provides plenty of wilderness for large animals to be able to successfully remain hidden.

And the Loch Ness example is also ineffective, simply due to the fact that the cryptids in Loch Ness, if they exist, do not have to inhabit the loch all the time. It is not necessary for an isolated breeding population to have existed in the loch for millennia. It is possible that individuals occasionally swim into the loch from the ocean, become trapped, and then spend the rest of their lives there. This could potentially apply to other reported lake cryptids, as well.

And finally, it should be noted that not all new species are discovered quickly and easily, and in fact, this is supported by historical precedent. The Giant Forest Hog, Hylochoerus meinertzhageni, was first sighted in Liberia in 1688, but was not officially proven to exist until two specimens were found in Kenya in 1904, a whopping 216 years after it was first sighted. For comparison, serious investigation of Sasquatch only began in the late 1950s (around 55 years ago), and serious investigation into Nessie sightings only began in the early 1930s (around 80 years ago).

In conclusion, Abominable Science! sounds like it had great intentions, but it was ultimately poorly executed. In any case, I applaud the authors for bothering to write an entire book on cryptozoology; no matter what their opinions of the field are, it is refreshing to see that scientists are actually bothering to take a look at the field, rather than just ignoring it. I was ultimately disappointed with the parts of the book that I read, but I still give the authors credit for trying, and they do raise some good points.

Therefore, if I had to rate the first chapter of the book on Amazon, I would probably give it 2.5 stars.

In the future, I might read other sections of the book, and review them on this blog accordingly.

References:

• Naish, Darren. (2009). Statistics, seals, and sea monsters in the technical literature. Tetrapod Zoology. http://www.scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/03/24/statistics-seals-sea-monsters/ Accessed September 4, 2014.
• Eberhart, George M. (2002). Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc. Print.
• Naish, Darren. (2009). Over 400 new mammal species have been named since 1993. Tetrapod Zoology. http://www.scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/03/23/408-post-1993-mammal-species/ Accessed September 4, 2014.
• Coleman, Loren and Clark, Jerome. (2012). Cryptozoology A to Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras and Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature. New York, NY: Fireside. Print.

This illustration from the Woodley et al. analysis shows several crypto-pinnipeds nonchalantly swimming alongside a human diver.

Conservation and Cloning

While browsing the Internet recently, I stumbled upon this article. According to the article, scientists could be able to clone the Woolly Mammoth back to life within the next three years. This has led me to start thinking about something.

It is plainly obvious that genetic engineering and cloning technology is now accelerating in complexity at a rapid pace. Meanwhile, it is commonly-accepted that humans' activities have caused the extinction of numerous species in the past, and might cause many more species to become extinct in the future.

Therefore, I propose that zoologists and geneticists all over the world should start a global DNA-collecting effort. We should try to sequence the genomes of many extinct species, as well as endangered species that might be in danger of becoming extinct in the near future. We should try to clone species that have become extinct as a result of human interference (such as the thylacine, the dodo, and the passenger pigeon), and if endangered species (such as the tiger) become extinct in the future, we should try to clone them, as well.

It is widely-recognized that humans are irresponsibly destroying the environment, and that this may have dire consequences if we don't change our behavior. In the worst-case scenario, almost all substantially-sized animals on Earth might become extinct within the next 500 years. If we can clone them back to life, perhaps we can help circumvent this worst-case scenario.

The Role of Anecdotal Evidence in Zoology

One of the most controversial and divisive topics in the field of zoology is the role that anecdotal evidence plays in the discovery of new species. Some eager believers readily accept every claim, no matter how far-fetched or sketchy it is. Meanwhile, some militant skeptics claim that anecdotes are worth nothing at all. In my opinion, both of these opinions are erroneous. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Contrary to statements by many science journalists, anecdotal evidence has, indeed, had a significant role in the identification of several new species in the past. People who had been to Indonesia spoke of an enormous "land crocodile" that would devour large animals, including humans. In 1912, their claims were vindicated when the beast was finally identified by scientists. We now know it as the Komodo Dragon, Varanus komodoensis.

Likewise, travellers in equatorial Africa told stories about a tribe of giant, hairy men who would kidnap people and kill them. In 1847, these claims were confirmed when the Gorilla was discovered.

However, the skeptics are definitely right when they say that anecdotal evidence cannot be used to prove the existence of a species. According to accepted scientific protocol, the only way that a species's existence can be definitively proven is by obtaining a specimen -- either dead or alive.

So I conclude that anecdotal evidence can help indicate the existence of a given species, but it cannot prove the existence of a given species. 

A good analogy that I like to use is the smoke analogy; if a person sees smoke in the distance, the smoke indicates the possible existence of a fire, but the existence of a fire cannot be definitively proven unless the person walks up to the region where the smoke is emanating from, and checks to see if there is a fire.
When there is smoke, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there might be a fire that the smoke is emanating from. And when there is anecdotal evidence of an unknown animal, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there might, in fact, be an unknown animal behind the reports. However, the existence of a fire cannot be proven unless someone checks to see where the smoke is coming from. And the existence of an unknown animal cannot be proven until a specimen is obtained.

So anecdotal evidence is not total proof, like the true believers claim, but it is also not worthless, like the militant skeptics claim. As is so often the case in life, the extremists are wrong. It is the middle position that is the most scientific and reasonable.

The Tetrapod Zoology Blog

One of my favorite blogs on the Internet is the Tetrapod Zoology blog. Tetrapod Zoology (also known as 'Tet Zoo') is an excellent zoological blog. It belongs to Dr. Darren Naish, a British paleontologist who has done extensive research on theropod dinosaurs and Mesozoic marine reptiles. Naish also used to be involved in cryptozoology, but has since become less supportive.

Tet Zoo has had three different versions over the years.

The first version of Tet Zoo was hosted on Blogspot (like this blog), and was created in January 2006. The first-ever article on the blog was about eagles attacking and killing much larger prey, and was titled "When Eagles Go Bad".

The second version of Tet Zoo was launched in January 2007, and displaced the first version. It was hosted on ScienceBlogs.

The third version of Tet Zoo was launched in July 2011, and it displaced the second version. It is hosted on the Scientific American blog network, and it is currently active.

One of the main reasons why I love Tet Zoo so much is because the blog is unashamed to deviate from the prevailing scientific orthodoxy. For example, at the time when the "When Eagles Go Bad" article was written, the idea of eagles killing much larger animals was widely considered to be a "fringe" topic by the scientific community. However, Naish successfully showed that eagles have been documented killing animals such as deer, pronghorn antelope, wolves, and even 100-kilogram juvenile cows.

Likewise, Naish also wrote an article about the origins of the Domestic Dog, Canis familiaris. The most commonly-accepted hypothesis within the scientific community is that the Domestic Dog is a direct descendant of the Grey Wolf, Canis lupus. Some authors have even gone so far as to reclassify the Domestic Dog as a subspecies of the Grey Wolf, Canis lupus familiaris, rather than as a distinct species. In his article, Naish presented an alternative hypothesis that the Domestic Dog is not actually descended from the Grey Wolf, but is instead descended from a wild Canis familiaris. I found this alternative hypothesis to be a very interesting and refreshing take on the story of dog origins.

In conclusion, Tet Zoo is a wonderful blog, and I really hope everyone here can enjoy it.

Here are the links to all the versions:

Version 1: http://www.darrennaish.blogspot.com/

Version 2: http://www.scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/

Version 3: http://www.blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology