The Lord Geekington

Feresa: The Growling Wolf-Dolphin

2011-12-17T17:26:00.000-05:00

The dolphin Feresa attenuata has been bestowed with dreadfully stupid common names. Feresa has been recognized as distinct from Orca since Gray (1871), which makes "Pygmy Killer Whale" both inappropriate and archaic. The alternative "Slender Blackfish" is actively misleading as the superficially similar Pseudorca is more slender (Reeves et al. 2002) and well-lit color photographs in Rossi-Santos et al. (2006) show that the species is actually brown, contra every illustration. I'll be calling the dolphin "Feresa" from here on out (I'm also not too fond of "attenuata") as my alternate suggestion in the title is a tad verbose.

Feresea... maybe. This species can be distinguished from Pseudorca by having a proportionally larger dorsal fin (2 base lengths away from the blowhole vs. 2.5) and by having a clearly demarcated cape; Peponocephala can be distinguished by having pointed flipper tips, a pointed head when viewed from above, and no white extending around the face (Baird 2010). I think this is the case in the above photo, but I'm not entirely certain. Photo by Gary L. Friedrichsen from WoRMS.

Feresa is one of the most poorly-known toothed whales (McSweeney et al. 2009) and single sightings or strandings are still viewed as deserving publication (Baird 2010). Prior to 1954, the species was known from only two skulls (Reeves et al. 2002), making it extremely poorly-known even compared to beaked whales. What makes this absolutely shocking is that Feresa is not a cryptic species. They are known from the tropics and subtropics worldwide, are easy to detect in visual surveys, do not take extended dives, and (contra Leatherwood et al. 1982) do not avoid vessels (McSweeney et al. 2009). While their surface behavior is normally subdued compared to other dolphins, they have been observed jumping high above the surface and even riding on bow waves (Reeves et al. 2002). It appears that while a deep-water habitat and confusion with Pseudorca and Peponocephala can explain the lack of observations to a degree, the main factor is probably the species being rare (McSweeney et al. 2009).

In 1965 - a little over a decade after the external appearance of the animal became known - Feresa was held in captivity. Pryor (1991) remarked that one individual behaved "more like a wolf than a normal dolphin" would "growl and snap like as canid" and "not hesitate to attack people and other cetaceans". Since when are cetaceans capable of growling? This behavior has led some to presume that Feresa preys on mammals in the wild (Leatherwood et al. 1982) and aggression towards other dolphins has been observed whilst individuals were trapped in tuna seines (Reeves et al. 2002). Considering that both situations occurred in cramped and undoubtedly stressful environments, I think it is completely unfounded to conclude that Feresa is a pugnacious marine mammal-killing macropredator with the available evidence. Stomach contents have included squid and fish (Rodríguez-López and Mignucci-Giannoni 1999; Zerbini & Santos 1997)

Feresa skeleton. From Wikipedia Commons.

The skeleton of Feresa does appear superficially Orca-like, however, it is not a particularly close relative, hence my strong dislike of the "Pygmy Killer Whale". There is some disagreement as to how closely they are related; Slater et al. (2010) places Orcinus (and Orcaella) as the most basal delphinids, however Vilstrup et al. (2011) consider both to be both members of the clade Globicephalinae, but with Orca as the most basal member and Feresa as a derived member and close relative of Peponocephala and Globicephala. This seems like a very interesting group, and perhaps I'll give it some more coverage.

References:

Baird, R. W. (2010). Pygmy Killer Whales (Feresa attenuata) or False Killer Whales (Pseudorca crassidens) Identification of a Group of Small Cetaceans Seen off Ecuador in 2003. Aquatic Mammals 36(3), 326-327. Available.

Gray, J. E. (1871). Supplement to the Catalogue of seals and whales in the British Museum. Available.

Leatherwood, S., Reeves, R. R., Perrin, W. F., & Evans, W. (1982). Whales, dolphins, and porpoises of the eastern north pacific and adjacent arctic waters (NOAA Technical Report NMFA Circular 444). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Partially Available.

McSweeney, D. J., Baird, R. W., Mahaffy, S. D., Webster, D. L., and Schorr, G. S. (2009). Site ﬁdelity and association patterns of a rare species: Pygmy killer whales (Feresa attenuata) in the main Hawaiian Island. Marine Mammal Science 25(3), 557-572. Available.

Pryor, K. (1991). Mortal remains: Studying dead animals. In: Pryor, K. & Norris, K. S. (eds.) Dolphin Society: Discoveries and Puzzles. University of California Press: Berkeley. Available.

Reeves, R. R., Stewart, B. S., Clapham, P. J., & Powell, J. A. (2002). National Audubon Society Guide to Marine Mammals of the World. Alfred A. Knopf: New York.

Rodríguez-López, M. A. & Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A. (1999). A stranded pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) in Puerto Rico. Aquatic Mammals 25(2), 119-121. Available.

Rossi-Santos, M., Baracho, C., Neto, E. S., & Marcovaldi, E. (2006). First sightings of the pygmy killer whale, Feresa attenuata, for the Brazilian coast. JMBA2 - Biodiversity Records. Available.

Slater, G. J., Price, S. A., Santini, F., and Alfaro, M. E. (2010). Diversity versus disparity and the radiation of modern cetaceans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 277(1697), 3097-3104. Available.

Vilstrup, J. T., Ho, S. Y. W., Foote, A. D., Morin, P. A., Kreb, D., Krützen, M., Parra, G. J., Robertson, K. M., de Stephanis, R., Verborgh, P., Willerslev, E., Orlando, L., & Gilbert, M. T. P. (2011). Mitogenomic phylogenetic analyses of the Delphinidae with an emphasis on the Globicephalinae. BMC Evolutionary Biology 11(65). Available.

Zerbini, A. N. & Santos, M. C. O. (1997). First record of the pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata (Gray, 1874) for the Brazilian coast. Aquatic Mammals 23(2), 105-109. Available.

Eocetus, "Eocetus", and Friends

2011-12-15T19:45:00.001-05:00

I was shocked that Uhen (2010) remarked that Basilosaurus drazindai and Basiloterus hussaini "probably represent protocetids... akin to Eocetus". This would place the whales outside Pelagiceti and imply that the now-questionable basilosaurids were potentially capable of walking on land, despite being enormous. Unfortunately, other mentions of this revised placement give no further details (Uhen 2008, Uhen et al. 2011) and Uhen (2010) further states the placement is "difficult to determine with certainty" due to scarce materials. I suspect the hypothesis will not be officially discussed until further material is found and/or described... which won't stop me from wildly speculating.

Lumbar vertebrae in right lateral view. From left to right: "Eocetus" wardii (from Uhen 1999), Basiloterus hussaini, and Basilosaurus drazindai - note that the latter-most may be an anterior caudal (from Gingerich et al. 1997). For comparison: Basilosaurus isis vertebrae.

In the description of Basilosaurus drazindai, Gingerich et al. (1997) note a number of "primitive retentions" which resemble the morphology of "generalized archaeocetes": long neural spine and arch; broad, almost-horizontally placed, anterior-projecting metapophyses which project beyond the anterior edge of the vertebral centrum; and paired, posterolateral processes of the neural arch. Aside from the last trait (which I can't confirm without a dorsal view), all of these traits are present in "Eocetus" (Uhen 1999). Additionally, "Eocetus" has elongated transverse processes, unlike the condition of Basilosaurus (Uhen 1999); however, B. drazindai has processes with a 15.5 cm long base (they broke off) relative to the 30 cm centrum (Gingerich et al. 1997), and so probably had a similar, albeit slightly less extreme, condition. The only criterion for placing B. drazindai in the genus Basilosaurus was the size and shape of the centrum (Gingerich et al. 1997), and while they are uncannily similar in shape, everything else seems to be pointing towards a relationship with "Eocetus".

Lumbar vertebrae in anterior view. Ditto order.

As for awkward middle-child Basiloterus, it appears to have a centrum which is slightly more elongated than that of "Eocetus", however the neural arch and maybe the neural spine appear to be narrower. The metapophyses are upwardly-angled (Gingerich et al. 1997), less broad, less anterior-projecting, but still appear to extend past the centrum. The posterolateral processes are absent (Gingerich et al. 1997). The base of the transverse process is 9.3 cm long relative to a 19.5-20 cm centra (Gingerich et al. 1997), proportionally similar to Basilosaurus drazindai. The placement of Basiloterus is thus not clear, and perhaps it was a basilosaurid or an even more derived protocetid.

Maiacetus inuus, a basal "protocetid" (Uhen 2011). From Wikipedia Commons.

Protocetidae is a blatantly paraphyletic "family" of extinct cetaceans from Eocene coastal marine deposits with hip and femur morphology indicating amphibious capabilities (most of the time) and no evidence of flukes (Uhen 2010). Uhen (1999) appears to think that "Eocetus" wardii had weight-bearing hips, however Uhen (2010) refers to them as "moderately reduced" and regarded the species as possibly non-amphibious. This is perhaps not surprising since Eocetus, "Eocetus", and an unnamed Pisco Formation species are the sister group of Pelagiceti (Uhen et al. 2011). This could make them closer relatives of Dorudon than Maiacetus, and raises the question of how many typical protocetid traits they actually exhibited. Perhaps they were entirely aquatic tail-based swimmers which just happened to have fairly large vestigial legs.

Dorudon atrox. From Wikipedia Commons.

The scare quotes around "Eocetus" hint at a taxonomic misadventure. "E." wardii was assigned to its genus by Uhen (1999) based on comparisons of its skull and vertebrae to Eocetus schweinfurthi; the problem is, the holotype of E. schweinfurthi is an isolated skull and it is not possible to determine whether the vertebrae referred to it actually represent the species (Geisler et al. 2005). There is overlapping skull material (Uhen 1999), but Geisler et al. (2005) apparently regarded it as too incomplete to warrant unambiguous placement in the genus. Somehow, "Eocetus" and Eocetus formed a clade in phylogenetic analyses (Geisler et al. 2005, Uhen et al. 2011), making it probable that future discoveries will confirm their close relationship.

"Eocetus" wardii is clearly related to unnamed Pisco Formation material which exhibits the same distinctive traits (moderate centrum elongation, elongated neural arches and spines and transverse processes, strange pock-marked texture) with the only difference being that the unnamed material is 35% smaller (Uhen et al. 2011). The Egyptian vertebrae dubiously assigned to Eocetus schweinfurthi (figured in Uhen 1999) also seem quite similar (including the pock-marks), and if it is also a member of this clade, it would indicate a sizable trans-oceanic range. This in turn could be taken as evidence of the whales being largely pelagic... of course this is quite speculative.

There of course remains much to be known about these cetaceans, and perhaps future discoveries will be enlightening as to how similar they were to the pelagic cetaceans, as well as the origins of Pelagiceti. I really hope it turns out that a Basilosaurus-sized animal could walk on land.

References:

Geisler, J. H., Sanders, A. E., and Luo, Z-X. (2005). A New Protocetid Whale (Cetacea: Archaeoceti) from the Late Middle Eocene of South Carolina. American Museum Novitates 3480, 1-65. Available.

Gingerich, P. D., Arif, M., Bhatti, M. A., Anwar, M., & Sanders, W. J. (1997). Basilosaurus drazindai and Basiloterus hussaini, new Archaeoceti (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the middle Eocene Drazinda Formation, with a revised interpretation of ages of whale-bearing strata in the Kirthar Group of the Sulaiman Range, Punjab (Pakistan). Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 30 (2), 55-81. Available.

Uhen, M. D., Pyenson, N. D., Devries, T. J., Urbina, M., and Renne, P. R. (2011). New middle Eocene whales from the Pisco Basin of Peru. Journal of Paleontology 85(5), 955-969. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1666/10-162.1

Uhen, M. D. (2010). The Origin(s) of Whales. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 38, 189–221. Available.

Uhen, M. D. (2008). Basilosaurids. In: Perrin, W. F., Würsig, B., and Thewissen, J. G. M. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, Second Edition. Elsevier: Burlington, Massachusetts. Available.

Uhen, M. D. (1999). New Species of Protocetid Archaeocete Whale, Eocetus wardii (Mammalia: Cetacea) from the Middle Eocene of North Carolina. Journal of Paleontology 73(3), 512-528.

Weems, R. E., Edwards, L. E., Osborne, J. E., and Alford, A. A. (2011). An occurrence of the protocetid whale "Eocetus" wardii in the Middle Eocene formation of Virginia. Journal of Paleontology 85(2), 271-278. Available.

Billfish Bills - What Are They Good For?

2011-11-30T21:53:00.000-05:00

In the prior article, I discussed long-beaked "dolphins" (Eurhinodelphidae) and noted that I couldn't find hypotheses on the function of their uneven jaws in the literature... aside from a weird proposal involving Skimmers. The Theatrical Tanystropheus mentioned a couple ("digging for small, sand-dwelling organisms or as a bat with which to stun fish") which are plausible, but I don't know where they are from or what lines of reasoning are behind them. There are extant species with a superficially similar condition - billfishes - and it could be relevant to review what they do with their bills.

Atlantic White Marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) from Wikipedia Commons.

Swordfish (Xiphiidae) and Marlins/Sailfishes/Spearfishes (Istiophoridae) are living sister taxa¹in the clade Xiphioidea; while traditionally included in Scombroidei, billfishes are presently regarded as phylogenetically distinct (Orrell et al. 2006) and possibly close relatives of jacks and... flatfishes (Little et al. 2010). Fish phylogenetics is scary business, and I suspect billfish relations will undergo further revisions as the monstrosity known as "Perciformes" is reasoned into pieces. Anyways, while xiphiids² and istiophorids look superficially similar, they actually have rather distinctive morphology. Swordfish have a bill which is flat in cross-section, toothless, blunt-tipped, and with central chambers (compared to rounded, denticulated, pointed, and chamber-less for istiophorids), a weak mandible much shorter than the rostrum, no scales, and no pelvic fins (Collette et al. 2006; Fierstine 2006; Fierstine and Voight 1996 citing Nakamura 1983). Strangely, most extinct billfishes have jaws of equal length, and if the proposed (Istiophoridae + Hemingwayidae) and (Xiphias + Xiphiorhynchus) clades (Fierstine 2006) are correct (see note 1), this would mean the unequal jaws of extant billfishes evolved twice.

¹ A detailed cladistic analysis with the fossil members of the group has yet to be undertaken (Fierstine 2006).
² As for what the deal with them and ziphiids is, I have no idea.

Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) from Wikipedia Commons.

One infamous use of the billfish bill is impaling unexpected objects. One Blue Marlin was found with rostrum fragments from two other, different billfish species (Fierstine 1997). Other unfortunates include large fish, whales, bales of rubber, boats, ships, deep-diving vessels, people, and turtles (Frazier et al. 1994 - citing various). The billfish-on-billfish impaling has been interpreted as defense against predators (Fierstine 1997) and in the case of the turtles, it was hypothesized that the billfish accidentally impaled them when aiming for fish aggregated nearby (Frazier et al. 1994). Istiophorids can survive with a foreshortened rostrum (Fierstine 2006) so apparently these accidents are survivable. But this raises another question - do they need an elongated rostrum at all?

One study of 227 Blue Marlins (Makaira nigricans) stomach contents found that 38% of prey items showed evidence of damage from the bill, 11% of which were speared and 81% of which were slashed, and the rest of which were in multiple pieces (Shimose et al. 2007). Bizarrely, another study with 226 Blue Marlins found no evidence of prey being struck or speared (Vaske et al. 2011). Vaske et al. (2011) offered no explanation for this anomaly, and I can't see an obvious one either. Both populations (from Japan and Brazil, respectively) even primarily preyed on Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), which were normally killed with the bill in the former population. I'm stumped.

Fierstine (2006) hypothesized that unequal jaw length in billfishes may have evolved to avoid suffocation when impaling large objects (predator or prey) and to avoid damage to the mandible. I don't buy the mandibular reasoning since extant billfishes get by just fine with them naturally foreshortened. The available evidence suggests impaling is a rather rare event and thus unlikely to be the main factor in the evolution of the characteristic billfish bill. An alternate hypothesis could be that the mandible was shortened so the rostrum could be "weaponized" (sword-like flattening in xiphiids and denticles in istiophorids³) to slash at prey. However, the population which apparently doesn't use bills to feed and healthy individuals with damaged rostra are problematic for both of these hypotheses. Perhaps future studies will show that the bill is generally important for feeding in the group and that the counterexamples are just freaks, but either way, it seems premature to make any conclusions about why billfish have their striking morphology.

³ The ichthyosaur Eurhinosaurus has teeth on the upper jaw which could be a similar instance of "weaponization".

I really have no idea how eurhinodelphids fit into this framework since Fierstine's hypothetical suffocation would not be an issue (if they could impale at all) and the rostrum does not seem particularly dangerous (no teeth, denticles, or flattening). I wonder if this morphology evolved for different reasons, or if it evolved for reasons that have yet to be hypothesized.

References:

Collette, B. B., McDowell, J. R., and Graves, J. E. (2006). Phylogeny of Recent Billfishes. Bulletin of Marine Science 79(3), 455-468. Available.

Fierstine, H. L. (2006). Fossil history of Billfishes (Xiphioidea). Bulletin of Marine Science 79(3), 433-453. Available.

Fierstine, H. L. (1997). An Atlantic Blue Marlin (Makaira nigricans), impaled by two species of billfishes (Teleostei: Istiophoridae). Bulletin of Marine Science 61(2), 495-499. Available.

Fierstine, H. L., and Voight, N. L. (1996). Use of Rostral Characters for Identifying Adult Billfishes (Teleostei: Perciformes: Istiophoridae and Xiphiidae). Copeia 1996(1), 148-161. Available.

Frazier, J. G., Fierstine, H. L., Beavers, S. C., Achaval, F., Suganuma, H., Pitman, R. L., Yamaguchi, Y., and Prigioni, C. M. (1994). Impalement of marine turtles (Reptilia, Chelonia: Cheloniidae and Dermochelyidae) by billfishes (Osteichthyes, Perciformes: Istiophoridae and Xiphiidae). Fisheries Science 39(1), 85-96. Available.

Little, A. G., Lougheed, S. C., and Moyes, C. D. (2010). Evolutionary affinity of billfishes (Xiphiidae and Istiophoridae) and flatfishes (Plueronectiformes): Independent and trans-subordinal origins of endothermy in teleost fishes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 56(3), 897-904. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.04.022

Nakamura, I. (1983). Systematics of billfishes (Xiphiidae and Istiophoridae). Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory 28, 255-396.

Orrell, T. M., Collette B. B., and Johnson, G. J. (2006). Molecular data supports separate scombroid and xiphioid clades. Bulletin of Marine Science 79(3), 505-519. Available.

Shimose, T., Yokawa, K., Saito, H., and Tachihara, K. (2007). Evidence for use of the bill by blue marlin, Makaira nigricans, during feeding. Ichthyological Research 54(4), 420-422. DOI: 10.1007/s10228-007-0419-x

Vaske, T., Travassos, P. E., Pinheiro, P. B., Hazin, F. H. V., Tolotti, M. T., and Barbosa, T. M. (2011). Diet of the Blue Marlin (Makaira nigricans, Lacepède 1802) (Perciformes: Istiophoridae) of the southwestern equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Brazilian Journal of Aquatic Science and Technology 15(1), 65-70. Available.

Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000008 - Eurhinodelphis longirostris

2011-11-29T22:11:00.000-05:00

Eurhinodelphis longirostris at the American Museum of Natural History.

The most striking trait of Eurhinodelphidae is a toothless extension of the rostrum beyond the mandible (Lambert 2005), superficially similar to the bills of Billfish and Swordfish. Oddly, this morphology was speculative for a period of time (Kellogg 1925) although it has apparently been confirmed in several species as of Lambert (2005). Unfortunately, information on eurhinodelphids is scant and/or difficult to access and, among numerous other basics of their biology, I really don't know what the function of the extended rostrum would be. The only suggestion I could find is from one professor Abel who speculated that the cetaceans "swam on the surface of the sea, where they captured food - probably fishes - in much the same manner as does the skimmer (Rhynchops) [sic] among birds" (Anonymous 1909). Somehow, I find this even less plausible than azhdarchids-as-skimmers. On a curious note, there is a cetacean with the reverse of eurhinodelphid morphology (mandible extending past rostrum) unofficially known as the... skimmer porpoise.

Phylogenetically, eurhinodelphids have bounced around from being considered stem-ziphiids, the sister group to Delphinida, and the sister group to Squalodontidae + Squalodelphidae (Geisler et al. 2011 - citing various); within Geisler et al. (2011), they were placed outside crown-Odontoceti¹ in an unconstrained analysis and as the sister group of platanistoids in a constrained analysis. The authors regarded the latter position as more probable and placed eurhinodelphids within the new group Synrhina, which includes most odontocetes except for Sperm Whales and assorted extinct taxa. Whatever their placement, eurhinodelphids are certainly close relatives of living toothed whales, despite that whole extinct thing.

¹ It actually states they "did not fall inside crown Cetacea", but this is a typo. Otherwise, they'd be Miocene Archaeocetes.

Eurhinodelphis longirostris seems to have an unusually long neck for a cetacean. The cervical vertebrae are not fused (Kellogg 1925), however this is a surprisingly common trait shared with river dolphins, monodontids, rorquals, and gray whales (Tinker 1988). The neck of E. longirostris appears to be proportionally longer than those of the baleen whales and Narwhal and is probably comparable to those of the Beluga and Dorudon. River dolphin skeletons are hard to find, but it seems likely they have similarly proportioned necks. It seems that Eurhinodelphis wasn't a total freak, well, except for the snout.

The Theatrical Tanystropheus covered Eurhinodelphis as well, and it doesn't even overlap that much!

References:

Anonymous. (1909). Notes. Nature 2088 (82), 16. Available.

Geisler, J. H., McGowen, M. R., Yang, G., Gatesy, J. (2011). A supermatrix analysis of genomic, morphological, and paleontological data from crown Cetacea. BMC Evolutionary Biology 11 (112). Available.

Kellogg, R. (1925). On the occurrence of fossil porpoises of the genus Eurhinodelphis in North America. Proceedings of the U. S. National Museum 66(26), 1-40. Available.

Lambert, O. (2005). Les dauphins longirostres et les baleines à bec du Néogène de la région d’Anvers: systématique, phylogénie, paléo-écologie et paléo-biogéographie. Doctoral Thesis. Partially Available.

Tinker, S. W. (1988). Whales of the World. E. J. Brill Publishing Company: New York. Partially Available.

Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000007 - Narwhal

2011-11-25T21:46:00.000-05:00

Monodon monoceros at the American Museum of Natural History.

Narwhals are a bit strange even by cetacean standards. I'll let the title of this Tet Zoo article speak for itself: "A 3-m tooth that can bend 30 cm in any direction and is hypersentitive to salinity, temperature and pressure... and the sonic lance hypothesis".

They get weirder. Without the tooth (or sometimes, teeth) it is difficult to picture how this flat-skulled cetacean could be the same as a bulbous-headed Narwhal. As brought up in my Dorudon post, there are colossal amounts of soft tissue involved.

Another soft-tissue feature not hinted at by the skeleton are unusually shaped flukes... in males. Fontanella et al. (2010) suggest that the concave leading edge and lack of sweepback of the flukes increases lift and thrust to compensate for the drag caused by the tusk in males. The implications of the occasional tusked female narwhal were not discussed by the authors.

One female Narwhal was estimated to be 114.8 (± 10.2) years old (Garde et al. 2007) which, if correct, would make Narwhals the third oldest known mammals after humans (122 years) and Bowhead Whales (211 years?). Garde et al. (2007) used a sample of 75 individuals (15 juvenile) from a heavily hunted population, and subsequently speculated that Narwhals in other populations could potentially reach "considerably higher" ages. As for methodology, Garde et al. (2007) used aspartic acid racemization rate in the eye; this method was also used to calculate the extreme age estimate for Bowheads (George et al. 1999), and ages of over a hundred years have subsequently been supported by bomb lance fragments (George and Bockstoce 2008) and ovarian corpora counts (George et al. 2011). So it looks probable that aspartic acid racemization does not provide grossly inaccurate estimates of old age - why would Narwhals live to be centenarians? Garde et al. (2007) note that Narwhals and Bowheads are both year-round Arctic residents and speculate that their extreme longevity is an adaptation to drastic changes is climate. While an interesting idea, there does not seem to be much data available on cetacean longevity (Table 2 in Garde et al. 2007 has only 12 out of ~80 species) and Narwhals are apparently not far older than other cetaceans (for instance, Orcas apparently live to be 90). It could be possible that further investigation into cetacean longevity will reveal that lifespans of over a hundred years are perfectly normal.

References:

Fontanella, J. E., Fish, F. E., Rybczynski, N., Nweeia, M. T., & Ketten, D. R. (2010). Three-dimensional geometry of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros) ﬂukes in relation to hydrodynamics. Marine Mammal Science 27(4), 889-898. Available.

Garde, E., Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., Hansen, S. H., Nachman, G., and Forchhammer, M. C. (2007). Age-specific growth and remarkable longevity in Narwhals (Monodon monoceros) from West Greenland as estimated by Aspartic Acid Racemization. Journal of Mammalogy 88(1), 49-58. Available.

George, J. C., Follmann, E., Zeh, J., Sousa, M., Tarpley, R., Suydam, R. Horstmann-Dehn, L. (2011). A new way to estimate the age of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) using ovarian corpora counts. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89(9), 840-852. doi: 10.1139/z11-057

George, J. C., and Bocktoce, J. R. (2008). Two historical weapon fragments as an aid to estimating the longevity and movements of bowhead whales. Polar Biology 31(6), 751-754. Available.

George, J. C., Bada, J., Zeh, J., Scott, L., Brown, S. E., O'Hara, T., & Suydam, R. (1999). Age and growth estimates of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) via aspartic acid racemization. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77, 571-578.

The Giant Turtle Therizinosaurus

2011-11-18T12:06:00.001-05:00

Therizinosaurus, you look... unwell. Reconstruction by K. K. Fierova, from Maleyev (1954).

I am quite fond of old, weird reconstructions, and the initial classification of Therizinosaurus cheloniformis as a "turtle-like reptile"¹ resulted in the magnificent specimen above. So how could the veritable Jabberwocky we're all familiar with be misinterpreted to such a colossal degree?

¹This odd phrasing is mirrored in the scientific name ("saurus" = lizard, "cheloniformis" = turtle-like). Malayev (1954) linked Therizinosaurus with members of Protostegidae and thus (probably) didn't intend to suggest another clade of reptiles which converged on turtles. Bizarrely, Rozhdestvensky (1974) claimed Malayev/Maleev classified Therizinosaurus as a "turtle-like pangolin"! Rozhdestvensky (1977) does not reiterate that statement, and further notes that another worker (Sukhanov) classified Therizinosaurus as a turtle; I unfortunately cannot find that source ("The subclass Testudinata" in Osnovy Paleontologii).

Therizinosaurus in its non-turtle form. From Wikipedia Commons.

Malayev (1954) described Therizinosaurus from scrappy remains: a metacarpal fragment, 3 manual unguals, and rib fragments (Zanno 2010). One of the ribs was an estimated 1.5 meters long when complete and was used to calculate a maximum body width of 3.25 meters (10'8") and body length of 4.5 m (14'9") (Malayev 1954); this is of course quite a bit larger than even the largest known Stupendemys geographicus. The rib was noted to lack costal elements, which is curious since turtle skeletons generally look like this:

Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) skeleton. Note the plastron is missing. From Wikipedia Commons.

Surprisingly, this is not necessarily a critical flaw, as (all?) turtles have distinct ribs during development before the carapace is fully formed (Wyneken 2001, fig. 90; Sánchez-Villagra 2009, figs. 3, 4). Malayev (1954) did not mention this nor the obvious possibility of a multi-ton hatchling. Instead, the "form of the ribs" was compared to Archelon and Protostega:

Archelon skeleton. From Wikipedia Commons.

The similarity is very general and Malayev (1954) does not list any specific shared characteristics. Due to the lack of costal elements, Malayev (1954) speculated that Therizinosaurus was in a distinct clade and in life had "barely developed or almost completely absent bony armor". It is incredibly strange that the Leatherback Seaturtle (Dermochelys coriacea) was not mentioned, as it entirely lacks costal elements and instead has thousands of dermal ossicles (Cebra-Thomas et al. 2005). The skeleton (sans ossicles) looks like an attempt by turtles to become "normal" tetrapods again.. until you notice the pectoral girdle within the ribcage:

From Wikipedia Commons

The rib material used to describe Therizinosaurus cheloniformis is apparently not from a therizinosaur at all, but a sauropodomorph (Zanno 2010 citing Rozhdestvensky 1970). Isn't it a major problem that the holotype is a chimera? Whatever the case, Therizinosaurus cheloniformis has been re-described a few more times and other rib material has been referred to the species (Zanno 2010). However, all of the diagnostic traits (and most of the material) are from the forelimbs (Zanno 2010).

From Wikipedia Commons.

Malayev (1954) interpreted the metacarpal and phalanges to be "powerful swimming organs" and suggested the huge claws were used for "cutting aquatic vegetation or for another functions, constrained by movement and acquiring food". The longest phalanyx was 60-65 cm long, not including the keratin covering (Malayev 1954), which suggests that the claws were ridiculously huge in life, even for a turtle-like reptile with a 4.5 meter body. I have observed turtles using their claws to climb and tear apart food (maybe what Malayev had in mind...), but clearly claws this disproportionate were doing something special. Something like this:

I like to think that Therizinosaurus, despite not being turtle-shaped anymore, waved its giant claws seductively in the faces of prospective mates.

References:

Cebra-Thomas, J., Tan, F., Sistla, S., Estes, E., Bender, G., Kim, C., Riccio, P., and Gilbert S. F. (2005). How the Turtle Forms its Shell: A Paracrine Hypothesis of Carapace Formation. Journal of Experimental Zoology 304B, 558-569. Available.

Maleyev, E. A. (1954). A new turtle-like reptile from Mongolia. Priroda 3, 106-108. Available.

Rozhdestvensky, A. K. (1977). The study of Dinosaurs in Asia. Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India 20, 102-119. Available.

Rozhdestvensky, A. K. (1974). History of the dinosaur fauna of Asia and other continents and questions concerning paleogeography. Transactions of the Joint Soviet–Mongolia Paleontological Expedition 1, 107–131. Available.

Rozhdestvensky, A. K. (1970). On the gigantic claws of mysterious Mesozoic reptiles. Palaeontological Journal 1, 131-141.

Sánchez-Villagra, M. R., Müller, H., Sheil, C. A., Scheyer, T. M., Nagashima, H., and Kuratani, S. (2009). Skeletal Development in the Chinese Soft-Shelled Turtle Pelodiscus sinensis (Testudines: Trionychidae). Journal of Morphology 270, 1381-1399. Available.

Wyneken, J. (2001). The Anatomy of Sea Turtles. U.S. Dept Commerce NOAA Tech Mem NMFS SEFSC-470. Available.

Zanno, L. E. (2010). A taxonomic and phylogenetic re-evaluation of Therizinosauria (Dinosauria: Maniraptora). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 8(4), 503-543. Draft Available.

A Giant Snapper At Last!

2011-11-08T21:44:00.001-05:00

A common cliché in fringe anecdotes is that when eyewitnesses see something beyond belief, the camera has the lens cap on/no film/failed to work/been misplaced. Logically this should be taken as a strike against veracity... but I began to wonder otherwise when it happened to me.

Of course, I've documented a big snapping turtle before, but my subsequent failures were astounding. I saw the turtles on multiple occasions this year (alluded to here), sometimes up close (touching, in fact) and once in triplicate. On all of these occasions I didn't bring my camera because I was commuting via bike, or the turtles fled before I could get their photographs. After a couple dozen failures, I gave up. Impulsively I decided on 8 November 2011 to take a trip searching for any reptiles or amphibians still active in the abnormally warm weather (about 70° F, 21° C) and saw this (plus a frog):

Blobturtle! I saw the turtle fairly clearly, but evidently my camera didn't. Rather than leave and be disappointed for a few months and then fail to see the turtles ever again, I realized I had no other option but to go in after it. Not only was the water very cold (it had snowed earlier in the year), it was murky and muddy and possibly had other snapping turtles I couldn't see. Gradually and with little subtlety, I made my way over to the turtle which had of course noticed me, but did not attempt to escape.

Remembering previous encounters and advice on pick-pocketing from Fagin, I approached the turtle from the rear, knowing it would eventually rotate around to defend itself. I also kept in mind how to fight the Cyberdemon from Doom - it's not just the shooting, it's the circle-strafing. With the cold water being slightly less of a hindrance for me, I managed to avoid something getting amputated.

Getting closer, I confirmed my suspicions that, yes, this turtle is really really big.

The closest thing I could get to a measurement.

Eventually the turtle kicked up large amounts of silt and released gas (from... somewhere) and became impossible to see. I "ran" off, knowing that my luck in succeeding with this ill-conceived shenanigan was running out.

I know I'm never going to get an accurate length or weight measurement from this turtle... not without one or both of us getting hurt. Even if this specimen was a record (and there's no guarantee), it would not be worth risking the life of an old reptile to revise the SCLmax of 49.4 cm for Chelydra serpentina. From now on I'm leaving these turtles alone, my curiosity is satiated, and bothering them further will have no benefits. I'll have to live with the wonder that despite inhabiting a polluted body of water and having human hunt them and compete for their resources, things like this still exist.

Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000006b - Morone saxatilis

2011-11-01T22:23:00.001-04:00

I can assure you this Nightmare Mode identification challenge is solvable. Okay, so maybe fish crania are rarely figured in the literature and this particular example was damaged before I could photograph it, but all the pieces are there, I swear!

Location is a major clue. The specimen was found far into Narragansett Bay in an area with a salinity of 30.0 ppt (Hicks 1959), which is right at the brackish-saline transition. Considering that this delicate structure was recovered intact, it seems probable that the fish died in the immediate vicinity. I think it's safe to conclude that the owner of the cranium was tolerant of marine and brackish conditions, which reduces the number of candidates considerably.

Then there's size. After having recently skeletonized a fish and being surprised at the comparatively puny cranium, I was startled to see a cranium around 6" (15 cm) long, when complete. Since it does not appear that any large local fish have a head less than 1/3 of the total length (yes, even American Angler and Oyster Toadfish) and since cranium ≠ head, I set a very conservative lower bounds of 50 cm (20"). This is still a massive body size and coupled with the presumed habitats, a very manageable number of candidates emerges.

The Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) is anadromous and very large, however, the cranium is radically different. I cannot resist mentioning the bizarre proboscis-mouth. Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) are certainly large enough, however the cranium is not a match, despite being much more similar than that of the sturgeon. I have observed a large dead Tautog (Tautoga onitis) in almost the same locale, but cannot find the neurocranium illustrated anywhere. Before trying to acquire a dead Tautog and testing that hypothesis, I wondered if there was a better candidate I overlooked. I recalled seeing Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) being caught nearby and photographs of local specimens which demonstrated that they reached colossal sizes fairly regularly. By sheer dumb luck, I stumbled across Jordan (1905) which had the cranium figured:

The supraoccipital (sagittal crest-like structure) and end of the snout strongly resembled the illustration below before being damaged.

Note that the mystery specimen still has an attached vertebrae. It seems somewhat wider than the Striped Bass cranium, but this could be due to damage, variation, or the illustration being inaccurate.

The mystery specimen lacks the paired foramina (?) on the midline about 3/4 of the way up. Considering that the crania appear to be otherwise identical, maybe it was just weird shading or these fish are variable.

One odd difference aside, this is certainly the owner's species (being held):

From Wikipedia Commons.

The Striped Bass has some other relatives in the 'family' Moronidae and while a couple species in my area attain record lengths approaching 50 cm TL (Morone americana, M. chrysops), such sizes are apparently freakish and I doubt the crania would be large enough anyways.

My hat is off to anyone seriously working with fish skeletons. After my little tastes, I am completely and utterly traumatized.

References:

Hicks, S. D. (1959). The Physical Oceanography of Narragansett Bay. Limnology and Oceanography 4(3), 316-327. Available.

Jordan, D. S. (1905). A Guide to the Study of Fishes. Volume 1. Henry Holt and Company: New York. Available.

Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000006a

2011-10-30T16:29:00.001-04:00

I am getting bored of 'Cadborosaurus', so before finishing the series, here is a mysterious object found on the shoreline near Independence Park, Bristol, Rhode Island. This object is very fragile and part of the anterior end has broken off; to make up for this complication, I feel obliged to hint that size is a major clue.

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 9: ... and the rest!

2011-10-10T11:15:00.001-04:00

Woodley et al. (2011) didn't just concern itself with poachers, pipefish, and 'Cadborosaurs'; everything vaguely similar to the Hagelund specimen in the region was considered. Just in case.

Aulorhynchus flavidus from Flickr user jmandecki.

Tube-snouts (Aulorhynchus flavidus) are pipefish-like relatives of sticklebacks (Gasterosteiformes) which fit the Hagelund specimen's proportions, head shape, and coloration. The dorsal, anal, and pelvic fins are small and transparent and thus possible to overlook. The forked caudal fin could be confused for overlapping fins if folded. Lateral scutes are present, albeit not extensive (illustrated here); it could be possible for the scutes and spines before the dorsal fin to suggest more extensive armor to an eyewitness.

Tube-snouts appear to swim primarily with their pectoral fins while keeping their bodies stiff (similar to poachers, sans ground effect), which makes sustained undulatory locomotion seem improbable. The largest known specimen was 18.8 cm in total length (Bayer 1980), which is less than half of the Hagelund specimen's reported length and hugely problematic for Tube-snouts as candidates.

From Wikipedia Commons.

The Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) reaches sizes far beyond 40 cm. The extensive bony scutes, barbels (= "whiskers"), and elongated body are interesting similarities with the Hagelund specimen. The major problem is that the dorsal, anal, and pelvic fins are prominent and don't seem capable of folding, unlike the other, more derived candidates. Plus, you'd think a sturgeon would be recognizable... but you never know.

From Wikipedia Commons.

Cutlassfishes (Trichiuridae) are interesting candidates as they are unambiguously eel-like, capable of anguilliform locomotion, have vestigial or outright absent pelvic fins, and (unlikely quite a few of the candidates) have teeth.

The Pacific Black Scabbardfish (Aphanopus arigato) and Pacific Scabbardfish (Lepidopus fitchi) both exceed 40 cm and have strongly forked caudal fins; neither fits the coloration, however. No cutlassfishes have scales, let alone plate-like ones, which can be viewed as a critical problem.

bc-spot-prawns-alive from Flickr user Island Vittles.

Staude and Lambert suggested that the Hagelund specimen may be a decapod in an editorial responding to LeBlond and Bousfield's description of 'Cadborosaurus' in Amphipacifica... an amphipod publication. In order for this identification to work, the "whiskers" would be head appendages (antennae, mandibles, maxillae), the "head" would be the carapace, the "fuzz" would be thoracic and abdominal appendages (maxillipeds, pereiopods, pleopods), the "plate-like scales" would be segments, and the tail appendages would be uropods. This is certainly thought-provoking, but it would require Hagelund to somehow fail to distinguish a vertebrate from an arthropod. There also aren't any obvious candidates, with the largest (Pandalus platyceros - pictured above) being around half the size of the Hagelund specimen with a radically different coloration and proportions.

From Wikipedia Commons.

The Hagelund specimen is surprisingly similar to pinnipeds, as it is the only group to possess a similar appendage arrangement (in phocids, at least), have true whiskers and fur, and be unambiguously coded as having a "seal-like face". Various pinnipeds also demonstrate long heads, slender bodies, and sorta similar coloration. Describing a pinniped as "eel-like" and "undulatory" is problematic, and the lack of plate-like scales and much larger size (even when born) are critical flaws. If the Hagelund specimen were to be taken literally and assumed to be a cryptid, a pinniped would be the most likely identification (far more so than 'Cadborosaurus'); of course, a misinterpreted known fish would be far more likely.

References:

Bayer, R. D. (1980). Size and Age of the Tube-snout (Aulorhynchus flavidus) in the Yaquina Estuary, Oregon. Northwest Science 54(4), 306-310. Available.

Hagelund, W. A. (1987). Whalers No More. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.

LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.

Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. Journal of Scientific Exploration 25(3), 495-512.

Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The Cadborosaurus
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6a: Cold Water on the 'Reptilian Hypothesis'
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6b: Reptilian Reproduction
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 7: Poachers
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 8a: Pipefish in a Bucket
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 8b: The Bay Pipefish

Tet Zoo Coverage:
A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 8b: The Bay Pipefish

2011-10-08T15:18:00.002-04:00

Poachers, despite a startling similarity to Hagelund's illustrated specimen, are problematic candidates as they are apparently incapable of undulatory locomotion and at-surface behavior is unlikely. Pipefishes don't look as similar but are capable of undulating at the surface and can be unambiguously described as "eel-like" or "sea snake-like"... unlike Hagelund's own drawing.

Syngnathus leptorhynchus from Flickr user jmandecki.

Hagelund's drawing portrays the upper bounds of the estimated depth (1-1.5 inches), so the difference from the above pictures of Bay Pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus) may not be as great as shown. Bay Pipefish have been recorded up to 38.5 cm in total length (Bayer 1980) - comfortably similar to 40 cm, I'd say - and it seems likely that allometry could make them more similar to the Hagelund specimen. The equation Bayer (1980) used to estimate pipefish weight from length indicated that the fish were proportionally more massive at larger sizes (the rate was somewhat higher than cubed†) and the largest specimens tended to be underestimated in weight; this suggests that Bay Pipefish are proportionally thicker-bodied at large sizes. Another potential explanation is that Hagelund captured a pregnant male; males are somewhat smaller than females with a maximum size of 32.5 cm TL (Bayer 1980), although this is within a plausible margin of error, considering the Hagelund specimen was estimated rather than measured. It seems that there is some variation in Bay Pipefish head length (see below) which may be related to size as well.

† log W = -3.70 + 3.12 log TL(cm)

A rather thick Bay Pipefish from Wikipedia Commons.

Bay Pipefish match the described behavior and shape of the Hagelund specimen as well as the coloration, long snout, slender head, lips, and large dark eyes; the pelvic fins are absent and the dorsal and anal fins are small and transparent enough to be easily overlooked. The snout of the Hagelund specimen has a similar profile to that of a Bay Pipefish (with a bulbous protrusion at the end) which Hagelund mysteriously labels as a "hooked upper jaw". The Bay Pipefish lacks hair-like structures, although the mesh-like coloration on the ventrum (somewhat visible above) could potentially explain this trait; there is such a thing as a Hairy Pipefish, but they are found nowhere near the northeast Pacific. The biggest issues with the Bay Pipefish are the lack of teeth and whisker-like structures. Hagelund's illustration is very unclear as to where the whiskers are located (the original illustration is full of mysteriously interpretive lines), but since they protruded from the head, they can't be due to coloration and it would be implausible for Hagelund to mistake the pectoral fins for separate structures. All pipefish lack teeth, however some have inconspicuous tooth-like odontoid processes (Dawson and Fritzsche 1975)... which have not been described from S. leptorhynchus.

Bay Pipefish are not a perfect fit for the Hagelund specimen, but then, nothing is. Since the pipefish is more similar than any other northeast Pacific fish, the most reasonable conclusion is that the differences are due to the account being misremembered after nearly two decades. Perfect recollection after such a time period (or any time period, really) is probably impossible. Even if it turns out that poachers can fit the described behavior or there's some better fitting fish out there, the point will stand: LeBlond and Bousfield's identification of this creature as a cryptid is one of the least likely solutions available. Besides, if the account were to be taken literally, it would be some sort of weird, tiny, armored pinniped.

But wait, there's more! I'll quickly review the other weird candidates we dredged up and then it's time for an executive summary.

References:

Bayer, R. D. (1980). Size, Seasonality, and Sex Ratios of the Bay Pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus) in Oregon. Northwest Science 54 (3), 161-167. Available.

Dawson, C. E. and Fritzsche, R. A. (1975). Odontoid processes in pipefish jaws. Nature 257, 390. doi:10.1038/257390a0

Hagelund, W. A. (1987). Whalers No More. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.

LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.

Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. Journal of Scientific Exploration 25(3), 495-512.

Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The Cadborosaurus
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6a: Cold Water on the 'Reptilian Hypothesis'
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6b: Reptilian Reproduction
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 7: Poachers
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 8a: Pipefish in a Bucket

Tet Zoo Coverage:
A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 8a: Pipefish in a Bucket

2011-10-05T16:31:00.000-04:00

Internets. Is there anything they can't do?

This should quell any doubts that pipefish are unambiguously eel-shaped, can swim in an undulatory fashion and near the surface to boot. Many thanks to Scott Mardis for bringing this to my attention.

Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The Cadborosaurus
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6a: Cold Water on the 'Reptilian Hypothesis'
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6b: Reptilian Reproduction
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 7: Poachers

Tet Zoo Coverage:
A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 7: Poachers

2011-10-04T21:07:00.001-04:00

I'm thoroughly sick of the 'reptilian hypothesis', so I'll condense my aborted article into this: the Hagelund specimen is obviously not a plesiosaur or thalattosuchian.

It is time to move on to better candidates... I want to finish this series at some point. There are several species of long-bodied poachers (Agonidae) which are compellingly similar to the Hagelund specimen. Notable shared traits include proportions, large eyes, plate-like scales, and barbels (= "whiskers"):

Atlantic Poacher (Leptagonus decagonus) from Wikipedia Commons. This isn't a candidate, but it's the closest freely available image I could find.

The anal, dorsal, and pelvic fins can fold down to the point of near-invisibility, heightening the similarity:

Hooknose (Agonus cataphractus) from Wikipedia Commons.

It appears the pectoral fins can fold significantly as well. Poachers are also flexible enough to bend the head upwards.

The poacher identification is not without its problems. There isn't any morphology which can confused for "fuzz" on the underbelly as the anal fin is rarely used in steady locomotion (Nowroozi et al. 2009) and is generally quite short anyways. Poachers are regarded as "elongated" rather than "eel-like" in the literature, with the difference apparently being that the former are tapering and the latter are thickest around the mid-point. Thus, Hagelund's drawing is at odds with his own description and poachers had to be given partial credit due to the confusion.

Hagelund's description of his specimen undulating at the surface would be highly unusual for a poacher, to say the least. The pectoral fins are the sole source of thrust, with the exception of the caudal fin being used in the C-start escape response (Nowroozi et al. 2009). Pirates Cove seems to be rather shallow and poachers can inhabit intertidal waters, but getting a poacher to the surface may also be something of a challenge; they are strongly negatively buoyant - having heavy armor and no swim bladder - and typically use ground effect (due to being within 1 cm of the bottom) in addition to the pectoral fins for lift (Nowroozi et al. 2009). Poachers are capable of swimming in the water column, and when doing so their bodies pitch upwards significantly (5-20 degrees), apparently due to their considerable density (Nowroozi et al. 2009). So unless poachers behave oddly at the surface or behavior varies substantially between species, which is always possible, this is a major problem for this candidate.

The strongest candidate is the Sturgeon Poacher (Podothecus accipenserinus) which is reasonably similar in size and coloration, but are somewhat thick-bodied and large-headed comparatively. Other possible candidates included Pallasina barbata (intertidal, similar color, however very small) and Sarritor frenatus - it should be noted that there are many other poachers in the area, but they are either far too small or deep-bodied.

Pipefish next, then everybody else.

.

References:

LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.

Nowroozi, B. N, Strother, J. A., Horton, J. M., Summers, A. P., & Brainerd, E. L. (2009). Whole-body lift and ground effect during pectoral ﬁn locomotion in the northern spearnose poacher (Agonopsis vulsa). Zoology 112, 393-402. Available.

Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. Journal of Scientific Exploration 25(3), 495-512.

Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The Cadborosaurus
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6a: Cold Water on the 'Reptilian Hypothesis'
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6b: Reptilian Reproduction

Tet Zoo Coverage:
A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6b: Reptilian Reproduction

2011-09-30T11:39:00.002-04:00

Here's that quote again, from LeBlond and Bousfield (1995), page 82:

The thinness and elongation of the body, the poikilothermy (or cold-bloodedness) which it seems to imply, and the great difference in size between the young and the adult are strong points in favour of a reptilian nature.

The previous article argued that a "cold-blooded" 'Cadborosaurus' is actually strongly at odds with known 'reptilian' physiology; similarly, the birth of extremely small live young would in fact be highly unusual for a marine reptile.

Backing up, this is the evidence LeBlond and Bousfield (1995) present for comparatively tiny precocial young (page 80):

A very small individual, probably a baby, was caught (by W. Hagelund) and another one, perhaps, was seen at the shore (by P. Harsh); both in relatively warm water. If these very small individuals are correctly associated with the larger ones, their size and where they were found might provide more clues about Caddy's nature.

Woodley et al. (2011) is of course all about why the Hagelund specimen should not be used as evidence, but makes no mention of the Harsh case. Is this... a major flaw in our paper? Absolutely not. The Harsh sightings are vague to the degree that they can be graciously described as unanalyzable. Phyllis Harsh reportedly found a "baby dinosaur" 2 feet (0.61 meters) long on a beach (which was ultimately returned to the water) and (!) a "small dinosaur skeleton" beneath a Bald Eagle nest, both on Johns Island. The sheer lack of detail is remarkable† and the description "dinosaur" can refer to just about anything‡. I find it interesting that LeBlond and Bousfield drew conclusions from this valueless anecdote, despite apparently having some reservations about it.

† For comparison, Hagelund's account had 24 traits, of which only a few were worthless.
‡ Dinosauria proper has a diverse assortment of body plans, many other creatures are often incorrectly labeled as dinosaurs (ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, Dimetrodon...), and some extant animals (snapping turtles, alligator gars, bichirs, sturgeon...) are often compared to "dinosaurs".

LeBlond and Bousfield (1995) hypothesized that 'Cadborosaurus' "probably" gives live birth, reasoning that it doesn't have suitable limb morphology for digging nests and inhabits areas which are too cold for incubating eggs. Strangely, they also speculate that it has some reproductive tie to land, although whether it is to lay eggs or give live birth they don't specify. It is worth mentioning that there are only two reports of 'Cadborosaurus' on land and they are very very weird; in 1936 the Stephenson family reported a "90 foot-long, three-foot-thick animal wriggling over the reef into a lagoon" which was "yellow and bluish in colour" and in 1991 Terry Osland reported something "bigger than a killer whale" which was "hard to describe" and yet described as having the "smooth skin of a dogfish" which was of a "grey, silvery color" and had "no hair", a "tail rounded like a lizard tail" with "like little feet on the back of the tail" [sic] and no long neck.

There is another major problem in connecting the Hagelund specimen to 'Cadborosaurus', aside from the utter lack of resemblance - marine reptiles give birth to proportionally large young.

Determining exactly how large the Hagelund specimen is compared to a 'Cadborosaurus' is challenging due to the latter probably not being a valid concept. LeBlond and Bousfield claim a size range of 5-15 meters (which is not supported by the actual sightings), so let's go with a nice round 10 meters. This makes the 40 cm long Hagelund specimen only 4% of the adult length and somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 orders of magnitude less massive, say, around 0.0064%.

Out of the five or so extant clades of marine reptiles†, only the "true" sea snakes (Hydrophiini) give live birth; however as this is by far the most speciose marine clade with ~60 representatives (Sanders et al. 2010) it could be argued that most extant marine reptiles are live-bearers. Anyways, sea snakes tend to have small clutches and large offspring; averaging data from 10 species in Lemen and Voris (1981) gives a mean reproductive effort per embryo of 6.8 (stdev = 2.5, min = 2.1, max = 10.9), reproductive effort being what percentage of the mother's mass the embryo is. While relative lengths were not recorded, assuming similar proportions, this could 'translate' into newborns averaging 41% of the maternal length (min = 27%, max = 48%). It's amazing that more than one of these can fit into the parent snake. The reproductive effort per clutch averaged 32 across the sampled species (stdev = 5, min = 23.6, max = 38.9) and appeared to be fairly stable compared to embryo size.

† The others being seaturtles (Chelonioidea), the marine iguana (Amblyrhynchus cristatus), sea kraits (Laticauda spp.), and saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus)... the lattermost makes me wonder if other reptiles deserve this status, certainly the softshell turtle Trionyx should be considered. As for how sea snakes, sea kraits, and other elapids are related (Wikipedia's article is highly untrustworthy), Catalogue of Organisms has an excellent summary.

Live birth appears to have been very common in extinct marine reptiles, although as can be imagined, data on this subject is quite scarce. It was recently confirmed that plesiosaurs gave live birth, with Polycotylus latippinis estimated to have a fetus 35% of the maternal length at full term (O'Keefe and Chiappe 2011). The mosasauroid Carsosaurus marchesetti was discovered with four embryos which (according to Figure 2) were around 30 cm long relative to a 2 meter adult (Caldwell and Lee 2001), making the young around 15% of the maternal length. Caldwell and Lee (2001) were uncertain how close to term the embryos were as they were placed posteriorly in the mother, but showed some signs of displacement. Then there is the famous fossil of the ichthyosaur Stenopterygius quadriscissus showing a juvenile half-emerged from its mother, which seems to be around a quarter of the parental length.

Thus, LeBlond and Bousfield's argument that tiny precocial young indicate a 'reptilian' identity is completely at odds with live birth in marine reptiles. There was a discussion of this in Woodley et al. (2011) but it was eventually deemed tangential as the Hagelund specimen was already reclassified and the dead horse was already beaten into a liquid.

References:

Caldwell, M. W., and Lee, M. S. Y. (2001). Live birth in Cretaceous marine lizards (mosasauroids). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 268, 2397-2401. Available.

LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.

Lemen, C. A. and Voris, H. K. A. (1981) Comparison of Reproductive Strategies among Marine Snakes. Animal Ecology 50, 89-101. Available.

O’Keefe, F. R. & Chiappe, L.M. (2011). Viviparity and K-selected life history in a Mesozoic marine reptile. Science 333, 870-873. DOI: 10.1126/science.1205689

Sanders, K. L., Mumpuni, Lee, M. S. Y. (2010). Uncoupling ecological innovation and speciation in sea snakes (Elapidae, Hydrophiinae, Hydrophiini). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23(12) DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02131.x

Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. Journal of Scientific Exploration 25(3), 495-512.

Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6a: Cold Water on the 'Reptilian Hypothesis'

2011-09-27T11:10:00.001-04:00

LeBlond and Bousfield (1995) made remarkable conclusions about the affinities of 'Cadborosaurus' (page 82):

The thinness and elongation of the body, the poikilothermy (or cold-bloodedness) which it seems to imply, and the great difference in size between the young and the adult are strong points in favour of a reptilian nature.

I will cover why the second half of the sentence is incredibly wrong in a following post. This was originally going to be a footnote, but quickly got out of hand.

The authors hypothesized that since 'Cadborosaurus' is "long and narrow in shape" it has too much surface area to maintain a high body temperature and is thus an ectotherm†. I do not find this reasoning convincing. The slimmest cetacean is the Northern Right Whale Dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis) which has a fineness ratio (maximum length/maximum thickness) of up to 10.9 (Fish 1993 - citing Leatherwood and Walker 1979) and yet it occurs in the north Pacific up to the Aleutians (Baird and Stacey 1990). Leopard seals are also quite slender and occur in Antarctica. Both of these ectotherms are compared to snakes by some observers (L. borealis is sometimes even called the "snake porpoise") despite being elongated and not truly anguilliform, which makes me wonder how literally the "snake-like" description of 'Cadborosaurus' should be taken. LeBlond and Bousfield based their image of 'Cadborosaurus' on the ultra-svelte (fineness ratio of over 30) Naden Harbour carcass, which is probably the spinal column (and attached bits) from a known species.

† LeBlond and Bousfield actually state 'poikilothermic', but this is not the correct usage; 'ectothermic' refers to relying primarily on the environment for body temperature and 'poikilothermic' refers to the ability to withstand a wide range of body temperatures. The authors also erroneously used 'homeothermic' for 'endothermic'; 'endothermic' refers to relying primarily on internal sources for body temperature and 'homeothermic' refers to organisms which keep a stable body temperature, either internally or through the environment.

LeBlond and Bousfield claim that 'Cadborosaurus' normally inhabits 5-12 °C waters with inferred ventures into colder waters (from the Naden Harbour carcass being ingested by a Sperm Whale) and to warmer waters for reproduction... more on that later. Remarkably, there is an elongated marine reptile which can tolerate these temperatures. The Pelagic Sea Snake Pelamis platura barely straggles into California due to the 18 °C isotherm, but can tolerate 16-18 °C (stops eating), 7-8.5 °C (stops swimming), 6-6.5 °C (falls into torpor), and even exposure to temperatures of 5 °C for an hour (Graham et al. 1971). Graham et al. (1971) telling describe this snake as "weak swimming", which makes me wonder, isn't an ectothermic 'Cadborosaurus' with a "very high swimming speed" contradictory?

Pelamis platura, apparently the most cold-tolerant marine reptile which isn't a turtle. From Wikipedia Commons.

The Leatherback Seaturtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is presently viewed as an uncommon seasonal resident of British Columbia (McAlpine et al. 2004) and is suggested to be occupying marginal habitat as far north as Alaska (Hodge and Wing 2000). Leatherbacks are physiologically remarkable, as they are capable of diving into waters as cold as 0.4 °C (James et al. 2006) and retain heat through a thick layer of blubber (unique among reptiles) along with their large size (Wallace and Jones 2008, Davenport et al. 2009). Leatherbacks are not the only turtles known from high latitudes; Green Seaturtles (Chelonia mydas) have been reported from British Columbia (McAlpine et al. 2004) and Alaska, and there are records of Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and Olive Ridley Seaturtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) in Alaska as well (Hodge and Wing 2000). Hodge and Wing (2000) suggest that the non-Leatherbacks in Alaska are straying out of their tolerable range, although McAlpine et al. (2007) warn that interest in Canadian seaturtles is recent and that their status off British Columbia needs assessment.

Dermochelys coriacea from Wikipedia Commons.

Since the only British Columbian marine reptiles are about as un-'Cadborosaurus'-like as is possible, I think that speaks volumes about the probability of the 'ectothermic' hypothesis.

Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?
A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The Cadborosaurus

Tet Zoo Coverage:
A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus

References:

Baird, R. W. and Stacey, P. J. (1990). Status of the Northern Right Whale Dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis), in Canada. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 105, 243-250. Available.

Davenport, J., Fraher, J., Fitzgerald, E., McLaughlin, P., Doyle, T., Harman, L., and Cuffe, T. (2009). Fat head: an analysis of head and neck insulation in the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). J Exp Biol 212, 2753-2759. doi: 10.1242/jeb.026500.

Fish, F. E. (1993). Influence of Hydrodynamic Design and Propulsive Mode on Mammalian Swimming Energetics. Australian Journal of Zoology 42, 79-101. Available.

Graham, J. B., Rubinoff, I., and Hecht, M. K. (1971). Temperature Physiology of the Sea Snake Pelamis platurus: An Index of Its Colonization Potential in the Atlantic Ocean. PNAS 68(6), 1360-1363. Available.

Hodge, R. P., and B. L. Wing. (2000). Occurrences of marine turtles in Alaska waters 1960-1998. Herpetological Review 31,: 148-151. Available.

James, M. C., Davenport, J., and Hays, G. C. (2006). Expanded thermal niche for a diving vertebrate: A leatherback turtle diving into near-freezing water. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 335, 221–226. Available.

LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.

McAlpine, D. F., James, M. C., Lien, J., Orchard, S. A. Status and Conservation of Marine Turtles in Canadian Waters. Herpetological Conservation 2, 85–112. Available.

McAlpine, D. F., Orchard, S. A., Sendall, K. A., and Palm, R. (2004). Status of marine turtles in British Columbia waters: a reassessment. Canadian Field-Naturalist 118(1), 72-76. Available.

Wallace, B. P., and Jones, T. J. (2008). What makes marine turtles go: A review of metabolic rates and their consequences. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 356, 8–24. Available.

Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. Journal of Scientific Exploration 25(3), 495-512.

Secondary Reference:

Leatherwood, S., and Walker, W. A. (1979). The northern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis borealis Pede in the eastern North Pacific. In: Behavior of Marine Animal volume 3 (Eds H. E. Winn and
B. L. Olla.) pp. 85-141. (Plenum Press: New York.)

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The Cadborosaurus

2011-09-22T16:05:00.001-04:00

The previous article argued that the traits assigned to 'Cadborosaurus' by LeBlond and Bousfield were overall poorly supported by the reports given. While there were some recurring descriptions ("snake-like", "horse-like head", "long neck") my overall impression is that 'Cadborosaurus' is a hodgepodge, a cryptozoological gumbo, a veritable Proteus, and perhaps other, more descriptive phrases. The point is, if you want a certain trait to be present for 'Cadborosaurus', you could just cherry-pick it out of the vast array of descriptions that eyewitnesses have given and ignore the contradictions.

As for where LeBlond and Bousfield's conception of 'Cadborosaurus' came from in the first place, it appears to be almost entirely based on the Naden Harbour carcass:

This... thing... has yet to be seriously analyzed and I am not convinced some of the purported features (eyes, lips, nostrils, armored tail) are unambiguously present and not just a trick of the lighting. Just because it can't be identified does not necessarily make it a cryptid.

Not only are the traits assigned to 'Cadborosaurus' a house of cards, they barely resemble those given to the Hagelund specimen:

The system in Woodley et al. (2011) classifies traits as being present ('P'), occasionally present ('O'), absent ('A'), and unknown ('?'). The asterisk marks potentially interpretive traits. The letters in brackets indicate similarity to the Hagelund specimen - traits can be similar ('s'), somewhat similar ('ss'), and dissimilar ('d'). Similar scores were awarded a single point, somewhat similar scores were awarded half a point, subjective traits were penalized a quarter of a point, and dissimilar and unknown traits were awarded none.

This is the reasoning presented by LeBlond and Bousfield for why the Hagelund specimen represented a 'Cadborosaurus' (page 58-59):

There are indeed many points of similarity between the puny animal of Figure 31, sketched by Hagelund, and the adult Caddy: the long, thin shape, the large eyes, the teeth, the short front flippers. The scaly back is suggestive of the serrations mentioned by Langley and Kemp. Upon later questioning, Captain Hagelund also confirmed his impression that the tail region of the small animal was formed by two overlapping seal-like flippers, and not a single tail fluke. He also mentioned that he had noticed the flippers separating briefly while the animal was swimming in the bucket on the deck of his boat.

This is seriously weak reasoning. While both are described as "snake-like", 'Cadborosaurus' was illustrated as being much longer and thinner than the Hagelund specimen and was classified as being proportionally dissimilar. LeBlond and Bousfield classified the eyes of 'Cadborosaurus' as being "sometimes large", and hence they were penalized for occasional presence. The presence of "flippers" would be interesting, although Hagelund's account is ambiguous as to whether they were fin-like or limb-like. The similarity of the tails are ambiguous since LeBlond and Bousfield gave a bizarre and somewhat contradictory description: they appear to interpret the Naden Harbour carcass as having a fluke-like structure made out of pelvic appendages, however the "striking features" note that "posterior flippers absent or nearly fused with the body" and the tail is "split horizontally or fluke-like at the top" - "fluke-like" and "seal-like flippers" are vaguely similar at best. Considering the "scaly back" and "serrations" to be similar is a huge stretch as Hagelund's drawing has a fairly smooth back and the "plate scales" sticking out could be due to the haphazard style of illustration. The comparison with the Langley encounter is strange since it was described with "serrated markings along the top and sides" and Kent's description noted that "[t]oward the tail it appeared serrated like the cutting edge of a saw", which is certainly not the case with Hagelund's illustration. What LeBlond and Bousfield don't mention about Kemp's illustration (see below) is that its mane has a crest-like appearance and an apparent crest in the middle of the body may or may not also be formed by hair:

The original has a much smoother back... whoops.

Kemp's 'Cadborosaurus' is the huge dark thing in the middle with three distinct "crests". The Hagelund specimen is the lower-most (and tiny) creature and LeBlond and Bousfield's 'Cadborosaurus' is just above it.

There were a few points of unambiguous similarity between the Hagelund specimen and 'Cadborosaurus' that LeBlond and Bousfield did not mention; a "head held out of the water" was not directly mentioned but implied by the observations of long necks and heads, and a "long snout" was synonymized with the often horsey head. Similarly, the "undulatory movement" of the Hagelund specimen was implied to be lateral, but since it wasn't directly stated, it was chalked up as similar. This is probably way too lenient.

More and better candidates will follow, but first, what are the implications of losing the Hagelund specimen from the 'Cadborosaurus' data set?

Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?

Tet Zoo Coverage:
A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus

References:

LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus: Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?

2011-09-21T00:00:00.000-04:00

In Woodley et al. (2011), we used LeBlond and Bousfield's 'Cadborosaurus wilsi' to compare with the Hagelund specimen, among other candidates. The authors include a number of "striking"/"major" characteristics along with additional details, but we note that none of the reports have all the major traits and there are a number of odd traits which are not directly commented on. So what do the 178 reports in Cadborosaurus: Survivor from the Deep actually say about 'Cadborosaurus'?

1. Its dimensions, ranging from five to 15 meters in length

Note: Sightings are exclusively in feet. The converted range is 16'5" to 49'2.5".

Where did LeBlond and Bousfield get this size range? There were 65 reported lengths with a range of 5-300 feet, a mode of 20 feet, and an average of 41.8 feet (standard deviation = 42.3 feet). The proposed size range of LeBlond and Bousfield excludes about 41.5% (n=27) of the reports. Why?

5 feet long (1)

8 feet long (1)

10 feet long (2)

12 feet long (1)

12-14 feet long (1)

15 feet (2)

15-20 feet long (2)

16 feet long (2)

18-20 feet long (1)

20 feet long (9)

20-23 feet (1)

20-50 feet long (1)

25 feet long (5)

30 feet long (6)

30-40 feet long (1)

32 feet long (1)

35 feet long (2)

35-40 feet (1)

40 feet long (6)

40-100 feet long (1)

40-50 feet long (1)

50 feet long (3)

55 feet long (1)

60 feet long (5)

60-90 feet long (1)

80 feet long (1)

90 feet long (1)

100 feet long (1)

100-110 feet long (1)

150 feet long (1)

300 feet long (1)

2. Its body form: snake-like, or serpentine...

An accurate assessment, although there are some contradictions.

Snake/serpentine/"garter snake" (12)

Eel (3)

Turtle-like (2)

"caddy-like creature" (1)

Crocodile-like (1)

"dragon" (1)

"hose" (1)

"plesiosaur" (1)

Tapering (1)

"reptilian formation" (1)

"much more reptile than serpent" (1)

...with extraordinary flexibility in the vertical plane

Note: I did not include reports of neck motion, which were usually from side-to-side.

It is interesting how infrequently the plane of locomotion is mentioned, and that a couple are not vertical. It appears the "extraordinary" motion was interpreted from the reported "coils" (see below).

"vertically"/"up and down"/"rise and fall" (5)
"undulation" (3)
"side to side"/"like those of a crocodile" (2)

3. The appearance of its head, variously described as resembling that of a sheep, horse, giraffe or camel

Out of the 55 animal comparison descriptions, "horse-like" was by far the most common with 23 (about 42%). The difference between horse-like, camel-like, and giraffe-like heads appeared to be interpretive (some reports used more than one description) and if they are lumped together, there are 36 examples (about 65% of total). Why LeBlond and Bousfield chose "sheep-like" is mysterious considering it is known from a single instance - why not "snake-like" or "seal-like"?

Horse-like (23)
Camel-like (7)
Snake-like/serpentine/garden snake-like/python-like (5)
Giraffe-like (3)
Seal-like (3)
Camel/giraffe (2)
Horse/Giraffe/Camel (1)
Dog-like/Giraffe-like (1)
Sheep-like (1)
Cow-like (1)
Airedale-like (1)
Boxer dog-like (1)
Cat-like head (1)
Lizard-like (1)
"Reptile head" (1)
Frog-like (1)
Eel-like (1)
Seahorse-like (1)

Animal comparisons were not the only way to describe heads:

Flat head//flattish (3)
"long" (1)
"bulky" (1)
"blunt" (1)
"immense forehead" (1)
"heavy snouted" (1)
"square" (1)
"nose about a foot long" (1)
"round, ball-like head" (1)
"gaping maw like hippo" (1)
"thicker than body" (1)

4. The length of its neck, elongated, ranging from one to four meters
Note: This is about 3'3" to 13'1.5"

Another weird treatment of size, as while the lower bounds were roughly right, 3 of the 15 descriptions exceeded the upper bounds. The mode is 7 feet (due to averaging the 6-8 foot range) and the average is 8.8 feet with a standard deviation of 5.9 feet.

3.5 feet long (1)
4 feet long (2)
4-5 feet long (1)
5 feet long (1)
6 foot neck (2)
6-8 feet long (2)
7 feet long (1)
10 feet long (1)
12 feet long (1)
15 feet long (1)
15-16 feet long (1)
20-30 feet long (1)

Some descriptions gave head height out of the water instead of estimating neck length. If those additional 11 figures are added to the prior data, there is a new lowest figure (2 feet), the mode is once again 7 feet (but n=5 and not n=3), and the average is now 9 feet with a standard deviation of 7.34 feet.

Head 2 feet above water (1)
Head 3-4 feet above water (1)
Head 4 feet out of water (1)
Head 4-5 feet above water (2)
Head 6-7 feet above water (1)
Head 6-8 feet above water (1)
Head 7 feet above water (1)
Head 10 feet above water (1)
"neck and upper part 25 feet out of water" (1)
"like 30 foot telephone pole" (1)

The description of a "long neck" was very common, second only to a horse-like head, although the reports of a "short neck" and "no long neck" are quite interesting. I do not know what an "eel-like neck" would entail

Long neck (20)
Short neck (1)
"no long neck" (1)
Giraffe-like (2)
"Log that raised up" (1)
"Eel-like neck" (1)
"Thick" (1)
"Slender" (2)

5. The vertical humps or loops of the body, arranged in tandem series directly behind the neck
Note: Only concerned about count, other traits (e.g. "large", "low") not included. "Hump" and "Bump" synonymized (sometimes used interchangeably), but "coil" and "loop" treated separately.

Hump/Dome/"upturned barge" (9)
Humps/Bumps/lots of humps (6)
2 Humps (6)
3 humps (7)
4 humps (1)
4-5 humps (1)
5 bumps/humps (3)
5-7 humps (1)

2 humps/coils (1)

1 coil/loop/arch (5)
Coils (3)
2 coils (3)
3 coils (1)
3-4 coils (1)
5 coils (1)
5-6 coils (1)

"folds"/"fold after fold" (2)

"resembling a gable of a house floating in the water... back looked much like the roof of a shed" (1)

"three distinct undulations" (1)

6. The presence of a pair of anterior flippers...
"Flippers" (3)
"no fins or flippers" (1)

Other fins are mentioned with unknown placement:

fins 4 feet high (1)
"revolving fins" (1)
"fins all over the body" (1)

Dorsal fins are mentioned more frequently than flippers, yet LeBlond and Bousfield make no mention of them:

Dorsal fin (1)

long fin on back (1)
fin on back (1)

"fin on its back reached to about three feet" (1)
"2 foot fin on its back" (1)
"continuous fin running the length of the body" (w/ illustration showing dorsal placement) (1)

...posterior flippers absent or nearly fused with the body
What is the evidence for this claim? The only relevant (and highly bizarre) detail I could find was:

"little feet on the side back of the tail" (1)

7. The tail, dorsally toothed or spiny...
Known from precisely one report:

"Toward the tail it appeared serrated like the cutting edge of a saw... with something moving flail-like at the extreme end" (1)

With a couple contradictions:

"flat like that of a beaver" (1)
rounded like lizard tail" (1)

... and split horizontally or fluke-like at the top
Flukes (1)
Split tail tip (1)
Fish-like tail (1)

8. The very high swimming speed, clocked at up to 40 knots at the surface
Note: About 46 miles per hour or 74 kilometers per hour. Units converted to knots.
3 knots (1)
3.48 knots (1)
5.2 knots (1)
10 knots (1)
13-17.4 knots (1)
25 knots (1)
34.7 knots (1)
35 knots (1)

"Fast swimmer" (1)
"Much faster than boat" (1)
"Very fast swimmer" (1)
"Moving fast" (1)
"speed... astounding" (1)
"low speed" (1)

And now for the additional traits:

Sometimes the back is described as serrated, sometimes as smooth
Serrated back (2)
Not serrated (2)
"horns on its back" (1)
"line of moving spines" (1)
Jagged dorsal crest (1)
Spines 8" apart (1)
"serrated markings along the top and sides" (1)
Ridge running across top of body (1)

Body colour is reported as ranging from "gun-metal" blue, through orange, green, brown, gray to black
Brown/Brownish (10)
Dark/Blackish (6)
Dark brown (5)
Gray (4)
Dark green/greenish (4)
Light brown (3)
Grayish brown (3)
Dark gray (2)
Chestnut brown (2)
Green (2)
Shiny black (2)
Blue-gray (1)
Greenish Brown/Dark Olive Green (1)
Greenish-Blue (1)
Bluish-Green... some in the sun like aluminium (1)
Yellow and blue (1)
Stripe brown and yellow (1)
Yellow head (1)
Camel-colored (1)
Brownish yellow (1)
Bright orange brown (1)
Fawn-colored (1)
Flesh-colored face (1)
"whitish tan in color on the throat & lower front... solid tan upper head" (1)
"Light brown [head] with white streaks running up and down it" (1)
"gray brown with a dark brown stripe running along the body slightly to one side" (1)
Mouse colored (1)
Gray, silvery like dogfish (1)
Color of kelp (1)
Color of porpoise (1)
Color of wet seal (1)

Fur, fuzz, or hair on the neck or body is sometimes mentioned, "like that of a seal", or "like coconut fibre"; most often, however, the skin is described as smooth
This is completely inaccurate. There is precisely one report which describes the animal as smooth and not hairy:

Smooth, no hair (1)

Other reports also suggest that hair was absent, but make no mention of smoothness:

No mane (3)
No hair (1)
"wart-like rather than hairy" (1)
"scaly appearance" (1)

Mention of hair is, however, comparatively much more common:

Hair on head and body (1)
"Shaggy" (1)
Hair (1)
Covered with hair (1)
Short fur (1)
Furry (1)
Smooth-haired, like seal (1)
Mane (1)
Long floppy mane (1)
Mane like seaweed (1)
"kind of mane"... looking like the teeth of a drag saw (1)
"stuff hanging down like hair" (1)
"sort of mane" (1)
Mane the color of seaweed (1)
"sort of mane" (1)
"dirty hair covering long neck" (1)

Some witnesses see bumps on the head, which they variously describe as ears or horns, sometimes both together.
"no ears" (6)
Ears (3)
Small ears/short ears (2)
Horns or ears (2)
Small ears/small strait horns (1)
horns or horse-like ears (1)
small horns... giraffe-type stubs AND large, floppy ears (1)
2 blunt horns (1)
2 knobs like horns (1)
Two protrusions, possibly horns (1)
pointed formation above eyes resembling horns (1)
Two bumps, rounded on top (1)
Bulgy on top (1)
bulge behind ears (1)
No horns or ears (1)

Most mention eyes, sometimes large, sometimes coloured.
This is certainly not "most".

Eyes (5)
Large/Big (7)
2 eyes in front/"set to look forward"/"in the front of the head" (3)
No eyes seen (3)

Red eyes (2)
Jet black eyes (2)
Large black eyes (1)

"roll" from reddish to green (1)
Cow-like, film over them, large, timid (1)
Eyes like alligator (1)
Bulgy eyes (1)

And also:

"eye bumps" (1)

There is also occasional mention of facial whiskers.
Very occasional.

Whiskers (2)
Whiskers under jaw (1)
Beard (1)
No whiskers (1)

Traits that do not fit in any category:

"sea pet" (1)
"body appeared smooth from one side, but with spikes when turned in other direction" (1)
"looking like huge diver wearing a helmet" (1)
"broad flat chest" (1)
"shoulders" (1)
"exaggerated lips one sees in a minstrel show" (1)
ON LAND (2)

Ever since pondering over Heuvelmans' Many-Finned, I am increasingly convinced that, at present, the classification of unknown marine species into 'types' is a deeply flawed approach in desperate need of a more rigorous approach.

So what does this mean for how 'Cadborosaurus' and the Hagelund specimen compare? Stay tuned...

Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits

Tet Zoo Coverage:
A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus

References:

LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus: Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits

2011-09-20T12:27:00.002-04:00

William A. Hagelund's specimen was given a very detailed description with 24 traits: an eel-like (or sea snake-like) appearance, head held out of the water while swimming, undulatory movement, dark eyes, limpid eyes, large eyes, seal-like face, slender head, slightly hooked snout, long snout, length of 16 inches (40 cm), diameter of 1 to 1.5 inches (2.5–3.8 cm), tiny teeth in both jaws, plate-like scales on the back, undersides with a soft yellow fuzz, flipper-like feet near the shoulder, spade-shaped tail, tail composed of two overlapping flipper-like fins, lips, whiskers, coloration of black on top and brown on the sides, yellow tail, and a head length of 3 inches (7.6 cm). Woodley et al. (2011) considered that the "ragged ends" of the tail in the illustration probably represent damage and not an actual trait. As many of the candidates in Woodley et al. (2011) are fish, the traits of dorsal fin(s), pelvic fins, and an anal fin were added. Due to LeBlond and Bousfield's claim that the Hagelund specimen represented a 'Cadborosaurus', "striking" traits absent in the former were added: ears and/or horns, tail dorsally toothed or spiky, and a long neck.

For almost all of these traits, their precise meanings and applicability to the candidates is subjective. A formula was devised where traits could be awarded partial credit... which I'll explain further on when dealing with individual candidates.

Perhaps the least ambiguous trait is "tail dorsally toothed or spiky", which only applies to LeBlond and Bousfield's 'Cadborosaurus'. Another 'Cadborosaurus' trait is the presence of "ears and/or horns", which can be reasonably defined as anything projecting out of the dorsal or lateral surfaces of the head. I don't think there is a universal definition of a "long neck", so we decided that since LeBlond and Bousfield's illustration of 'Cadborosaurus' shows a neck about twice the length of the head, that would serve as our definition.

Descriptions of colors can be culturally subjective, but this shouldn't a problem with two Englishmen and an American analyzing the account of a Canadian. Thus, the traits "black on the top and brown on the sides" and "yellow tail" can be treated fairly literally. Hagelund's description of "dark eyes" was problematic since the illustration doesn't provide any clues as to how dark they were; candidates with black eyes or eyes that are darker than the surrounding body were given credit. There was no way to define "limpid eyes" (i.e. clear) in a way which would give comparative value, however, it was kept due to the Finn John report's oddly similar usage.

The presence or absence of fins (dorsal(s), pelvics, anal) would seem like a simple matter, but it is complicated by the fact that some fins can be folded, transparent, or small enough to be easily overlooked. The "flipper-like feet near the shoulder" were synonymized with any sort of pectoral appendage, as the illustration confusingly showed fins-rays while the description implied something more limb-like. The "tail composed of two overlapping flipper-like fins" was treated literally (with pinnipeds getting full credit), although partial credit was given to fish with forked tails which could potentially fold and resemble the illustrated morphology. Hagelund's description of the tail as "spade-shaped tail" is, frankly, baffling in conjuction with the prior description, the illustrated morphology, and the fact that he (and nobody else, apparently) described the Sperm Whale's tail as such; the trait wasn't thrown out because the Finn John report interestingly used the same wording.

In the prior article, I wondered if "eel-like" was an appropriate description as the illustrated morphology and given measurements suggest it would barely qualify. Eel-like animals were given full credit, although others which are described as "elongated" were given justifiable partial credit. The measurements of body diameter and head length were modified into proportions relative to the total length, further controlling for Hagelund's dubious description. The "undulatory" locomotion was interpreted as anguilliform (having been compared to snakes and eels), however, I honestly have difficulty picturing the illustrated animal swimming in that manner and some partial credit was awarded to elongated fish which weren't quite anguilliform swimmers. As Hagelund didn't specify a plane, "undulatory" was awarded to swimmers in either plane (although lateral is implied).

The trait of the "head held out of the water while swimming" was hard to test for, but was given to obligate air-breathing candidates which would likely engage in the behavior. The possibility of a fish engaging in surface behavior is of course not impossible, although anomalous.

Hagelund's illustration was useful for determining the threshold of several traits: "large eyes", "long snout", and "slightly hooked snout". The portrayed depth of the head was used to determine a "slender head", although the possibility that Hagelund was referring solely to width should be raised. It was decided to not treat "tiny teeth in both jaws" with a similar threshold as Hagelund may have been drawing as small as he could (i.e., the teeth could have been much smaller than portrayed) and just testing for the presence or absence of teeth was deemed to be significant. The trait was simplified to "teeth" since no Sperm Whales or Beaked Whales were candidates and we didn't have to worry about teeth being present in only one jaw.

"Whiskers" was broadened to include barbels, and the location wasn't specified since the origin of the Hagelund specimen's "whiskers" aren't clear.

Hagelund unfortunately did not illustrate lips, so anything that would be described as possessing lips was given credit (i.e. all but the reptilian candidates).

The "plate-like scales on the back" were synonymized with the possession of any plate-like scales (scutes), as the illustration seems to imply that they covered much more of the body than the back. Precisely how much of the body the "soft yellow fuzz" covered was ambiguous (what, if anything, was between that and the plate-like scales?) and none of the candidates were given full credit. Candidates which are fully hairy and those with ventral structures which could possibly be interpreted as "fuzz" were given partial credit.

The meaning of a "seal-like face" is not at all clear, and it may be a reference to how the "dark eyes" made the face appear. It also implies that the eyes were visible from the front, however, this applies to most fish, yes even pipefish and sturgeon, so the comparative value of the speculative trait would be very limited. The only candidates which can justifiably said to have this trait are... pinnipeds.

Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated

Tet Zoo Coverage:
A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus

References:

Hagelund, W. A. (1987). Whalers No More. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.

LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.

Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. Journal of Scientific Exploration 25(3), 495-512.

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated

2011-09-16T15:25:00.001-04:00

See the previous article for an uninterrupted version of Hagelund's account.

The encounter took place at Pirate's Cove Marine Provincial Park, De Courcy Island, British Columbia in August 1968. It runs from pages 177 to 180 in Hagelund (1987).

With my two sons and their grandfather aboard our centre cockpit sloop,

None of these individuals have reported their experiences with the Hagelund specimen as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, if any extant witnesses were to be tracked down, their memory of the encounter would be 43 years old and thus highly questionable. Speaking of which, the time between the observation and documentation of the Hagelund specimen was 19 years.

we spotted a small surface disturbance in the calm anchorage where we had dropped the hook for the night. Lowering the dinghy, my youngest son Gerry and I rowed out to investigate. We found a small, eel-like, sea creature

My initial impression of Hagelund's illustration is that it's not particularly "eel-like":

Notes accompanying the illustration give a total length (TL) of 16 inches, head length of 3 inches (18.75% TL), and a body diameter of 1 to 1.5 inches (6.25% to 9.375% TL). Hagelund's drawing roughly fits his measurements and is at the upper extreme of body diameter. An American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) - not one of the more elongated species of eel - has surprisingly similar proportions to the Hagelund specimen; the head is about 12.5% of the TL and the body diameter is about 6%. However, eel bodies extend almost their entire TL so A. rostrata is relatively more elongated.

Taken and modified from Wikipedia Commons.

swimming along with its head held completely out of the water,

Apparently meaning for an extended period of time.

the undulation of its long, slender body causing portions of its spine to break the surface.

This does not necessarily mean vertical undulation, particularly when...

My first thought that it was a sea snake was quickly discarded

This makes lateral undulation seem very probable. The comparison with a sea snake is odd since the nearest species is Pelamis platurus, which barely ranges into California. Sea snakes apparently can accomplish the described behavior:

This type of behavior seems to be more common with inland species of snake. The Hagelund specimen obviously isn't a snake, but the apparently similar behavior is very curious:

when, on drawing closer, I noticed the dark limpid eyes, large in proportion to the

Before describing his specimen, Hagelund (1987) shared a 'Cadborosaurus' report from one Finn John, which also used the curious description of "limpid". This does not show up in any other 'Cadborosaurus' descriptions and is directly contradicted by the Cyril Cook sighting in 1922, which stated that the observed eyes has "film over them".

slender head, which had given it a seal-like appearance when viewed from the front.

It is not clear what Hagelund means by this. It may be suggesting that the eyes are placed on the front of the creature's head, but this is speculative.

When it turned away, a long, slightly hooked snout could be discerned.

Hagelund's illustration has a curious bulbous structure on the end of the snout, directly where an arrow from the description "Hooked upper jaw" is pointing.

As the evening's darkness made observation difficult, and the swiftness of the creature's progress warned that he could quickly disappear,

Unfortunately this description of "swiftness" is too vague to be useful.

I decided to attempt a capture and bring it aboard the sloop for closer examination. Reaching out with a small dip net as Gerry swung the stern of our dinghy into the path of the small vee of wavelets that were the only indication of the creature's position, I was pleased to find him twisting angrily in the net when I lifted it up.

This now seems to indicate that the creature wasn't constantly swimming with its head out of the water.

Under the bright lights aboard the sloop, we examined our catch and found he was approximately sixteen inches long, and just over an inch in diameter.

Apparently the size was estimated and not measured.

His lower jaw had a set of sharp tiny teeth

The illustration states that teeth are in both jaws.

and his back was protected by plate-like scales, while his undersides were covered in a soft yellow fuzz.

The Finn John report mentioned that "[i]ts long, slender body was covered by a furlike material, with the exception of its back, where spiked horny plates overlapped each other".

A pair of small, flipper-like feet protruded from his shoulder area,

The illustration seems to show fin-rays.

and a spade-shaped tail

The Finn John report states that the creature had a "spade-shaped tail, like a Sperm whale [sic]". I have no idea how the tail illustrated by Hagelund or that of a Sperm Whale could be described as "spade-shaped". These unusual similarities could be taken to indicate that details of the stories got mixed up by Hagelund.

proved to be two tiny flipper-like fins that overlapped each other.

It is notable that the ends of the tail were noted as having "ragged ends" in the illustration. This raises the possibility that the tail was damaged and does not represent the normal condition.

I felt the biological people at Departure Bay would be interested in this find, but without a radiophone to contact them, the next best thing was to sail up there in the morning. Agreeing on this, we filled a large plastic bucket with seawater and dumped our creature into it. We retired early, for I intended to leave at first light, but sleep would not come to me. Instead, I lay awake, acutely aware of the little creature trapped in our bucket.

In the stillness of the anchorage I could hear the splashes made by his tail, and the scratching of his little teeth and flippers as he attempted to grasp the smooth surface of the bucket.

How did he know that?

Such exertion, I began to realize, could cause him to perish before morning.

My uneasiness grew until I finally climbed back on deck and shone my flashlight down into the bucket. He stopped swimming immediately, and faced the light as though it were an enemy, his mouth opened slightly, the lips drawn back exposing his teeth, and the tufts of whiskers standing stiffly out from each side of his snout, while his large eyes reflected the glare of my flashlight. I felt a strong compassion for that little face staring up at me, so bravely awaiting its fate.

Does this mean the whiskers are mobile?

Just as strongly came the feeling that, if he was as rare a creature as my limited knowledge led me to believe, then the miracle of his being in Pirate's Cove at all should not be undone by my impulsive capture. He should be allowed to go free, to survive, if possible, and to fulfill his purpose. If he were successful, we could possibly see more of his kind, not less. If he perished in my hands, he would only be a forgotten curiosity. I lowered the bucket over the side and watched him swim quickly away into the darkness, then returning to my bunk for a peaceful rest, my mind untroubled by the encounter.

... and that's why the case is still being discussed.

Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account

Tet Zoo Coverage:
A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus

References:

Hagelund, W. A. (1987). Whalers No More. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.

LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schub

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account

2011-09-16T00:00:00.000-04:00

Hagelund (1987), pages 177-180:

With my two sons and their grandfather aboard our centre cockpit sloop, we spotted a small surface disturbance in the calm anchorage where we had dropped the hook for the night. Lowering the dinghy, my youngest son Gerry and I rowed out to investigate. We found a small, eel-like, sea creature swimming along with its head held completely out of the water, the undulation of its long, slender body causing portions of its spine to break the surface. My first thought that it was a sea snake was quickly discarded when, on drawing closer, I noticed the dark limpid eyes, large in proportion to the slender head, which had given it a seal-like appearance when viewed from the front. When it turned away, a long, slightly hooked snout could be discerned.
As the evening's darkness made observation difficult, and the swiftness of the creature's progress warned that he could quickly disappear, I decided to attempt a capture and bring it aboard the sloop for closer examination. Reaching out with a small dip net as Gerry swung the stern of our dinghy into the path of the small vee of wavelets that were the only indication of the creature's position, I was pleased to find him twisting angrily in the net when I lifted it up.
Under the bright lights aboard the sloop, we examined our catch and found he was approximately sixteen inches long, and just over an inch in diameter. His lower jaw had a set of sharp tiny teeth and his back was protected by plate-like scales, while his undersides were covered in a soft yellow fuzz. A pair of small, flipper-like feet protruded from his shoulder area, and a spade-shaped tail proved to be two tiny flipper-like fins that overlapped each other.
I felt the biological people at Departure Bay would be interested in this find, but without a radiophone to contact them, the next best thing was to sail up there in the morning. Agreeing on this, we filled a large plastic bucket with seawater and dumped our creature into it. We retired early, for I intended to leave at first light, but sleep would not come to me. Instead, I lay awake, acutely aware of the little creature trapped in our bucket. In the stillness of the anchorage I could hear the splashes made by his tail, and the scratching of his little teeth and flippers as he attempted to grasp the smooth surface of the bucket. Such exertion, I began to realize, could cause him to perish before morning.
My uneasiness grew until I finally climbed back on deck and shone my flashlight down into the bucket. He stopped swimming immediately, and faced the light as though it were an enemy, his mouth opened slightly, the lips drawn back exposing his teeth, and the tufts of whiskers standing stiffly out from each side of his snout, while his large eyes reflected the glare of my flashlight. I felt a strong compassion for that little face staring up at me, so bravely awaiting its fate.
Just as strongly came the feeling that, if he was as rare a creature as my limited knowledge led me to believe, then the miracle of his being in Pirate's Cove at all should not be undone by my impulsive capture. He should be allowed to go free, to survive, if possible, and to fulfill his purpose. If he were successful, we could possibly see more of his kind, not less. If he perished in my hands, he would only be a forgotten curiosity. I lowered the bucket over the side and watched him swim quickly away into the darkness, then returning to my bunk for a peaceful rest, my mind untroubled by the encounter.

After Hagelund (1987), page 178. It included the following notes: 3 inches (brackets including head), 16 inches (brackets including entire animal), hooked upper jaw, tiny teeth in both jaws, large eyes, plate scales, yellow fuzz, black on top and brown on sides, approximately 1 to 1½ inches in diameter, yellow tail, ragged ends (pointing to tail).

Hagelund noted that the encounter took place at Pirate's Cove; LeBlond and Bousfield (1995) clarified that the encounter occurred on De Courcy Island in August 1968.

An annotated version of this account will appear soon. I felt it was important for Hagelund's account to be available uninterrupted and uncut.

Previous entry:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

2011-09-15T00:00:00.005-04:00

It all began in the comments section of a Tet Zoo (v. 2.0) article, Statistics, seals and sea monsters in the technical literature:

And what a cool illustration it was. Some time after this comment was posted, I received an e-mail from Michael A. Woodley and Darren Naish with a draft of a manuscript expanding on the 'Hagelund specimen as pipefish' hypothesis and its implications. I joined the endeavor, and after a seemingly-Sisyphean cycle of submission, review, editing, and rejection, this became of it:

The main argument of Woodley et al. (2011) is that the Hagelund specimen, an enigmatic creature reportedly captured in Pirate's Cove Marine Provincial Park in 1968, is most likely a Bay Pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus) and not an undescribed species. What makes this significant is that LeBlond and Bousfield (1995) connected the Hagelund specimen to the cryptid 'Cadborosaurus' and used it as evidence of a reptilian identity for the cryptid on the basis of being apparently precocial and relatively small compared to adults. The 'reptilian hypothesis' is now supported only by the purported cold-bloodedness of 'Cadborosaurus', and as this assertion is probably impossible to test, there is no reason to further entertain the hypothesis.

So why risk being regarded as unemployable for examining cryptozoology at all and making enemies by reaching a negative conclusion? I think that cryptozoology has promise, the discovery of new species (including from anecdotal evidence) is not at all unusual and a mountain of fascinating and sometimes compelling data have accumulated. The problem is that few analyses make their way into peer-reviewed literature and they are typically tainted by naïveté, apophenia, rampant speculation and, worse of all, a strong belief in the existence of the cryptid being investigated. I'll admit that on the sliding scale of belief and disbelief I am far towards the latter in regards to 'Cadborosaurus' and marine cryptids in general, which is the perfect position to be in as far as I'm concerned. I sincerely hope Woodley et al. (2011) is viewed as a step in the right direction; while it admittedly appears in a venue which doesn't have the best reputation, it is by no means lightly reviewed and I think it is about as object as an analysis of the given topic can get.

Much, much more will appear on this article in the near future. Before continuing, I would like to give my gratitude to William A. Hagelund for reporting his specimen and LeBlond and Bousfield for bringing it to further attention. While I disagree with their opinions, I admire their guts for having discussed it at all.

References:

Hagelund, W. A. (1987). Whalers No More. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.

LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.

Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. Journal of Scientific Exploration 25(3), 495-512.

Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000005a - The Bulldog-Turtle

2011-07-16T12:00:00.000-04:00

No time for a proper write-up, so here's a mysterious teaser. Can anyone identify the mystery skull?

Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000004b - Megalocnus rodens

2011-07-14T12:37:00.001-04:00

The unusual skull from the last article does not belong to some huge rodent, glyptodont, diprotodontid, or Thylacoleo - it is from the extinct Cuban sloth Megalocnus rodens. This particular specimen was part of a panoply of sloths at the American Museum of Natural History:

Megalocnus is in the foreground, with Megalonyx facing towards it, Scelidotherium facing away, and Lestodon rearing up in the background.

Megalocnus is probably a member of the clade Megalonychidae, which can be distinguished (in part) by canine- or incisor-like first upper and lower teeth (Gaudin 2004). It may come as a surprise that megalonychids are still with us, as Choloepus (Two-Toed Sloths) are living representatives, and grouped closely (albeit not strongly) with Megalocnus and other Antillean sloths in at least one phylogeny (Gaudin 2004). Yes, this means that Two- and Three-Toed Sloths are distant relatives, with the former being far more closely related to large-bodied 'ground sloths'. I'd recommend this article from the old Tet Zoo for a sloth primer - they're far more diverse and interesting than they're often given credit for, although I suppose that's true of just about any group.

Note the radically different skull of Scelidotherium - it is a mylodontid unlike the other two megalonychids. 'Ground Sloths' are far from a homogeneous group.

The most striking aspect of Megalocnus rodens is the vaguely rodent-like skull, and it was in fact initially described as a giant rodent from an incomplete mandible (de Paula Couto 1967). While the chisel-like first teeth look particularly rodent-y, the overall dentition is similar to Megalonyx (de Paula Couto 1967). Compared with the other sloths on display, M. rodens displays an elongated neck, heavy body, short tail, and plantigrade hands and feet (de Paula Couto 1967). M. rodens may have been the second-smallest 'ground sloth' on display at the AMNH (Hapalops is slightly out of view), however it was still a large animal which may have weighed about 150 kg (330 lbs) in life (van der Geer et al. 2010). Not bad for a terrestrial Cuban mammal

Megalocnus rodens is most notable for when it went extinct - the latest fossil dates from 4200 years before present (MacPhee et al. 2007). These sloths were still trundling about when the Great Pyramid of Giza was hundreds of years old. All mainland sloths, except of course Bradypus and Choloepus, were extinct by about 10,000 years ago; in contrast, the Antilles had 13 species of sloths in the late Quaternary (Steadman et al. 2005). Most remarkable of all, M. rodens appears to have co-existed with humans on Cuba for over a millennium (MacPhee et al. 2007). There does not appear to be any clear evidence for how the sloths went extinct, although a 'long-fuse' model of human predation would appear to be the most likely. If only they held on for a few more millennia.

References:

Gaudin, T. J. (2004). Phylogenetic relationships among sloths (Mammalia, Xenarthra, Tardigrada): the craniodental evidence. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 140, 255–305. Available.

van der Geer, A., Lyras, G., de Vos, J., and Dermitzakis, M. (2010). Evolution of Island Mammals: Adaptation and Extinction of Placental Mammals on Islands. John Wiley and Sons. Partially Available.

MacPhee, R. D. E., Iturralde-Vinent, M. A., and Vazquez, O. J. (2007). Prehistoric Sloth Extinctions in Cuba: Implications of a New “Last” Appearance Date. Caribbean Journal of Science 43(1), 94-98. Available.

de Paula Couto, C. (1967). Pleistocene edentates of the West Indies. American Museum Novitates 2304: 1–55.

Steadman, D. W., Martin, P. S., MacPhee, R. D. E., Jull, A. J. T., McDonald, H. G., Woods, C. A., Iturralde-Vinent, M., and Hodgins, G. W. L. (2005). Asynchronous extinction of late Quaternary sloths on continents and islands. PNAS 102(33), 11763-11768. Available.

Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000004a - Not A Rodent

2011-07-12T15:51:00.000-04:00

I'll try something new here - can anyone out there identify this skull? As the title hints, this is not a rodent...

Dorudon Was Not A Monster

2011-05-28T13:10:00.005-04:00

The external shape of cetaceans is very much defined by blubber and other soft tissues†. In a previous article, I argued that if a cetacean were to be naïvely reconstructed by what the skeleton (or rotten carcass) 'suggests', it could end up looking more like a reptilian horror than, say, a fat, charismatic monodontid we all know and love. It's below the monstrous footnote.

† But don't just take my word for it - the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has excellent CT scans showing the interplay between skeleton and external shape. Aside from the caudal peduncle and (occasionally) the tip of the snout, toothed whales are cocooned in blubber. The heads of the False Killer Whale and Narwhal provide sufficiently extreme examples. Contrarily, the Minke Whale has a skull which roughly correlates with the external shape... in a dorsal view; shrink-wrapping the skull at a different angle shows that soft tissue still plays a considerable role in determining overall shape. Dorudon probably looked a great deal more like toothed than baleen whales, however more basal 'baleen' whales (stem-Mysticeti) lacking the hyper-derived skull are potentially very informative. Thanks to Markus Bühler for the link.

This intentionally incompetent Beluga bears an unexpected similarity to some reconstructions of Dorudon... notwithstanding the blowhole and fur, of course. This is partially due to the offending illustrations depicting Dorudon atrox with almost no blubber, which makes as much sense as reconstructing a fossil bird without feathers. The other factor is that skeletally, Dorudon is broadly similar to modern toothed whales, despite being basal to the toothed/baleen whale split:

Delphinapterus leucas skeleton from Wikipedia Commons.

Dorudon atrox2, taken and modified from Wikipedia Commons. Note that the arm is held at an angle and was not, in fact, really really short.

White-sided dolphin, taken and modified from Wikipedia Commons.

Above Dorudon is a Beluga, which is similar in size and also has non-fused neck vertebrae (Uhen 2004). What I find particularly striking is the similar depth of the ribcages and the comparatively short spinous processes of Dorudon. Beaked whales also have non-fused neck vertebrae and Ziphius in particular has been compared in size to Dorudon (Uhen 2004) - judging by this photo of Ziphius, the species also has a deep ribcage and relatively enormous spinous processes†. Below Dorudon is a Lagenorhynchus dolphin (either L. acutus or L. obliquidens) which has numerous highly derived characteristics (Buchholtz and Schur 2004), and thus makes for strong contrast. The ribcage seems relatively streamlined and shallower and the spinous processes of the vertebrae are extremely developed. There's still a broad similarity between Dorudon and that highly derived taxon, which makes portrayals of Dorudon as some anguilliform quasi-reptilian horror appear increasingly bizarre.

† Aside from which, the lumbar/anterior caudal region gives off a strong Basilosaurus vibe due to the elongated vertebral bodies and lack of interlocking processes. Hmm.

So why have I been talking so much about Dorudon atrox as opposed to D. serratus, Chrysocetus, Ancalecetus, or some other 'dorudontine'? Dorudon atrox is the best-known 'archaeocete', and at present "[r]elationships among the Dorudontinae are not well-defined, either by morphology or stratigraphy... [i]n addition, the relationships among the Dorudontinae cannot be determined until the taxa within the Dorudontinae are clearly delimited" (Uhen 2004). Additionally, it's become apparent that I've been citing Uhen (2004) quite a bit so far, and that source just so happens to be a massive, book-length treatise on D. atrox which is freely available. The publication is outstanding... aside from the frontispiece, which was credited as being made in cooperation with the author, but seems to contradict several points made within the publication and looks more like a zombie than a fairly close relative of extant cetaceans.

I think I can do Dorudon a bit more justice... next post.

Well, I've actually already done it for the banner - but the explanation will be in the following post! Which won't be in a month, I swear.

References:

Buchholtz, E. A., and Schur, S. A. (2004). Vertebral osteology in Delphinidae (Cetacea). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 140, 383–401. Available.

Uhen, M. D. (2004). Form, Function, and Anatomy of Dorudon atrox (Mammalia, Cetacea): An Archaeocete from the Middle to Late Eocene of Egypt. University of Michigan Papers on Paleontology 34, 1-222. Available.

Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000003 - Invasion of the Sliders

2011-05-03T19:53:00.000-04:00

Whilst I'm in the midst of designing the most flamboyant Cooter (turtle) ever and trying to not horrendously reconstruct cetaceans, I've decided to resurrect this nearly-forgotten gimmick to stymie the ol' blog from gathering too much dust. How has it gotten to one-post-a-month? I feel like I'm always in the process of writing something up.

At Brickyard Pond, Barrington, Rhode Island, I was in the process of stalking Snapping Turtles when I noticed what was unmistakably an invasive Red-Eared Slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) resting about a meter offshore in thick vegetation. Despite facing the shore, the head was retracted, and I was able to casually walk up to and capture the turtle before it started its futile escape dash. I was surprised to see that the little male (SCL ~ 12-13 cm) had its left arm amputated above the elbow.

Despite the horrendous-looking injury and the lackluster escape attempt, the turtle appeared to be in decent condition. Not having the capability to care for another Slider (see below), I returned the male back to its point of capture (roughly where the back end is pointing in the photo above), and was surprised that it made no attempt to flee, and did not even emerge from its shell for a few minutes. I had recently observed a large Snapping Turtle in the immediate vicinity, which makes me wonder if the Slider's presence so close to shore and apparent tenacity to hold its position had to do with the potential predator. Either that, or it was more damaged than what I had thought.

I cannot find any literature on the frequency of Trachemys scripta elegans losing limbs - let alone in an invasive context - however it has been occasionally documented in other species. As discussed in Sewer Turtles, some Phrynops geoffroanus individuals missing their forelimbs could survive and even feed themselves. Saumere (2001) observed a female Snapping Turtle in Quebec with both forelimbs amputated at the elbow nesting in two years out of three. For whatever reason, most literature on turtle limb loss concerns Wood Turtles (Glyptemys insculpta); one population from Quebec was observed to have amputation rates of 9.6% for a single limb and 3.2% for two limbs, which was comparable to rates reported in other populations (Walde et al. 2010). However, another Quebec population had 32.3% and 13% rates for single and double amputations, respectively, which may have been caused by either predator efficiency and/or density (Saumere and Bider 1998). The recapture rate for amputee Wood Turtles in a northern Michigan study was significantly lower for non-amputees, and while some were recaptured multiple times (Harding 1985), it would overall suggest that limb loss is a significant hazard to survival.

There's no way of telling just how the Slider lost its arm, although I'd say predation would be more likely that some run-in with a lawnmower or other equipment since the shell was unharmed. Any number of mammals could have been the culprits - as they have been for unfortunate Wood Turtles - although interactions with snapping turtles or even Blue Crabs (yes, they can live in freshwater) can't be ruled out either. I didn't really wan't to return the specimen, but I lack the capacity to care for such a turtle and have heard it is difficult to find anyone willing to accept Sliders of any sort. If anybody out there knows an exception, please let me know!

---

As for why I couldn't cram any more turtles into my life, I had already captured a female of possible breeding size (SCL = 19 cm) from the same pond. I had seen it around for a few months, although its shell did not have any readily-visible patterning and it was generally facing away from me, so I was not certain if it was a Red-Eared Slider or not. On one mid-November afternoon, I observed it rather unwisely basking in cool weather (45 F, 7.2 C) on a log ~2 m offshore while facing away from said shore. I'd be stupid not to sneak up on it, catch it, take it home, clean it off, and christen it as my new pet.

Kevin (named after actress Kevin Casey, of The Skydivers infamy) is still with me, although I'm honestly surprised. 165 days into my ownership, I noticed a piece of metal sticking out of the cloaca. Not knowing what to expect, I wound up pulling a sinker, line, and a partially-digested hook out of the turtle. Despite the potential to puncture internal organs from the hook and the line and the possibility of lead poisoning from the sinker, Kevin showed no signs of blood or really any indication that something that potentially-traumatic had just occurred. Still, it was probably lucky that it wasn't attempting to pass foreign object in the wild.

As for what damage a hook can do to a turtle, one snapping turtle which swallowed multiple hooks and a sinker was treated for lead poisoning and intestinal perforations (from the fishing line) (Borkowski 1997). There's not much information out there on non-marine turtles getting hooked, but I'd wager that a turtle surviving an internal hook with no obvious damage is one lucky punk.

References:

Borkowski, R. (1997). Lead poisoning and intestinal perforations in a snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) due to fishing gear ingestion. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 28(1), 109-113. Abstract.

Harding, J. H. (1985). Clemmys insculpta (Wood Turtle). Predation-mutilation. Herpetological Review 16, 30. Available.

Saumere, R. A. (2001). Limb Mutilations in Snapping Turtles, Chelydra serpentina. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 115, 182-184. Available.

Saumere, R. A., and Bider, J. R. (1998). Impact of Agricultural Development on a Population of Wood Turtles (Clemmys insculpta) in Southern Québec, Canada. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3, 37-45. Available.

Walde, A. D., Bider, J. R., Daigle, C., Masse, D., Bourgeois, J-C., Jutras, J., and Titman, R. D. (2010). Ecological Aspects of a Wood Turtle, Glyptemys insculpta, Population at the Northern Limit of its Range in Québec. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 117, 377-388. Available.

Of the Monstrous Pictures of Whales

2011-04-15T10:11:00.001-04:00

"But it may be fancied, that from the naked skeleton of the stranded whale, accurate hints may be derived touching his true form. Not at all. For it is one of the more curious things about this Leviathan, that his skeleton gives very little idea of his general shape"

- Herman Melville. Moby-Dick; or, The Whale. Chapter 55.

Suspiciously similar to a photo taken by Markus Bühler.

What would be made of cetaceans if they were known only from fossil bones? The reconstruction above shows how a mildly unusual Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) may appear in this hypothetical alternate reality. The unfortunate cetacean is subjected to almost unadulterated 'shrink-wrapping', with the exception of the 'forehead' region. This area of the skull has a strongly concave surface which would look highly implausible on an aquatic creature. What the angle of the reconstruction fails to show is that the concavity is part of a basin-like depression which covers most of the Sperm Whale's cranium; coupled with crests for the attachment of the maxillonasalis muscle, it should be clear that vast amounts of soft tissue were present. The soft tissue is so considerable in mass that Clarke (1978) referred to the head of a Sperm Whale as "largely snout and the crest of the skull necessary to support it".

A huge nose can be inferred from a Sperm Whale skeleton, yet Melville's assertion is still likely correct. A sloping, prow-like snout would probably be viewed as most likely due to the shape of the skull and hydrodynamic concerns. It seems unlikely, if not impossible, for internal structures such as the spermaceti organ, junk, museau de singe, and distal sac to be inferred; the first two have a major influence on external appearance, as demonstrated by Carrier et al. (2002). Who knows what functional morphology would be hypothesized without knowledge of the complex inner anatomy of the snout, but with knowledge of the strong asymmetry, lack of functional teeth, and a big lump of tissue that must be doing something other than fill out a basin-shaped skull.

Thanks to cryptozoology, hypothetical alternate realities are not needed for cetacean remains to be grossly misinterpreted. I really couldn't ask for a better springboard for showing off the ludicrous contrast between the skeleton and life appearance in cetaceans.

Above is an extremely literal reconstruction of the 'hairy' Russian 'plesiosaur' carcass. The position of the nostrils is unambiguously cetaceous, but surely the head is too crocodilian and the body too serpentine for this to be a known species? Nah, the skeletal morphology is unambiguously identical to that of a Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). Who knew that beneath all that blubber and muscle, Belugas were reptilian monsters?

Delphinapterus leucas skeleton from Wikipedia Commons.

Beluga, from Flickr user Travis S.

What I find particularly striking is how much of this cetacean's mass lies outside of the ribcage, and that the ribcage appears to have very little 'influence' on the overall shape of the animal.

Delphinapterus leucas head 3 - taken and modified from Wikipedia Commons.

It seems that a few suggestions of the underlying skull can be seen on the live Beluga's head, but it still seems amazing that the two have anything to do with one another.

---

In 1996, a 'dragon' skeleton was pulled out of the ocean in Langkawi, Malaysia. The only available photo is unfortunately tiny, but the shape of the skull as well as the shape and number of the teeth make an Orca (Orcinus orca) identity probable. That, and it was identified as such.

Based on this.

The situation is essentially the same as that of the Beluga, but with a scarier and vaguely crocodilian head. I think that this shows that, underneath that adorable layer of blubber and high-contrast markings, Orcas are capable of serious macropredation.

---

The Ataka carcass - Worst 'Mystery' Ever.

Something like 6-7 years back in Rhode Island, a local news station ran a brief blurb on a carcass similar in condition to the Ataka specimen being unceremoniously disposed of. It was identified as a Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and nobody appeared to have given it a second thought. The Ataka carcass itself is similarly a complete non-mystery - it was unambiguously identified as a Bryde's Whale shortly after washing up. Even Heuvelmans' great tome, In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents, summarily lists it as such. It is then utterly baffling that some cryptozoology sites insist that this is still a valid mystery. Apparently, some people sincerely believe that this is roaming the oceans:

A thin membrane was added between the tusks so it would have some semblance of functional morphology. Baleen whales probably have the most 'alien' looking mammalian skulls around, so it is quite difficult imagining what a blind reconstruction would look like. I'll admit I just wanted to draw something which looked like a bird skull with pincers coming out of it.

This article is a runaway introduction to a somewhat more rigorous topic - giving extinct whales proper amounts of soft tissue. Yes, shrink-wrapped cetacean reconstructions have been done in all sincerity despite, as this post hopefully demonstrated, that making no sense whatsoever.

References:

Carrier, D. R., Deban, S. M., and Otterstrom, J. (2002). The face that sank the Essex: potential function of the spermaceti organ in aggression. The Journal of Experimental Biology 205, 1755-1763. Available.

Clarke, M. R. (1978). Structure and Proportions of the Spermaceti Organ in the Sperm Whale. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 58, 1-17. Available.

Groomed By A Vulture

2011-03-28T10:07:00.002-04:00

Taken and modified from Wikipedia Commons.

American Black Vultures (Coragyps atratus) are remarkable opportunists. With meathook-like beaks adapted for hooking and slicing, they have the functional morphology of obligate scavengers (Hertel 1995)†, but they'll also take eggs, plant material, garbage, and live prey (Kauffman 2001). Groups have been observed preying on skunks and opossums (McIlhenny 1939) and even juvenile sheep and cattle (Humphrey et al. 2004). The frequency of livestock depredation isn't clear‡, as Avery and Cummings (2004) note that many supposed depredation events are inferred from vultures feeding on already-dead animals; vultures will aggressively pursue afterbirth (Humphrey et al. 2004), which raises the possibility that some 'attacks' are misinterpreted. I'm not attempting to acquit Black Vultures here, but their interaction with livestock clearly requires more study.

† Hertel (1995) doesn't show where C. atratus fits among the scavenger guild, but its extinct relative C. occidentalis tends to be towards the far end of variability.
‡ This doesn't stop some thousands of Black Vultures from being shot every year - along with hundreds of Turkey Vultures (Cathartes aura) which are not part of this problem (Lebbin et al. 2010). How are these daggers working by the way? I've heard the asterisks were hard to see. I'm also a bit worried when one paragraph will inevitably require three footnotes.

Based on Fig. 1 from Sazima and Sazima (2010).

Similar to the reported events involving livestock, ARKive has video of Black Vultures eating Capybara afterbirth and attacking juveniles, but the relationship between the species is not simple antagonism. Sazima (2007) reviewed video evidence from São Paulo which showed vultures pecking at resting Capybaras, visibly removing ticks and probable organic debris, and the giant rodents changing their posture to allow for a more thorough cleaning. The vultures were also observed to peck at sores (Sazima 2007), but it doesn't seem clear if this was a beneficial removal of necrotic tissue (as the author seemed to imply), or the vultures testing what they could get away with. As for how the association between Black Vultures and Capybaras was formed, Sazima (2007) suggested that the vultures would be familiarized with Capybaras from pecking at the sores and ectoparasites of dead or dying individuals, trying their luck with resting and healthy individuals, being denied when their behavior becomes harmful, learning to seek out resting Capybaras as a food source, Capybaras having advantageous health as a result of grooming, Capybaras adopting soliciting postures, and then cultural transmission in Capybara populations. Sazima and Sazima (2010) mentioned an interesting incident where a vulture picking off organic particles and ticks from a resting Capybara and later flew to a site 100 meters away to feed on a roadkill Capybara, supporting the proposed link between feeding on carrion and grooming (it would have been perfect if the order was reversed...).

Sazima (2010) recorded a remarkable incident involving Black Vultures in São Paulo preening an Irish Setter, the only known instance of cleaner birds interacting with a terrestrial carnivore. Sazima (2010) suggested that the Black Vulture-Dog association could roughly parallel the Capybara situation - the vultures locate the dog resting, spot organic debris in the dog's fur (possibly from rolling on carcasses), approach the dog and begin to feed on organic debris in its hair, and have the dog tolerate their activity until it felt disturbed or was hurt. The dog receptive towards grooming was also recorded to playfully interact with a group of vultures (Sazima 2010), making me wonder if the dog felt preening was play as well. It is unknown if this interaction is localized and/or rare, or if it has been overlooked due to its unpredictable nature and/or lack of attention (Sazima 2010).

Zamuro quitándole parásitos a un Caricare encrestado from Flickr user barloventomagico.

Intraspecific allopreening has been widely observed in birds (including vultures), however interspecific allopreening is a rarity, and has mostly been observed in cowbirds (Palmeira 2008 - citing various). Palmeira (2008) observed Black Vulture/Southern Caracara (Caracara plancus) grooming/preening in Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil; the Caracara solicited with a head-down display, and subsequently the birds began to simultaneously groom one another. Similar events have been reported from Minas Gerais, Brazil (Souto et al. 2009) and Texas (Ng and Jasperson 1984). The above photo appears to show similar behavior in Venezuela. It would then seem probable that this behavior occurs wherever Black Vultures co-exists with Caracara plancus and C. cheriway, which would be everything from Tierra del Fuego to the southern US.

So why does this behavior occur? Ng and Jasperson (1984) suggest a parallel with cowbirds, which also use a head-down display, in that it could allow Caracaras to join a Black Vulture flock for feeding and roosting. Souto et al. (2009) further suggest that mixed flocks could have the benefits of increased surveillance, the ability of Caracaras to vocalize alarm calls would benefit Black Vultures, and the ability of Black Vultures to locate carrion would benefit Caracaras. I'm curious as to why Caracaras demonstrate this apparent social association-building behavior with Black Vultures and not Turkey Vultures, as the latter has also been observed to intraspecifically allopreen (Souto et al. 2009 - citing Harrison 1965) and is apparently better at finding carcasses (probably by olfaction), even buried ones (Smith et al. 2002). It's worth noting that Sazima (2007) suggested that the long and slender bill of Black Vultures, capable of tearing flesh from small carcasses and catching live insects, makes them excellent pickers and thus potential cleaners. I suspect, for whatever reason, Black Vultures have a propensity towards grooming and aren't particularly fussy about their clientele.

As for why Black Vultures don't go around grooming everything - say (to tie up loose ends) livestock - maybe only a few population in Brazil have learned that preening large mammals results in food. Alternately, Black Vultures could be preening everything that doesn't put up much of a fuss, but such incidents have yet to be recorded in the proper literature.

References:

Avery, M. L. and Cummings, J. L. (2004). Livestock Depredations by Black Vultures and Golden Eagles. Sheep & Goat Research Journal 19, 58-63. Available.

Fisher, H. I. (1944). The Skulls of the Cathartid Vultures. The Condor 46(6), 272-296. Available.

Hertel, F. (1995). Ecomorphological indicators of feeding behavior in recent and fossil raptors. The Auk 112(4), 890-903. Available.

Humphrey, J. S., Tillman, E. A., and Avery, M. L. (2004). Vulture-Cattle Interactions at a Central Florida Ranch. Proceedings - Vertebrate Pest Conference 21, 122-125. Available.

Kauffman, K. (2001). Lives of North American Birds. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Lebbin, D. J., Parr, M. J., Fenwick, G. H. (2010). The American Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation. University of Chicago Press.

McIlhenny, E. A. (1939). Feeding habits of black vultures. Auk 56, 472–474.

Ng, D., and Jasperson, B. D. (1984). Interspecific Allopreening Between Crested Caracara and Black Vulture. The Condor 86, 214-215. Available.

Palmeira, F. B. L. (2008). Allopreening behavior between Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus) and Southern Caracara (Caracara plancus) in the Brazilian Pantanal. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 16(2), 172-174. Available.

Sazima, I., and Sazima, C. (2010). Cleaner birds: an overview for the Neotropics. Biota Neotropica 10(4), 183-194. Available.

Sazima, I. (2010). Black Vultures (Coragyps atratus) pick organic debris from the hair of a domestic dog in southeastern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 18(1), 45-48. Available.

Sazima, I. (2007). Unexpected cleaners: Black Vultures (Coragyps atratus) remove debris, ticks, and peck at sores of capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), with an overview of tick-removing birds in Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 15(3), 417-42. Available.

Smith, H. R., DeGraff, R. M., and Miller, R. S. (2002). Exhumation of Food by Turkey Vultures. Journal of Raptor Research 36(2), 144-145. Available.

Souto, H. N., Franchin, A. G., and Júnior, O. M. (2009). New Records of Allopreening Between Black Vultures (Coragyps atratus) (Ciconiiformes: Cathartididae) and Crested Caracara (Caracara plancus) (Falconiformes: Falconidae). Sociobiology 53(1), 125-129. Available.

Book Review: True Giants

2011-03-12T16:22:00.008-05:00

All these books just sitting there, un-reviewed...

I was thrilled to learn that Mark A. Hall and Loren Coleman wrote a new book on True Giants. My copy of Mark A. Hall's self-published The Yeti, Bigfoot & True Giants (1997) was read and re-read to the point of near-disintegration, so I'm anxious to both have a more structurally sound tome on 'True Giants' and to see how the hypothesis has evolved. The concept of 'True Giants' goes Beyond The Impossible, postulating that there's a primate bigger than Bigfoot present on multiple continents, whose interactions with humans in the past caused the ubiquitous legends of giants, including those of the anthropophagus variety. The concept of a giant hairy entity following, competing with, and even culturally mimicking Homo sapiens is fascinating - and scary, I've had at least one nightmare about it - and probably a potential goldmine for speculative fiction. However, I am not convinced that 'True Giants' are a valid category of cryptid with the evidence presented.

Major Issues:

Folklore and Cryptozoology

Mezzotint etching of The Giant/The Colossus, by Goya (?). From Wikipedia Commons.

The pursuit of locally known but officially undescribed species resulted in some of van Roosmalen's amazing discoveries, so I'd say the 'ethnoknown' aspect of folklore is very promising for (crypto)zoology.True Giants includes legends, fables, and traditions such as Grendel, the toll-demanding giant which gave Antwerp its name, and the anthropophagus Ai Kanaka from Hawai'i which I have no more reason to believe than Kings in Mountains, El Dorado, or the Flying Dutchman. Unless the folklore in question is recent (preferably within the lifespan of an eyewitness) and shows an in-depth and realistic understanding of a cryptid, I don't think it should be treated as anything more than a curiosity. As for why giants are ubiquitous in human culture, they can have symbolic purposes (the above etching possibly comments on the Peninsular War), heroic figures can become inflated in size* (Tolkien was probably aware of this trope when he made Elendil nearly 8 feet tall), A Book of Giants suggests they are often used in fables regarding wits over brawn, and of course I suspect there's a universal fascination with things that are big, powerful, and anthropomorphic.

* Went by the name of Homer. Seven feet tall he was, with arms like tree trunks. His eyes were like steel, cold, hard. Had a shock of hair, red like the fires of Hell.

Thorkild hos Udgaardsloke by Louis Moe. From Wikipedia Commons.

For the most part, True Giants treats folklore extremely literally. The foolishness of giants in fables is taken to indicate that 'True Giants' were stupider in the past and only recently learned to avoid humans. The ubiquity of legendary giants caused the authors to propose the presence of 'True Giants' on every permanently inhabited continent, as well as island groups such as Hawai'i and the Solomon Islands. 'True Giants', despite their alleged stupidity, are also postulated to have been capable of rafting (as implied by their presence on the aforementioned islands), speaking human languages as well as their own, herding animals, and the use of advanced technology such as smithing, thanks to legends. To me, this just screams that legendary 'True Giants' are Homo sapiens inflated in scale due to storytelling.

Legendary 'True Giants' up to 20 feet (~ 6) tall are taken literally, although one Chinese tale of a 50 foot (15.25 m) giant is conceded to be a probable exaggeration (thankfully). Many folk tales are full of bizarre traits such as "double eyebrow", "bludging red eyeballs", "eyes as big as saucers"*, "[head] drawn in somewhat like a terrapin", "only one leg or eye", backwards feet, and so forth which are not commented on. One legendary giant wearing a "little hat" is interpreted to have been a reference to a sagittal crest, despite giants wearing clothes (even belts) in other tales. It just seems really strange to me that the authors would cherry-pick some very strange straits, and ignore or explain away others.

* Probably physically impossible for a terrestrial creature.

Overall, True Giants has far too much emphasis on legends. I think folk-giants can be very interesting, so long as they are not taken to indicate flesh-and-blood creatures and analyzed in Folkloristics rather than cryptozoology.

Estimating Giants

Consider Leonid Stadnyk, who claims to be 2.54 m (8' 4") tall - and was once given the title of the world's tallest living man by Guinness - yet appears to be of surprisingly modest height* when a person verified to be that size is shown standing next to an already tall person. The point is - Stadnyk almost got away with considerably exaggerating his height despite being photographed extensively, which suggests to me that the average person is terrible at estimating heights a few standard deviations outside of the norm. This creates huge problems for the concept of 'True Giants' which, aside from their alleged unusual foot morphology, are distinguished from other cryptid hominids by being at least 10 feet (~ 3 m) tall. Am I to seriously believe that a 9 foot 'Neo-Giant' and 12 foot 'True Giant' can be readily distinguished by a height estimated by eyewitnesses who got a cursory glance and (usually) no frame of reference? I only managed to find 2 references to feet with four toes being connected with a height - one 22 inch foot supposedly belonged to an 8 foot creature and a 20 inch foot was supposedly from a 12 foot creature. Assuming the tracks and sightings have any basis in reality, it would suggest that eyewitnesses are capable of grossly inaccurate estimates.

* The man he is standing next to is former Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko, who is about the same height as George W. Bush, and thus probably around 6' or 1.83 m.

Taking measurements from cryptid sightings literally is a potential minefield. I see no reason to classify a creature as a 'True Giant' based on alleged height alone, which means most of the observations have no business being classified so specifically. Oh yeah, and there's also the problem of an undiscovered species attaining a height of 20 feet (6.1 m) - which is of course taller than the record giraffe.

Four-Toed Tracks

I was hoping this was a reference to True Giants in mainstream TV-land. Alas, it's yet another inexplicable and ultimately unimportant mystery.

By far the most interesting evidence presented for 'True Giants' are tracks with only 4 visible toes. I counted 14 reported cases in True Giants, with most being reported from western North America (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba), but also eastern North America (Pennsylvania, Mississippi), Central Asia (Tajikistan), and Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia). They range in length from 14 to 31 inches (n = 14, median = 20", mode = 20", average = 21", stdev = 5") and in width from 6 to 17 inches (n = 8, median = 9", mode = 6", average = 10", stdev = 4"). Unfortunately, only 3 of the tracks have been depicted (2 of which are in Mark A. Hall's prior book): the 30" x 13" track from Johor has very round toes in a slightly sloping line and tapers into a pronounced heel; the 19.25" long Tajikistan track seems to have a more rounded heel and pronounced sloping toe-line; the 15" x 6" Mississippi track seems to have a very strait toe-line and round heel (as well as a possible projection from the side, where an opposing ape-like hallux could be). As for how the length and width compare, it isn't a particularly great trend.

I would have preferred it if the authors documented all of the known 4-toed tracks. Are there casts? Is there similar overall morphology? If there evidence of dermal ridges or differing depths within the track which would be difficult to fake? The tracks are potentially very interesting, but ultimately left very mysterious by the book.

It's noteworthy that 10 other footprints were mentioned where the number of toes is not mentioned; these appear to have been connected to 'True Giants' due to their size and location - even though you'd think 4 toes would be one of the first things mentioned. One report from Ballachulish, Scotland specifically mentions toes, but not the number. I found two instances where legends stated that the toes of the giants were "normal" and none mentioned an odd number, demonstrating the tenuous connection between legendary giants and 'True Giants'.

Gigantopithecus

Gigantopithecus blacki mandible, from Wikipedia Commons.

The book suggests that True Giants are surviving Gigantopithecus, although offer contradicting opinions on how closely related they are to humans. Compare the contents of page 8:

[T]he fossils that have been found for this particular giant primate have been attributed not to a giant man but, erroneously, to a giant ape. There is no basis in the fossils themselves to support this determination. Rather, it has been merely a popular prejudice among the fossil specialists to make this categorization.

With those of page 101:

Gigantopithecus is a distant relative to humans in the scheme of primate evolution. Nevertheless, True Giants appear to have discovered and learned the characteristics familiar to other successful primates known as hominids. This convergence accounts for these apemen being seen by so many cultures around the world as "Big Men."

The authors appear to be under the impression that Gigantopithecus was preferred over Gigantanthropus since it is now universally viewed as an ape. Even if a taxa is re-interpreted phylogenetically the name stays the same - consider Basilosaurus. Junior synonyms cannot be re-used, so even if a giant man-like ape is discovered (that isn't Gigantopithecus) it can't be called Gigantanthropus - consider Livyatan melvillei and the pre-occupation of Leviathan.

I have never seen Gigantopithecus classified as anything other than a relative of orangutans in recent years, see Harrison (2010) for a recent phylogenetic tree of apes.

Big Bones

'True Giant' bones have a suspicious tendency to crumble away into nothingness, and those that found their way to scientists 'mysteriously' shrink to normal human proportions - see NABR #11 (page 5) for an article on how the decaying tendons and cartilage of normal skeletons made them appear 8 or 9 feet tall, and NABR # 13 (page 3) on how normal human femurs and mandibles have been confused for those of giants, not to mention when bones from large mammals (like mammoths) are confused for those of a human. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to trust reports of 'giant' bones.

Minor Issues:

Denisovans

To segue into 'True Giants', the introduction (pg. 5-6) brings up a mysterious clade of humans distinct from Homo sapiens and H. neanderthalensis yet sharing genes with both, and suggests they are linked to cryptid Siberian wild-people much in the manner that H. floresiensis is 'linked' to the legendary Ebu Gogo. I feel obliged to comment that the 'hobbit'/Ebu Gogo connection could be a coincidence (legendary 'little people' are found far outside Flores), and connecting a clade described only from molecular data with cryptids known from anecdotally-reported morphology is very premature. In the mad mad mad world* of human origins, it's hard to predict what picture will emerge for the Denisovans (or what else will emerge...), so in the meantime, check out John Hawks Weblog for the story so far.

* The closer to Homo sapiens phylogenetically, the crazier things get.

Dryopithecus

The authors refer to Dryopithecus as a relative of Gigantopithecus - which is technically true of course - but there is some controversy as to where Dryopithecus places phylogenetically, and it could be a stem hominid (outside the African ape + orangutan clade) (Harrison 2010). True Giants claims that Dryopithecus is behind 'Yeti' sightings, yet Dryopithecus is exclusively European (Begun 2005). Since it would have made a lot more sense just to say Sivapithecus instead of Dryopithecus, I suspect True Giants was relying on older literature that combined them into a polyphyletic Dryopithecus (see Begun 2005 for a review). I'd recommend Grehan and Schwartz (2009) as a review on fossil apes... if you overlook the proposed phylogeny.

Shrink-wrapped skull

True Giants claims that a skull-mask from the Mongolian plateau represents a 'True Giant' head. They claim that it has an overall oval-shape, deep-set eyes, and "a peak that is an indicator of the large muscles necessary to operate the massive jaw of this ape-man" (which they connect to the "little hat" giants of Alaska). Note that the skull doesn't have a sagittal crest (which provides an attachment point for jaw muscles), it has a rounded top. How one determines that a representation of a skull has "deep-set" eyes is beyond me, and the interpretation of traits (seen a few times in 'True Giants') comes across as rather forced. A shrink-wrap reconstruction of the skull-mask serves as a logo of sorts for the start of each chapter.

Huh?

I have no idea what this paragraph is about (page 99):

The mean height of True Giants is likely to be in the range of 12-14 feet. This was determined by Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet (1796-1874). This Belgian statistician and astronomer made his judgement based upon the proposed existence of a 20-foot giant [1].

The reference links to Firestone's The Coasts of Illusions. How could this average be determined from one (proposed!) skeleton? Why is this more reputable than averaging the sightings listed?

Such a statement seems especially designed to bait me into going through the book again and documenting all the described heights. So I did. For sightings with given heights (n = 19), the range was from 8-18 feet with a median and mode of 12 feet, and an average of 11.96 feet (stdev = 2.64 feet). When only sightings with toes are considered, the 'n' plummets to 2 - one of an 8 foot creature and one of a 12 foot creature (with the former having larger feet...). For what I consider 'legends' (n = 14), the range was from 9-50 feet with a median of 19 feet, mode of 20 feet, and an average of 20.23 feet (stdev = 11.16 feet). No 'legend' mentioned four toes.

Honeycombed Bones

From Wikipedia Commons.

The authors suggest that since humans can't grow over 9 feet tall, 'True Giants' must have a radically different skeletal structure to allow them to accomplish such towering heights. They raise the possibility of bones with a "honeycomb structure" which could be used to reduce mass, as well as account for why there are so few remains. I'm not sure what is meant by "honeycomb". Cancellous bone is weak, so increased extents of it would make for a rickety giant. Pneumaticity (i.e. the presence of air) is a way of reducing weight and retaining strength which is found in across tetrapods - notably the hyoid of howler monkeys (Alouatta) (Wedel 2005); however, only pterosaurs, theropods (including birds), and sauropods have pneumaticity beyond the cranium (Wedel 2006). I'm going to say that 'True Giants' having a skeletal structure (and presumably respiratory system) convergent upon archosaurs is really, really improbable.

Executive Summary:

While a tantalizing concept, there's no evidence to support 'True Giants' as a valid cryptid. Folklore could have made for a few interesting footnotes or background to some sightings, but it was given far too much emphasis and taken too literally. Most encounters appear to have been classified as 'True Giants' based on the size reported by eyewitnesses; it is extremely unlikely an eyewitness can accurately gauge how tall a cryptid far beyond normal human size is - and since when does another proposed cryptid ('Neo-Giants') have a known size limit? The large four-toed tracks are by far the most interesting part of True Giants, but remain cryptic even in this hyper-specific volume. Future volumes desperately need to document the footprints to the greatest extent possible - preferably gathering casts and analyzing the possibility it came from a living creature. I should add that I would bet against the possibility of 'True Giants', 'Bigfoot', et al. existing, but that doesn't mean I think they deserve to be ignored, and I'd be willing to change my mind if sufficient evidence turns up.

True Giants: Is Gigantopithecus Still Alive? is available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Books-A-Million. I'm mentioned on page 157 (in a discussion on Meganthropus) and Markus Bühler is on page 71 (he took a photograph of an unusual orangutan-like sculpture).

References:

Begun, D. R. (2005). Sivapithecus is east and Dryopithecus is west, and never the twain shall meet. Anthropological Science 113 (1), 53-64. Available.

Grehan, J. R., and Schwartz, J. H. (2009). Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins. Journal of Biogeography 36 (10), 1823-1844. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02141.x. Available

Harrison, T. (2010). Apes among the Tangled Branches of Human Origins. Science 327 (5965). DOI: 10.1126/science.1184703. Available

Wedel, M. J. (2006). Origin of postcranial skeletal pneumaticity in dinosaurs. Integrative Zoology 1(2), 80-85. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-4877.2006.00019.x. Available

Wedel, M. J. (2005). Postcranial skeletal pneumaticity in sauropods and its implications for mass estimates; pp. 201-228 in Wilson, J.A., and Curry-Rogers, K. (eds.), The Sauropods: Evolution and Paleobiology. Berkley: University of California Press. Available.

An Interlude Of Poorly-Reconstructed Bears

2011-02-04T22:36:00.117-05:00

There's too much on my plate right now to allow for a proper followup on the Bad-Ass Mega-Bear Arctotherium angustidens - now one of my most visited posts, wow! - so I figured to do some recycling in the interim. I have a lot of unfinished posts, one of which on deceptive soft tissue so happens to have a section on bears. So, I excised the opening paragraphs and expanded on the bear section a bit to serve as an introduction to the topic in general and tie in with a cryptic statement in the prior post. Don't worry, it gets to bears soon.

For all of the awesome, mind-blowing fossil reconstructions out there, some are incredibly lazy. Particularly noxious offenders include mimeographing inaccurate morphology from prior works (e.g. pronated theropod hands, elephantine sauropod hands), portraying extinct animals as identical to distant modern relatives (e.g. Teratorns-as-Condors, Kayentachelys-as-Snapping-Turtle, Prosalirus-as-Bullfrog...), and of course portraying live animals as shrink-wrapped skeletons:

*Cough*

SV-POW!'s kickass articles on sauropod life reconstructions (Part 1, Part 2) served as a major catalyst for my interest in this topic, particularly the second part which explains how portraying 'pods with freakish shrink-wrapped skull-heads has become common, if not expected in palaeo-art. I'd like to suggest that Shrink Wrapped Dinosaur Syndrome (SWDS) is but a facet of a larger phenomenon in which an animal's appearance as determined by skeletal structure, soft tissue, and external cover (hair, feathers) is improperly depicted and/or misunderstood*. Just look at that poor Dimetrodon up top (from Cleland 1916), yeesh. This phenomenon is not limited to fossils, as it can afflict carcasses still in the process of rotting or even live animals.

*Snazzy acronym pending

Since I'm not exactly a skilled re-constructionator, I figured I could put my not-skills to use and concentrate on reconstructing animals incompetently, in the hope of deconstructing some reconstruction myths. Or something.

...

Let's say a clever yet ignorant individual finds a decomposed corpse out in the woods, perhaps reduced to a skeleton with a few globs of flesh and hair still attached. It doesn't remind them of any animals they've ever seem, so they take a stab at reconstructing the presumed cryptid:

The person posts the reconstruction online, along with some blurry photographs of the remains taken at surreal angles typical of German Expressionism. Commenters suggest seemingly random and inexplicably specific taxa for the animal's identity, including the weird mustelid Ekorus, Bigfoot, the weird peccary Mylohyus, non-mammalian synapsid Titanophoneus, and a werewolf. Eventually, a near-consensus is reached suggesting that the carcass is of a late-surviving juvenile "short"-face bear Arctodus. Of course, the animal in question is actually this:

From Wikipedia Commons.

The contrast between the popular conception of bears being stumpy-legged fatties and their skeletons is truly remarkable. My "reconstruction" is cribbed from a skeleton figured in The Royal Natural History: Mammals (page 2) which unfortunately does not have a label, but appears to be an American Black Bear (Ursus americanus) as opposed to some fictional generalized bear. If the "reconstruction" looks familiar, that's because a mangy U. americanus was once confused fo r Bigfoot, and no, the legs of the creature are most certainly not "too long" to be from a bear. And since when is Bigfoot a quadruped?

Arctodus is typically portrayed as a bear on stilts, in sharp contrast to other species, but is truly not that different. It is almost always shown with rather short hair, which does occur in the Sun Bear, but is highly unlikely to occur out of the tropics; see serchio25's Deviant Art for an intriguing portrayal of Arctodus with more probable hair. It also doesn't help that when Arctodus is compared with other bears or people, it is shown at maximum size. It is now known that Arctodus simus has legs that are not elongated in comparison with other bears, and that the appearance of long legs is probably an optical illusion caused by a rather short back (Figueirido et al. 2010). Arctodus does seem to be rather gracile in build, at least in comparison with Arctotherium angustidens. Grrrraaaahhhh of Shaggy God (citing Nelson and Madsen 1983) informed me of the A. simus specimen UVP 015 with a femur 72.3 (28.5") in length, 6.4 cm (2.5") in mid-shaft width and (as estimated by Figueirido et al. 2010) a weight of 957 kg (2110 lbs); the largest Arctotherium angustidens (see the prior post) has a humerus length* of 62 cm (24.5"), a mid-shaft width of 9 cm (3.5"), and an amazing weight of 1588-1749 kg (3500-3855 lbs). It seems strange that two closely related and similarly sized bears would differ so much in build, especially when bears in general seem conservative in their body plan variation, as demonstrated below.

* Bear humeri seem to be slightly shorter than femurs. UVP 015 is still certainly the tallest bear ever.

And now, bears, bears, bears!

Arctodus simus from Figueirido et al. 2010. Note the outline, which includes hair.

Ursus americanus (Black bear) (?) modified from Wikipedia Commons. It seems to be somewhat shorter-bodied and leggier than Arctodus - is it a juvenile?

Ursus spelaeus ("cave bear") from Wikipedia Commons. Note the long body relative to A. simus and the similar leg length.

Helarctos malayanus (Sun bear) modified from Wikipedia Commons. Note the very short fur.

So yeah, Arctodus simus is certainly not long-legged or feline-like. Did the originators of the claim even bother to compare it with other bears?

References:

Cleland, H. F. (1916). Geology Part II. Historical. American Book Company: New York, Cincinnati, Chicago. Available.

Figueirido, B. Perez-Claros, J. A., Torregrosa, V., Martin-Serra, A., Palmqvist, P. (2010). Demythologizing Arctodus simus, the 'short-faced' long-legged and predaceous bear that never was. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30(1), 262 - 275. Available.

Lydekker, R. (1894). The Royal Natural History: Mammals. Frederick Wayne and Co: London. Available.

Nelson, M. E. and Madsen, J. H. (1983). A Giant Short-Faced Bear (Arctodus simus) from the Pleistocene of Northern Utah. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 86(1), 1-9.

Arctotherium angustidens: Biggest Bear Ever?

2011-01-23T19:37:00.009-05:00

I have a bit of an obsession with animal size superlatives, and megabears* are among my favorites - that's right, I have interests beyond testudines. Anyways, in this blog's even more poorly-written past, I discussed purported giant hypercarnivores wherein I argued that the One-Ton(ne)-Hyperpredatory-Arctodus meme is unsubstantiated Godzillafication which somehow managed to infect even some peer-reviewed literature. Brian Switek wrote an article at the old Laelaps covering newer research which further demolished the mythology of the Giant Short-Faced Bear: it didn't have a short face (it did have a deep snout), or particularly long legs (somewhat of an optical illusion caused by a short back), and was probably a generalist omnivore like extant bears (presumably with some differences in niche, of course). Just as it seemed that speculations about One-Ton(ne)-Hyperpredatory-Bears would be a thing of the past, this happened:

* Definition pending.

Figure 2(1) from Soibelzon and Schubert (2011). The bear's height is ~ 3.3 meters (10' 10") and note how the legs are realistically flexed.

Arctotherium is composed of 5 South American species - of which A. angustidens is the earliest, largest, and apparently most predatory - and is the sister clade of Arctodus; the two are in turn part of the clade Tremarctinae which further includes Tremarctos (spectacled bear and kin) and Plionarctos (Soibelzon and Schubert 2011). The Arctotherium angustidens specimen of concern is not a new discovery, as it was found prior to 1935 during construction of a hospital in La Plata, Argentina (Soibelzon and Schubert 2011). It is presently composed of radii, ulnae, and humeri from both forelimbs; metacarpals, phalanges, and a scapula fragment were also recovered but unfortunately lost (Soibelzon and Schubert 2011). The dimensions of the bones* are incredible, the humerus has a length of 62 cm (2' 0.4") and the mid-shaft humerus width is 9 cm (3.5"); comparable maximum measurements of other giants bears are: Arctodus simus - 59.4 cm/6.4 cm; Ursus spelaeus - 44.8 cm/5.6 cm; and Ursus maritimus - 38.5 cm/4.65 cm (Soibelzon and Schubert 2011). For those who would prefer a more graphical comparison:

* The limbs had somewhat different measurements - the left was shorter and wider and the right vice versa. See below for why.

Humerus length in cm:

The number of specimens is in parenthesis. This does not include both limbs from the Arctotherium specimen in question, subsequently the average was re-calculated from Table 3.

Humerus mid-shaft width in cm:

Table 5 figures kept the specimens in question separate (unlike the prior example) so the range and average have been re-calculated. Even without the newly measured specimen, the average for Arctotherium was substantial (5.88 cm).

Using humerus greatest length, humerus mid shaft circumference, humerus greatest distance of distal epiphysis, and radius proximal epiphysis greatest diameter, the estimated weight for the giant Arctotherium angustidens specimen ranged from 983-2042 kg (2,167-4,502 lbs), with the value likely around the mean and median of 1588 and 1749 kg (3501-3856 lbs), respectively (Soibelzon and Schubert 2011). The other known specimens were given the same treatment (when possible), and a couple of them appeared to mass around a tonne (Soibelzon and Schubert 2011). This would seem to suggest that the giant Arctotherium angustidens specimen was not an outsized freak, and could represent a "normal" maximum size for the species. Before too many conclusions can be made, some more discussion of the specimen is in order.

Left humerus in caudal view. The scale bar is 10 cm (~ 4 inches) and the arrow points to a pathology. Taken from Figure 3(1), Soibelzon and Schubert (2011). Compare with the humerus of Arctodus: here.

The most striking aspect of this specimen are the osteogenic changes to the deltoid crests of both humeri - more apparent in the left humerus pictured above, see arrow - and the distal third of the left radius shaft, which suggest a deep injury followed by infection and then new vascular growth over a long period of time (Soibelzon and Schubert 2011). Judging by the high degree of epiphyseal fusion, the specimen managed to become an old adult (Soibelzon and Schubert 2011). Humeral mid-shaft measurements gave on average larger estimated masses (Soibelzon and Schubert 2011 - Table 3), which makes me wonder if the measurements were artificially inflated by the injury and subsequent pathological growth. However, the limited data on Table 3 shows similar proportions with a somewhat smaller specimen:

	HMSC	HGL	HMSC/HGL
MLP 35-IX-26-5	26.5	61.5	43%
MLP 35-IX-26-6	26.2	62	42%
MACN 5132	22	54	41%
MLP 82-X-22-2	16	49.5	32%

Measurements in cm: HMSC = Humerus mid shaft circumference; HGL = Humerus greatest length. The first two rows are from the specimen in question.

Curiously, specimens of Arctotherium angustidens appear to differ considerably in limb proportions, for instance, two specimens have the same humeral circumference (22 cm) but the greatest diameter of the distal humeral epiphysis differs considerably (20.5 vs. 18 cm), one of which is larger than the giant specimen's maximum measurements (18.5 cm) (Soibelzon and Schubert 2011)... this is certainly confusing, and the value of compiling median and mean figures is readily apparent. While the mass of the giant Arctotherium angustidens cannot be precisely pinned down, the available evidence suggests it exceeded all other bears in size.

... or does it?

Incredibly, one mass regression of Indarctos atticus exceeded 3 metric tonnes, although predictably it was found to be highly improbable (Finarelli and Flynn 2006) and, along with fellow Mio-Pliocene bear Agriotherium, they are not believed to have reached the same size as Arctodus simus or Arctotherium angustidens (Soibelzon and Schubert 2011). Polar bears (U. maritimus) can get extremely large*, with one specimen shot in Alaska in 1960 purportedly standing 3.39 m (11' 1.5") and weighing 1002 kg (2210 lbs); the whereabouts are apparently unknown and the skull was never submitted for measurement (Wood 1981). Assuming the record is genuine, I'm wondering if the height included unnaturally straitened legs or was in fact the length lying down and outstretched, which would certainly be easier to take. Considering the largest Arctotherium angustidens humeral length is about 160% as large as the largest polar bear measurement included in Soibelzon and Schubert (2011), it would take one freakish polar bear to get that tall, and it would probably weigh a lot more than a tonne. Polar bears reached their largest sizes in the late Pleistocene (Soibelzon and Schubert 2011) and Ursus maritimus "tyrannus" apparently had an ulna 44 cm in length (see Markus Bühler's Bestiarium, comment #5), which is of course smaller than that of the specimen in question's (57 cm), but still surprisingly large for a single specimen. Information on these giant polar bears is unfortunately quite hard to come by, but I think it's safe to assume it didn't exceed Arctotherium angustidens in size, at least regularly.

* DeMaster and Stirling (1981) give maximum figures of: mass 800 kg (1764 lbs), nose-tail length 2.5 m (8' 2"), and shoulder height 1.6 m (5'3").

Exactly how the average sizes of the giant bears compare is difficult to determine at the present time - particularly when gender isn't obvious. However, as weights of a tonne or more appear to have been reached by Arctotherium angustidens regularly, the average must have considerably exceeded that of other giant bears, which have only been demonstrated to exceed a tonne in one instance. The authors' assertion that Arctotherium angustidens was the biggest bear ever is well-supported, until something bigger turns up.

---

This post has run long enough, I'll write a followup on the proposed ecology of Arctotherium angustidens shortly.

References:

DeMaster, D. P., and Stirling, I. (1981). Ursus maritimus. Mammalian Species 145, 1-7. Available.

Finarelli, J. A., and Flynn, J. J. (2006). Ancestral State Reconstruction of Body Size in the Caniformia (Carnivora, Mammalia): The Effects of Incorporating Data from the Fossil Record. Systematic Biology 55(2), 301-313. doi: 10.1080/10635150500541698. Available.

Soibelzon, L. H., and Schubert, B. W. (2011). The Largest Known Bear, Arctotherium angustidens, from the Early Pleistocene Pampean Region of Argentina: With a Discussion of Size and Diet Trends in Bears. Journal of Paleontology 85(1), 69-75. doi: 10.1666/10-037.1

Wood, G. L. (1981). The Guinness Book of Animal Records. Guinness Superlatives: Middlesex, Great Britain.

Later This Year, On The Lord Geekington!

2011-01-01T12:52:00.002-05:00

For my own good, I've decided to keep track of the posts I have started but never finished, and the ones I have promised but never gotten around to. I've set up a page to keep track of them (see toolbar, to be updated regularly), and here are the contents thus far:

Research blogging. I'll finally get on the bandwagon (if I can get the page to work) and discuss some recent papers on clades I have an unusual fondness for (turtles, vultures, remipedes, loricariids, cephalopods, et cetera) which receive little attention from the science blogosphere at large. I'm counting on you Google Scholar alerts!

'Cadborosaurus' analysis. A sequel to my treatment of Heuvelmans' Many-Finned (reports, analysis), I will utilize anecdotal data from LeBlond and Bousfield's Cadborosaurus: Survivor from the Deep to determine if their proposed cryptid is actually suggested by the reports they included. After reading the book, I suspect that the proposed morphology for 'caddy' was based mostly on the Naden Harbour carcass; if the carcass is assumed to be mundane and/or over/misinterpreted, 'caddy' will either get much simpler (say, elongated body + ungulate-like head + big eyes), or no well-supported patterns will emerge at all. One controversial aspect is lumping different eyewitness traits (i.e. horse-like head, cow-like head, giraffe-like head, et cetera), so I'd like to see how big a difference different degrees of lumping will make. This will all inevitable tie in with the controversy over whether the very concept of a cryptid taken from numerous eyewitness reports has any validity. I'd also like to record the number of characteristics per report and see if there is a trend with distance or possibility of a hoax. Obviously this is going to be a whole serious of posts!

The Hagelund specimen. There's something in the works about this one and I'm planning on giving some additional background and commentary upon publication.

'Caddy' Reports. Some of them are really quite interesting!

The Canvey Island Monsters. Cryptids that are definitely known fish, although this does not appear to be widely acknowledged.

Clade-by-clade turtles. I'm thinking of reviewing turtles as a whole by major clade (mostly 'families', perhaps some well-supported sub-families). It just seems inevitable.

Brackish and Saltwater turtles. There are a few non-seaturtles that can venture out to sea (previously mentioned here) and the ability for 'freshwater' turtles to survive in brackish water is downright common.

Teeny Turtles.Turtles on average are rather large creatures (previously discussed here), and it would seem that at small sizes the shell would offer little protection and become an unnecessary burden. However, very small turtles (< 15 cm strait shell length) can thrive in areas with crocodilians and other potential turtle-crushers. I'll review the smallest species of all with emphasis on predation, growth, niche, and other relevant aspects of their life history.

Jaguarundi and the Philosophy of Genera. I'll discuss why placing Jaguarundi in the genus 'Puma' is a huge mistake (blatant paraphyly, for one thing) and offer my own philosophy on how genera should and shouldn't be used. The concept of a genus is subjective, but I think the best approach would be to construct them of species which are obviously closely related (i.e. the Right Whales in Eubalaena, vs. the Bowhead Whale in Balaena) and thus may be split or lumped over time. I think the concept of a 'subgenus' is useless and they should just be bumped up to a proper genus (see my thoughts on pangolins).

Shrink-wrapped whales. Inspired by discussion with Markus Bühler (of Bestiarium) and discussion on SV-POW! (part 1, part 2) I'll reconstruct extant whales in the most dreadful manner possible to discuss how some extinct forms probably didn't look like quasi-reptilian monsters in life.

Cleaned by a vulture. For some reason, American Black Vultures (Coragyps atratus) engage in lots of interspecific grooming.

Snake Eels. Eels with necks! Kinda!

Clade-by-clade remipedes. Another inevitable topic.

How Do Remipedes Disperse?

2010-12-05T13:54:00.001-05:00

For those not in the know, remipedes are small, blind, saltwater cave-dwelling (pan)crustaceans remarkable for their 'primitive' polychaete-like body plan, possible close relation to insects, and discovery in 1979. Here's a video with lots of hot remipede action and commentary from the clade's initial descriptor, Jill Yager:

I'd recommend just going to YouTube.

Remipede biogeography has become quite the complex topic, and in retrospect my last post failed to give it any justice. 22 out of the 25 known remipede species* are present in the Caribbean, with 15 being found in the Bahamas alone; Caicos Bank has 4 species while San Salvador Island, Cuba, Hispaniola, and Yucatán all have a single indigenous species (Koenemann et al. 2009). The Bahamas remipedes exhibit remarkable sympatry, with up to 6 species from 3 genera inhabiting a single cave system (Koenemann et al. 2004). It has been speculated that the diversity of remipedes in the Caribbean, and particularly the Bahamas, is due to the complex geomorphology of the caves and changing sea elevation (and thus coastlines) throughout the Pleistocene (Koenemann et al. 2009). It should be cautioned that since remipedes were initially discovered from the Bahamas, sample bias may have exaggerated the disparity of diversity between the Bahamas and other Caribbean locales.

* Species count from Koenemann et al. (2009), which includes species with formal descriptions in preparation. Not included are unidentified and undescribed species, the number of which is ambiguous.

In the Bahamas and Caicos, individual remipede species are occasionally present on multiple islands, including G. robustus from Exuma Cays, Great Bahama Bank and North Caicos (Koenemann et al. 2009). Also notable is Speleonectes lucayensis, the first described remipede, which is present on Andros and Cat Island from the Great Bahama Bank as well as Grand Bahamas and Abaco from the Little Bahama Bank (Koenemann et al. 2009). Iliffe et al. (2010) took note of a pair of Godzilliognomus on either side of the Bahamas Banks, and speculated that dispersal may have occurred through open water, the deep sea, or cave colonization when the banks were forming during the Cretaceous. Very recently it was discovered that remipedes are not restricted to subterranean caves, but are present in sub-marine caves with similar properties located on shallow 'platforms', which apparently increases the potential range considerably and may explain occurrence on multiple islands (Daenekas et al. 2009). It is certainly an intriguing thought that islands which share remipede species have a contiguous, or nearly so, distribution of individuals in between. Since islands outside of the Bahamas and Caicos all have unique remipedes, it can be assumed this phenomenon has limited applicability for planetary-scale dispersal.

So what are those other Caribbean remipedes? All are members of the genus Speleonectes (Koenemann et al. (2009), and morphology-based phylogeny places S. epilimnius (San Salvador), S. gironensis (Cuba), and S. tulumensis (Yucatán) well within the genus (Koenemann et al. 2007). The Bahamas and Caicos are also home to several Speleonectes and other speleonectids (Koenemann et al. 2009), and I think it would be fascinated if all the divergent speleonectids were analyzed through molecular phylogeny to determine relations more certainly and calculate divergence times. If the Speleonectes from outside the Bahamas and Caicos are indeed closely related to those within, it would seem to suggest that colonization occurred very recently, presumably during or after the sea level changes of the Pleistocene.

Speleonectes are also present far outside of the Caribbean, as now two species are known from the Canary Islands. Both S. ondinae and S. atlantida were found in the Túnel de la Atlántida (apparently the world's largest lava tube), despite it being only 1,700 m (~ 1 mile) long, and much simpler in structure and more recently formed (~20,000) than the Bahamas locales which support remipede sympatry (Koenemann et al. 2009). Remipedes are also rarely seen in the tube despite ideal viewing conditions, and Koenemann et al. (2009) suggest they may be found outside the system, although this has not been confirmed. Morphological phylogeny tended to place S. ondinae around Caribbean Speleonectes (Koenemann et al. 2007) and limited examination of DNA demonstrated S. atlantida formed a clade outside S. ondinae, with a difference between the two being larger than a mean intraspecific distance for a few select species (Koenemann et al. 2009). It would be interesting to determine if the species are sister taxa, or if they managed to colonize the tube independently.

Incredibly, there is a species of remipede from Western Australia - and it isn't Speleonectes! Lasionectes exleyi is still a speleonectid and is currently classified as congeneric with L. entrichoma (Koenemann et al. 2009) however morphological phylogeny generally shows Lasionectes to be paraphyletic, and places both species basally in Speleonectidae (Koenemann et al. 2007). Unlike the other cases, this evidence could suggest a relatively ancient dispersal.

Remipede biogeography is still an emerging topic, and for all I know, there could be remipede colonies in between the Caribbean and disjunct locales, or even worldwide. As the Canary Islands species occur in a very recently-formed lave tube, it would suggest that remipedes can occasionally disperse through open waters and colonize ideal locales. It could be possible they haven't been detected yet due to being rare, although confusion with polychaetes is possible. Hermaphrodites would be ideal colonizers, and since it is now known remipedes can live in caves off the mainland, it would greatly increase the chances of dispersal. The exact extent of remipedes and sub-marine caves is intriguing, but it seems likely that contiguous populations between islands are only likely to occur in the Bahamas and Caicos. Why only Speleonectes are dispersed throughout the Caribbean and Canary Islands is curious, so presumably there's some aspect of their life history which aids dispersal.

Instead of having to write on this topic again every couple years, I'm considering setting up one of those fancy blog 'pages' to keep everything strait on remipedes. Then again, I have no idea what that may be getting me into.

References:

Daenekas, J., Iliffe, T., Yager, J., and Koenemann, S. (2009). Speleonectes kakuki, a new species of Remipedia (Crustacea) from anchialine and sub-seafloor caves on Andros and Cat Island, Bahamas. Zootaxa 2016, 51-66. Available.

Iliffe, T., Otten, T., and Koenemann, S. (2010). Godzilliognomus schrami, a new species of Remipedia (Crustacea) from Eleuthera, Bahamas. Zootaxa 2491, 61-68. Available.

Koenemann, S., Bloechl, A., Martinez, A., Iliffe, T., Hoenemann, M., and Oromi, P. (2009). A new, disjunct species of Speleonectes (Remipedia, Crustacea) from the Canary Islands. Marine Biodiversity 39, 215-225. Available.

Koenemann, S., Schram, F., Honemann, M., and Iliffe, T. (2007). Phylogenetic analysis of Remipedia (Crustacea). Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 7, 33–51. Available.

Koenemann S., Iliffe T., and Yager, J. (2004) Kaloketos pilosus, a new genus and species of Remipedia (Crustacea) from the Turks and Caicos Islands. Zootaxa 618, 1–12. Available.

Adventure Time #0001 - Lawton's Valley

2010-11-20T02:39:00.004-05:00

Holy crap does time fly by. I can't believe I managed to slip into my old posting frequency without noticing. To try and bump up activity, I'll start documenting some of my more ill-conceived - and hopefully interesting - adventures.

On the Isle of Aquidneck and in the village of Melville, there stands a forgettable 600 foot (180 m) stretch of trees along Rhode Island Route 114. This woody tract unceremoniously sandwiched between Raytheon and apartment complexes looks like any of the others intermittently present alongside the road. It is then shocking to learn the seemingly insignificant parcel reportedly contains old-growth forest. Resultantly, this has become a favorite haunt of mine.

As I appear legally incapable of pasting a map onto this blog, the best I can do is link to a Google map. The marker is questionably placed as it is south of the valley proper and some 400 feet (120 meters) southwest of the entrance. But hey, at least thanks to the Google Truck you can see how just how uninteresting Lawton's Valley* appears from the road!

I feel obliged to point out that Lawton's Valley is presently owned by Raytheon, although only the woodlands surrounding it are off-limits. There appears to be a drive to increase the legal protection of the area, but I have no idea what the current status is.

* Sources tend to vary between Lawton and Lawton's. The latter appears to have more frequent usage, so I'll go with it.

I wish my camera came with a level...

Southeast of Lawton's Valley and Rt. 114 is the Lawton Valley Reservoir, a ~85 acre (35 hectare) construct sitting around 108 feet (33 meters) above sea level, according to Daft Logic's Google Maps Find Altitude program. Thanks to the magic of the internet, I found a video which explains that the disturbance in the water is from aeration discs. Now I can sleep at night. There appears to be automatic control of the water level, as considerable amounts of water flow into Lawton Brook periodically, scaring the hell out of me in the process.

The north/northwestern border of the reservoir is a huge levee about half a mile long (0.8 km) and 30-40 feet (9-12 m) high at the peak. The office buildings in the extreme background are part of the Raytheon complex, northeast of Lawton's Valley. The culvert in the bottom photo is the mouth of Lawton's Brook, which can be followed to enter the valley. It is also possible to enter through the apartment complex, but the parking is lousy and steep slopes + slippery leaves can spell trouble.

Thanks, mysterious railing installer!

The woods between the service road and 114 are nothing special - as flat, swampy, and full of garbage as the majority of Rhode Island - until you hit this:

The water in the tunnel is normally shallow enough that shoes won't get wet... except during high flow when the depth reaches around 2 inches (5 cm). Thanks to canalization, the velocity (and noise) during high flow seems remarkable, but thankfully not dangerously so. Despite my newfound fear of tunnels under highways, it was all worth it to see this:

Lawton's Valley seems to occupy space in an improbable way. Even with a highway to my back, defense contractors to the right, and apartment dwellers to the left, it felt like a place apart. Perhaps it has to do with me spending a considerable amount of my life in the Midwest and thus being bewildered by even the slightest changes in elevation. Anyways, Lawton's Valley is surprisingly large considering the small profile from the highway: it runs about 3000 feet (0.57 miles, 0.9 kilometers) from the tunnel exit to Narragansett Bay and the non-fenced in portion is at least 20 acres (8 hectares). The bottom of the valley is about 110 feet (33 m) above sea level near the start, levels out to around 15 feet (4.6 m) halfway through, and then slopes down to sea level. The maximum depth of the valley seems to be at least 40 feet (12 m). Some portions of the valley have vertical rocky faces, which backs up the occasional description of 'canyon', at least in part.

A visual representation of the difference in flow rates. The latter of these seems to be around, or even slightly surpassing, the pre-reservoir norm - see here and here. As evidenced by the pictures, Lawton's Valley was built upon at some points, in spite of its physical layout, presumably because the (then) Wading River was attractive to mills. Richard Chaplin's article on the Valley's history mentions that a house was built on the site of an old mill by none other than Julia Ward Howe, author of The Battle Hymn of the Republic. Richard L. Chaplin's overview article notes both a grist mill and flax mill were present up until 1910, when they were washed away, which (to me) suggests the house was re-converted into a mill at some point.

So is former mill site Lawton's Valley really an old growth forest? An article by James Johnson states that arborist Matthew Largess found a number of rare trees including American Beech (Fagus grandifolia), a large Hornbeam (Carpinus), one White Ash (Fraxinus americana) which was both very large and unusually located in a stream bed, a Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis) among the largest in New England, and a Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) which may be the largest in New England, with a circumference of over 13 feet (4 m) and estimated age at least 300 and possibly 500 years old. The valley indeed appears to have many of the characteristics of old growth, but as yet this status appears unconfirmed.

Lawton's Valley was not included in a survey of an old growth forests in Rhode Island, almost all of which are found in the relatively sparsely populated Washington County, but interestingly the nearby Oakland Farms was. Despite being a 20 acre (8 hectare) area located near a subdivision and the sea, it is a functional old forest (not just old trees) which was either last disturbed early on by European settlers, or not at all. According to Matthew Largess, who had worked on preventing Oakland Farms from being developed, the two forests (about 1.3 miles/2.1 km apart) were at one point connected. I guess that gives them a sort of Fangorn-Old Forest connection.

Even if Lawton's Valley is not a true old growth forest, it is an amazing collection of specimens and history for a tiny obscure corner of a tiny obscure state. The latest publication by the Raytheon Employees Wildlife Habitat Committee indicates it is in good hands and may finally get the status and recognition it deserves.

Sewer Turtles

2010-11-15T14:11:00.003-05:00

Yes, really.

---

Turtles are in serious trouble. The IUCN Red List investigated 207 out of ~300 species and arrived at these assessments:

Click to enlarge. This is an unofficial chart of my own construction - for a prior version see the Turtle Conservation Fund. The number of unassessed species is estimated.

95 of the species were last assessed over 10 years ago and are in need of updates (IUCN 2010); this unfortunately suggests the present situation could be worse than illustrated above. It also needs to be pointed out that 'Unassessed' is not necessarily synonymous with 'Least Concern'. For instance, the unassessed Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) is unprotected throughout most of its range and commonly assumed to be in no danger, but in reality requires conservation effort (Ernst and Lovich 2009).

With the situation looking grim, it then comes as a shock that some turtles not only survive in anthropogenically-altered environments, but thrive.

Geoffroy's side-necked turtle (Phrynops geoffroanus) is a moderately-large (max SCL = 35 cm, 13.8") pleurodire which lives east of the Andes in the Orinoco, Amazonas, São Francisco, and Paraná rivers basins ('Turtles of the World', Baldo et al. 2007). Souza (2005), however, interprets the distribution as patternless, and coupled with the diversity of habitat, reiterated a prior suggestion that P. geoffroanus is a complex of sister species. For the sake of not having to construct awkward sentences for the rest of this article, I'll refer to whatever complex may exist as a single species. P. geoffroanus inhabits streams, rivers, lakes and lagoons* with soft bottoms and abundant vegetation ('Turtles of the World', Bonin et al. 2006). The diet is strongly carnivorous, including fish, aquatic insects, snails, and other invertebrates ('Turtles of the World', Bonin et al. 2006). The turtles are shy and flee from humans whom are less than 50 meters (165 feet) away (Bonin et al. 2006). They have been spared from large-scale hunting due to being generally unpalatable, but large numbers are still collected for the pet trade (Bonin et al. 2006). The IUCN does not list the species.

*Making this one of a surprisingly large number of turtles tolerant of saline conditions.

Phrynops geoffroanus from Wikipedia Commons. Phrynops species are commonly called Toad-Head Turtles thanks to their wide dorso-ventrally compressed head.

Souza and Abe (2000) investigated P. geoffroanus populations in Ribeir ão Preto Stream, which runs through a town of over half a million and as a result receives an estimated 25-28 tons of sewage per day, as well as dead animals, pesticides, and assorted domestic waste including food scraps, furniture, and tires. The stream is muddy to the degree that at a 30 cm (1 foot) depth, the bottom cannot be seen. Only around 1 kilometer out of the 40 km stretch (0.6 out of 25 miles) is canalized, allowing the grass Panicum maximum to dominate the banks. Up to 75 turtles were present in a 0.1 hectare (0.25 acre) area surveyed; median figures gave a more modest 170-230 turtles/hectare (420-569/acre) or a biomass of 255-345 kg/hectare (1388-1878 lbs/acre). Thus, the 40 km stretch averaging 10 m (33 feet) wide has a population of around 3000 turtles. Surprisingly, neotropical turtles living in lakes may have much higher densities, but in comparison with other streams, the Ribeirão Preto turtles are extremely abundant. It is unfortunate Souza and Abe (2000) did not survey P. geoffroanus in unaltered streams to determine differences in abundance and life history.

So how were the turtles apparently thriving in what essentially amounts to an open-air sewer? Terrestrial prey such as snails and cockroaches were taken, along with carrion and items such as (chicken?) meat and rice from human residences. However, the chironomid Chironomus plumosus was found in 100% of the stomachs surveyed and appears to make up the bulk of the diet. Juvenile turtles - which have a more varied diet than adults - primarily consumed pupal C. plumosus, whereas adult turtles consumed the larvae, suggesting niche partitioning. Due to almost none of the original vegetation remaining in the region, the river otters that would typically prey on the turtles are either locally extinct or scare. Piranhas have been observed to mutilate P. geoffroanus at the stream mouth, but turtles with severe wounds, including damaged or absent forelimbs, can still apparently survive on carrion and/or their small insect prey.

Living in a polluted stream is obviously not without its risks. Souza and Abe (2000) warn that further pollution will eventually kill off C. plumosus and that future canalization will destroy nesting habitat - although it is unlikely the whole 40 km stretch will be so modified. Turtles from the urbanized Anhanduizinho River were found to have a huge mortality rate from roadways (Souza et al. 2008). Chironomid larvae have been observed to live on (and in?) turtles in polluted streams (Marques et al. 2008), but it is not clear what sort of impact this has. Urban P. geoffroanus were found to have a high rate of leech parasitism compared to those from agricultural areas (with no leeches) (Brites and Rantin 2003); another study found that individuals parasitized by leeches and injured by boat strikes showed no sign of disease, although it was suspected they were sub-clinical (Ferronato et al. 2009). Piña et al. (2009) studied P. geoffroanus individuals from the Piracicaba River and found the highest blood serum levels of Cu and Pb for any studied reptile, which was remarkable since there were no obvious clinical or reproductive impacts. The authors warned that the contamination may have been recent enough that any impact, which will likely disrupting reproduction, may eventual appear within a few years.

---

For anyone disappointed about a more literal Sewer Turtle not showing up, there's hope. Actinemys marmorata, a vulnerable species, has lost habitat due to urbanization and other anthropic changes, but thrives in sewage treatment plants (Germano 2010). The author suggested the facilities could be used to stock up populations to re-introduce to more natural environments. I wish I have access to this one...

References:

Baldo, D., Martinez, P., Boeris, J. M., Giraudo, A. R. (2007). Reptilia, Chelonii, Chelidae, Phrynops geoffroanus Schweigger, 1812 and Mesoclemmys vanderhaegei (Bour, 1973): Distribution extension, new country record, and new province records in Argentina. Check List 3 (4), 348-352. Available.

Bonin, F., Devaux, B. Dupré, A. (2006). Turtles of the World. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press. Partially Available.

Brites, V. L. C. and Rantin, F. T. (2003). The Influence of Agricultural and Urban Contamination on Leech Infestation of Freshwater Turtels, Phrynops geoffroanus, taken from Two Areas of the Uberabinha River. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 96(1-3), 273-281. DOI: 10.1023/B:EMAS.0000031733.98410.3c

Ernst, C. H., and Lovich, J. E. (2009). Turtles of the United States and Canada. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, Maryland. ISBN 13:978-0-8018-9121-2

Ernst, C. H., Altenburg, R. G. M., and Barbour, R. W. "Phrynops geoffroanus". Turtles of the World.
http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/turtles.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&record=Phrynops%20geoffroanus

Ferronato, B. O., Genoy-Puerto, A., Piña, C. I., Souza, F. L., Verdade, L. M., and Matushima, E. R. (2009). Notes on the hematology of free-living Phrynops geoffroanus (Testudines: Chelidae) in polluted rivers of Southeastern Brazil. Zoologia (Curitiba, Impresso) 26(4). doi: 10.1590/S1984-46702009000400027

IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. www.iucnredlist.org

Germano, D. J. (2010). Ecology of Western Pond Turtles (Actinemys marmorata) at Sewage-Treatment Facilities in the San Joaquin Valley, California. The Southwestern Naturalist 55(1), 89-97.

doi: 10.1894/GC-196.1

Marques, T. S., Ferronato, B. O., Guardia, I., Longo, A. L. B., Trivinho-Strixino, S., Bertoluci, J., and Verdade, L. M. (2008). First record of Chironomus inquinatus larvae Correia, Trivinho-Strixino & Michailova (Diptera, Chironomidae) living on the shell of the side-necked turtle Phrynops geoffroanus Schweigger (Testudines, Chelidae). Biota Neotropica 8(4). doi: 10.1590/S1676-06032008000400019.

Piña, C. I., Lance, V. A., Ferronato, B. O., Guardia, I., Marques, T. S., and Verdade, L. M. Heavy Metal Contamination in Phrynops geoffroanus (Schweigger, 1812) (Testudines: Chelidae) in a River Basin, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 83, 771-775. Available.

Souza, F. L., Raizer, J., da Costa, H. T. M., and Martins, F. I. (2008). Dispersal of Phrynops geoffroanus (Chelidae) in an Urban River in Central Brazil. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 7(2), 257–261. Available.

Souza, F. L. (2005). Geographical distribution patterns of South American side-necked turtles (Chelidae), with emphasis on Brazilian species. Revista Española de Herpetología 19, 33-46. Available.

Souza, F. L., and Abe, A. S. (2000). Feeding ecology, density and biomass of the freshwater turtle, Phrynops geoffroanus, inhabiting a polluted urban river in south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Zoology 252, 437-446. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2000.tb01226.x

Turtle Conservation Fund. (2002). A global action plan for conservation of tortoises and freshwater turtles. Strategy and funding prospectus 2002–2007. Washington, DC: Conservation International and

Chelonian Research Foundation. Available.