tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69033160703446643522024-03-17T23:03:25.255-04:00The Lord GeekingtonCameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.comBlogger172125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-89996563844087905792014-01-15T12:49:00.003-05:002014-01-15T12:49:44.295-05:00Yet Another MoveI don't know if anybody out there is still following, but I am now writing at <a href="http://thelordgeekington.wordpress.com/">The Lord Geekington (WordPress)</a> and <a href="http://biologicalmarginalia.tumblr.com/">Biological Marginalia (tumblr)</a>. Some of these articles are getting very old and well overdue for revisiting; I'll put notifications on top when and if that happens.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com144tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-10826390964008506512012-01-29T00:45:00.002-05:002012-01-29T00:45:14.770-05:00A Change of SceneryAfter blogging on Blogger since 2006 I've decided to give <a href="http://lordgeekington.wordpress.com/">WordPress</a> a try. There is a lot of juvenile baggage on this page and I think a move will help me distance from that and try and become a better and above all more consistent blogger. Anyways, the primary purpose of this post is to announce my first article on a new blog:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://lordgeekington.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/lophenteropneusts/">Lophenteropneusts and Beyond</a><br />
<br />
<br />Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-79740432014694826782011-12-17T17:26:00.000-05:002011-12-17T18:10:17.041-05:00Feresa: The Growling Wolf-DolphinThe dolphin <i>Feresa attenuata</i> has been bestowed with dreadfully stupid common names. <i>Feresa</i> has been recognized as distinct from <i>Orca</i> since Gray (1871), which makes "Pygmy Killer Whale" both inappropriate and archaic. The alternative "Slender Blackfish" is actively misleading as the superficially similar <a href="http://www.arkive.org/false-killer-whale/pseudorca-crassidens/image-G37091.html" style="font-style: italic;">Pseudorca</a> is more slender (Reeves <i>et al</i>. 2002) and well-lit color photographs in Rossi-Santos <i>et al</i>. (2006) show that the species is actually brown, <i>contra</i> every illustration. I'll be calling the dolphin "<i>Feresa</i>" from here on out (I'm also not too fond of "<i>attenuata</i>") as my alternate suggestion in the title is a tad verbose.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyEX2uZ8Ffh2VtmOyfn37H1pztL_btQC95fKJ4jtiDRhgkLFhoUHz_vwdASY_3Uc8exy4WWRvynX43YmnR48jocdahw1mXJm0K_5nhBVvO4mPDDYEzmxBG02OXSDexL857QOyIRoVCxoxu/s1600/22034_pygmy-killer-whale-feresa-attenuata-in-the-eastern-tropical-pacific.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyEX2uZ8Ffh2VtmOyfn37H1pztL_btQC95fKJ4jtiDRhgkLFhoUHz_vwdASY_3Uc8exy4WWRvynX43YmnR48jocdahw1mXJm0K_5nhBVvO4mPDDYEzmxBG02OXSDexL857QOyIRoVCxoxu/s400/22034_pygmy-killer-whale-feresa-attenuata-in-the-eastern-tropical-pacific.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Feresea</i>... maybe. This species can be distinguished from <i>Pseudorca</i> by having a proportionally larger dorsal fin (2 base lengths away from the blowhole vs. 2.5) and by having a clearly demarcated cape; <i>Peponocephala</i> 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 <a href="http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=image&pic=22034">WoRMS</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i>Feresa</i> is one of the most poorly-known toothed whales (McSweeney <i>et al</i>. 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 <i>et al</i>. 2002), making it extremely poorly-known even compared to beaked whales. What makes this absolutely shocking is that <i>Feresa</i> is <b>not</b> 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 (<i>contra</i> Leatherwood <i>et al</i>. 1982) do not avoid vessels (McSweeney <i>et al</i>. 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 <i>et al</i>. 2002). It appears that while a deep-water habitat and confusion with <i>Pseudorca</i> and <i>Peponocephala</i> can explain the lack of observations to a degree, the main factor is probably the species being rare (McSweeney <i>et al</i>. 2009).<br />
<br />
In 1965 - a little over a decade after the external appearance of the animal became known - <i>Feresa</i> 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 <i>Feresa</i> preys on mammals in the wild (Leatherwood <i>et al</i>. 1982) and aggression towards other dolphins has been observed whilst individuals were trapped in tuna seines (Reeves <i>et al</i>. 2002). Considering that both situations occurred in cramped and undoubtedly stressful environments, I think it is completely unfounded to conclude that <i>Feresa</i> 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)<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSE83_qSxg2Xd0s88M1CT9pxtnFnpO_b-3oRvgL7BerxKmA-RxQD8kqdu3S36_1UZAJq8zhT7E-QkGQkzDPOb4W44nH16V_2Krci8XGQ41cRaPOP6_PAk2DiZVAJmjHOOEgex5Wil7Uf81/s1600/Feresa_attenuata_by_OpenCage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="319" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSE83_qSxg2Xd0s88M1CT9pxtnFnpO_b-3oRvgL7BerxKmA-RxQD8kqdu3S36_1UZAJq8zhT7E-QkGQkzDPOb4W44nH16V_2Krci8XGQ41cRaPOP6_PAk2DiZVAJmjHOOEgex5Wil7Uf81/s320/Feresa_attenuata_by_OpenCage.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Feresa</i> skeleton. From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feresa_attenuata_by_OpenCage.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The skeleton of <i>Feresa</i> does appear <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/taburin/5498131011/">superficially Orca-like</a>, 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 <i>et al</i>. (2010) places <i>Orcinus</i> (and <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcaella">Orcaella</a></i>) as the most basal delphinids, however Vilstrup <i>et al</i>. (2011) consider both to be both members of the clade Globicephalinae, but with <i>Orca</i> as the most basal member and <i>Feresa</i> as a derived member and close relative of <i>Peponocephala</i> and <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_whale">Globicephala</a></i>. This seems like a very interesting group, and perhaps I'll give it some more coverage.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Baird, R. W. (2010). Pygmy Killer Whales (<i>Feresa attenuata</i>) or False Killer Whales (<i>Pseudorca crassidens</i>) Identification of a Group of Small Cetaceans Seen off Ecuador in 2003. <i>Aquatic Mammals</i> 36(3), 326-327. <a href="http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/hawaii/BairdFeresaPseudorcaLetter.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Gray, J. E. (1871). <i>Supplement to the Catalogue of seals and whales in the British Museum</i>. <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/supplementtocata00brit">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
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. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=LpMxr35NBCcC&pg=PA188&dq=.+Whales,+dolphins,+and+porpoises+of+the+eastern+north+pacific+and+adjacent+arctic+waters+Pygmy+Killer+Whale&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EuPsTrK7IsfL0QHnzZHICQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">Partially Available</a>.<br />
<br />
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 (<i>Feresa attenuata</i>) in the main Hawaiian Island. <i>Marine Mammal Science</i> 25(3), 557-572. <a href="http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/Robin/McSweeney%20et%20al%20Feresa.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Pryor, K. (1991). Mortal remains: Studying dead animals. In: Pryor, K. & Norris, K. S. (eds.) <i>Dolphin Society: Discoveries and Puzzles</i>. University of California Press: Berkeley. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=yPlKzPGFUvwC&pg=PA245&dq=Mortal+remains:+Studying+dead+animals&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vt_sTuW9D-XK0AHM3JGuCQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Mortal%20remains%3A%20Studying%20dead%20animals&f=false">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Reeves, R. R., Stewart, B. S., Clapham, P. J., & Powell, J. A. (2002). <i>National Audubon Society Guide to Marine Mammals of the World</i>. Alfred A. Knopf: New York.<br />
<br />
Rodríguez-López, M. A. & Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A. (1999). A stranded pygmy killer whale (<i>Feresa attenuata</i>) in Puerto Rico. <i>Aquatic Mammals</i> 25(2), 119-121. <a href="https://www.suagm.edu/umet/pdf/RODR99AM.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Rossi-Santos, M., Baracho, C., Neto, E. S., & Marcovaldi, E. (2006). First sightings of the pygmy killer whale, <i>Feresa attenuata</i>, for the Brazilian coast. <i>JMBA2 - Biodiversity Records</i>. <a href="http://en.mardecetaceos.net/media_files/download/RossiSantos2006thefirst.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Slater, G. J., Price, S. A., Santini, F., and Alfaro, M. E. (2010). Diversity versus disparity and the radiation of modern cetaceans.<i> Proceedings of the Royal Society B</i> 277(1697), 3097-3104. <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1697/3097.full">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
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. <i>BMC Evolutionary Biology</i> 11(65). <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/11/65/">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Zerbini, A. N. & Santos, M. C. O. (1997). First record of the pygmy killer whale <i>Feresa attenuata</i> (Gray, 1874) for the Brazilian coast. Aquatic Mammals 23(2), 105-109. <a href="http://projetoatl.dominiotemporario.com/doc/Feresa_attenuata_Brazil.pdf">Available</a>.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com42tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-47288646468657089532011-12-15T19:45:00.001-05:002014-01-28T19:21:41.983-05:00Eocetus, "Eocetus", and FriendsUpdate (January 28, 2014): "<i>Eocetus</i>" <i>wardii</i> is now <i>Basilotritus wardii</i>. More on my new post, <a href="http://wp.me/p4fzGN-17">The Third King</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
I was shocked that Uhen (2010) remarked that <i>Basilosaurus drazindai</i> and <i>Basiloterus hussaini</i> "probably represent protocetids... akin to <i>Eocetus</i>". This would place the whales outside <a href="http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=134057">Pelagiceti</a> 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 <i>et al</i>. 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.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQZ3JgfHHIuRexHRnmaFkH6REVm1LzbLpsPspqG5TSVW33QkPlWvoOl_fVS_gi8SVphi6Sv8_FV7AHLThs8HIEexlg0oW1RhUJqzXDp9ZeWJorOFQHQpqwZ9oLl6hH5ND_tJCz2wNEVa0z/s1600/SideVertCompare.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQZ3JgfHHIuRexHRnmaFkH6REVm1LzbLpsPspqG5TSVW33QkPlWvoOl_fVS_gi8SVphi6Sv8_FV7AHLThs8HIEexlg0oW1RhUJqzXDp9ZeWJorOFQHQpqwZ9oLl6hH5ND_tJCz2wNEVa0z/s400/SideVertCompare.jpg" height="195" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Lumbar vertebrae in right lateral view. From left to right: "<i>Eocetus</i>" <i>wardii</i> (from Uhen 1999), <i>Basiloterus hussaini</i>, and <i>Basilosaurus drazindai</i> - note that the latter-most may be an anterior caudal (from Gingerich <i>et al</i>. 1997). For comparison: <a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.de/reportagen/fotostrecke-die-walskelette-des-wadi-hitan?imageId=8"><i><span id="goog_16933510"></span>Basilosaurus isis</i> vertebrae<span id="goog_16933511"></span></a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In the description of <i>Basilosaurus drazindai</i>, Gingerich <i>et al</i>. (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 "<i>Eocetus</i>" (Uhen 1999). Additionally, "<i>Eocetus</i>" has elongated transverse processes, unlike the condition of <i>Basilosaurus</i> (Uhen 1999); however, <i>B</i>. <i>drazindai</i> has processes with a 15.5 cm long base (they broke off) relative to the 30 cm centrum (Gingerich <i>et al</i>. 1997), and so probably had a similar, albeit slightly less extreme, condition. The only criterion for placing <i>B</i>. <i>drazindai</i> in the genus <i>Basilosaurus</i> was the size and shape of the centrum (Gingerich <i>et al</i>. 1997), and while they are uncannily similar in shape, everything else seems to be pointing towards a relationship with "<i>Eocetus</i>".<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5_48rTawhfucO7z2Gtf7WfSZGv-RSUdUq5M0jGAn2DaiSZ5RhXwSzvMpCQB5kCfzwRWBHy4sy8_a4jDYH3MFBZm0c5u3TubZgNQnUoHIX7AhzrPAHKW69rohGIZ0HMRwHYk3vyDUjKdLs/s1600/FrontVertCompare.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5_48rTawhfucO7z2Gtf7WfSZGv-RSUdUq5M0jGAn2DaiSZ5RhXwSzvMpCQB5kCfzwRWBHy4sy8_a4jDYH3MFBZm0c5u3TubZgNQnUoHIX7AhzrPAHKW69rohGIZ0HMRwHYk3vyDUjKdLs/s400/FrontVertCompare.jpg" height="226" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px;">Lumbar vertebrae in anterior view. Ditto order.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
As for awkward middle-child <i>Basiloterus</i>, it appears to have a centrum which is slightly more elongated than that of "<i>Eocetus</i>", however the neural arch and maybe the neural spine appear to be narrower. The metapophyses are upwardly-angled (Gingerich <i>et al</i>. 1997), less broad, less anterior-projecting, but still appear to extend past the centrum. The posterolateral processes are absent (Gingerich <i>et al</i>. 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 <i>Basilosaurus drazindai</i>. The placement of <i>Basiloterus</i> is thus not clear, and perhaps it was a basilosaurid or an even more derived protocetid.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbPQBnVfvAGDmm4ABQTHlunJRCqEQ1Pe0OF5MTAfDHQPUHRSXaEvlduuRTjRvOzKP2bYIXT72SeoGondk81Db_mPxHPllRLgDm8MkGFd6oNI3z3XH_FRkB8t9I80hUVbnNUt0pdpWiiQfV/s1600/Maiacetus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbPQBnVfvAGDmm4ABQTHlunJRCqEQ1Pe0OF5MTAfDHQPUHRSXaEvlduuRTjRvOzKP2bYIXT72SeoGondk81Db_mPxHPllRLgDm8MkGFd6oNI3z3XH_FRkB8t9I80hUVbnNUt0pdpWiiQfV/s400/Maiacetus.jpg" height="117" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px;"><i>Maiacetus inuus</i>, a basal "protocetid" (Uhen 2011). From <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maiacetus.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div>
<div>
<div>
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 "<i>Eocetus</i>" <i>wardii</i> 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 <i>Eocetus</i>, "<i>Eocetus</i>", and an unnamed Pisco Formation species are the sister group of Pelagiceti (Uhen <i>et al</i>. 2011). This could make them closer relatives of <i>Dorudon</i> than <i>Maiacetus</i>, 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.</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_jBHRVQruzPpH6QZjtkNxUH58nrO4QuOcAUuY_exf8xmxqgGLpK6NKMg9oKZNLcsP7rlHwfAVQDjPBytDLBC7rW9g0eDfZpXI5PasE2gyfn_iaYcIcW5P3ruYCGwW5PEWlugVxHjpuezz/s1600/Dorudon_atrox_Senckenberg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_jBHRVQruzPpH6QZjtkNxUH58nrO4QuOcAUuY_exf8xmxqgGLpK6NKMg9oKZNLcsP7rlHwfAVQDjPBytDLBC7rW9g0eDfZpXI5PasE2gyfn_iaYcIcW5P3ruYCGwW5PEWlugVxHjpuezz/s400/Dorudon_atrox_Senckenberg.jpg" height="265" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Dorudon atrox.</i> From <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dorudon_atrox_Senckenberg.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The scare quotes around "<i>Eocetus</i>" hint at a taxonomic misadventure. "<i>E</i>." <i>wardii</i> was assigned to its genus by Uhen (1999) based on comparisons of its skull and vertebrae to <i>Eocetus schweinfurthi</i>; the problem is, the holotype of <i>E</i>. <i>schweinfurthi</i> is an isolated skull and it is not possible to determine whether the vertebrae referred to it actually represent the species (Geisler <i>et al</i>. 2005). There is overlapping skull material (Uhen 1999), but Geisler <i>et al</i>. (2005) apparently regarded it as too incomplete to warrant unambiguous placement in the genus. Somehow, "<i>Eocetus</i>" and <i>Eocetus</i> formed a clade in phylogenetic analyses (Geisler<i> et al</i>. 2005, Uhen <i>et al</i>. 2011), making it probable that future discoveries will confirm their close relationship.<br />
<br />
"<i>Eocetus</i>" <i>wardii</i> 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 <i>et al</i>. 2011). The Egyptian vertebrae dubiously assigned to <i>Eocetus schweinfurthi</i> (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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>Basilosaurus</i>-sized animal could walk on land.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
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. <i>American Museum Novitates</i> 3480, 1-65. <a href="http://www.carnegiemnh.org/assets/science/vp/Geisler-et-al(2005).pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Gingerich, P. D., Arif, M., Bhatti, M. A., Anwar, M., & Sanders, W. J. (1997). <i>Basilosaurus drazindai </i>and <i>Basiloterus hussaini</i>, 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). <i>Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan</i> 30 (2), 55-81. <a href="http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/48652/2/ID519.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
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. <i>Journal of Paleontology</i> 85(5), 955-969. <a href="http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1666/10-162.1">doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1666/10-162.1</a><br />
<br />
Uhen, M. D. (2010). The Origin(s) of Whales. <i>Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences</i> 38, 189–221. <a href="http://people.trentu.ca/~sarahdungan/Trent_marine_mammals/Lectures_files/whale%20evolution%20overview.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Uhen, M. D. (2008). Basilosaurids. In: Perrin, W. F., Würsig, B., and Thewissen, J. G. M. (eds.) <i>Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals</i>, Second Edition. Elsevier: Burlington, Massachusetts. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=2rkHQpToi9sC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=Uhen+Basilosaurids&source=bl&ots=hDgxQy0fAx&sig=CtLY-ACUMgR9JO7eED9DOAg3oLw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=owrqTrGNPMP30gGGiOHYCQ&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Uhen%20Basilosaurids&f=false">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Uhen, M. D. (1999). New Species of Protocetid Archaeocete Whale, <i>Eocetus wardii</i> (Mammalia: Cetacea) from the Middle Eocene of North Carolina. <i>Journal of Paleontology</i> 73(3), 512-528.<br />
<br />
Weems, R. E., Edwards, L. E., Osborne, J. E., and Alford, A. A. (2011). An occurrence of the protocetid whale "<i>Eocetus</i>" <i>wardii</i> in the Middle Eocene formation of Virginia. <i>Journal of Paleontology</i> 85(2), 271-278. <a href="http://paleoquest.academia.edu/JasonOsborne/Papers/881857/An_Occurrence_of_the_Protocetid_Whale_Eocetus_wardii_in_the_Middle_Eocene_Piney_Point_Formation_of_Virginia">Available</a>.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com36tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-16785062151342156442011-11-30T21:53:00.000-05:002011-11-30T22:51:46.317-05:00Billfish Bills - What Are They Good For?In the <a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/11/picture-of-indiscriminate-interval_9984.html">prior article</a>, 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skimmer">Skimmers</a>. <a href="http://tanystropheus.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/weekly-wonders-eurhinodelphis/">The Theatrical Tanystropheus</a> 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.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyTWWb07vyTtau2oeKMvGRQMhi9ukl_Tt6_wJGZdXq7BOf0DOVTcB3Nwz853pCz8UgWOw1HlOhh6LgdN5AbMAMlGiZ5uQebKN4otwWc8ZY4OBi_337pdEj3LAk5739MzMYtXfC1GL9gwGj/s1600/White_Marlin_in_North_Carolina_1394318584.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyTWWb07vyTtau2oeKMvGRQMhi9ukl_Tt6_wJGZdXq7BOf0DOVTcB3Nwz853pCz8UgWOw1HlOhh6LgdN5AbMAMlGiZ5uQebKN4otwWc8ZY4OBi_337pdEj3LAk5739MzMYtXfC1GL9gwGj/s400/White_Marlin_in_North_Carolina_1394318584.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=219">Atlantic White Marlin (<i>Tetrapturus albidus</i>)</a> from <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:White_Marlin_in_North_Carolina_1394318584.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Swordfish (<a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/FamilySummary.php?id=417&lang=swedish" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Xiphiidae</a>) and Marlins/Sailfishes/Spearfishes (<a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/FamilySummary.php?id=419" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Istiophoridae</a>) are living sister taxa<sup style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">1 </sup>in the clade Xiphioidea; while traditionally included in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scombroidei" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Scombroidei</a>, billfishes are presently regarded as phylogenetically distinct (Orrell <i style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">et al. </i>2006) and possibly close relatives of <a href="http://fishbase.org/summary/FamilySummary.php?id=314" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">jacks</a> and... <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/OrdersSummary.php?order=Pleuronectiformes" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">flatfishes</a> (Little <i style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">et al.</i> 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 xiphiids<sup>2</sup> 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 <i style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">et al.</i> 2006; Fierstine 2006; Fierstine and Voight 1996 citing Nakamura 1983). <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Strangely, most extinct billfishes have jaws of equal length, and if the proposed (</span>Istiophoridae + Hemingwayidae) and (<i style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Xiphias</i> + <i style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Xiphiorhynchus</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">) clades </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">(Fierstine 2006) are correct (see note 1), this would mean the unequal jaws of extant billfishes evolved twice. </span></div>
</div>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><sup>1</sup> A detailed cladistic analysis with the fossil members of the group has yet to be undertaken (Fierstine 2006).</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><sup>2</sup> As for what the deal with them and ziphiids is, I have no idea.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; text-align: left;"><br /></span><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgedg8gL55yFUKXKrCIfuIdsZbErdoIhiwC8oofOAEtvd9Buo_9HpmDftbL6BbzR_z89KlCTHPN5ZC603Ckv3iinPOYa4lcBgYG71GtGsV_yMz0m4QIhR1D1DYM5qtoAo18puBmx1X7C8v4/s1600/Swordfish_skeleton.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgedg8gL55yFUKXKrCIfuIdsZbErdoIhiwC8oofOAEtvd9Buo_9HpmDftbL6BbzR_z89KlCTHPN5ZC603Ckv3iinPOYa4lcBgYG71GtGsV_yMz0m4QIhR1D1DYM5qtoAo18puBmx1X7C8v4/s400/Swordfish_skeleton.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Xiphias-gladius.html">Swordfish (<i>Xiphias gladius</i>)</a> from <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Swordfish_skeleton.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
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 <i style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">et al.</i> 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 <i>et al. </i>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?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
One study of 227 <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Makaira-nigricans.html" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Blue Marlins (<i>Makaira nigricans</i>)</a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"> 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 </span><i style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">et al</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">. 2007). </span>Bizarrely, another study with 226 Blue Marlins found no evidence of prey being struck or speared (Vaske <i style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">et al.</i> 2011). Vaske <i>et al.</i> (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 <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=107" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Skipjack Tuna (<i>Katsuwonus pelamis</i>)</a>, which were normally killed with the bill in the former population. I'm stumped.<br />
<br />
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<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span>and denticles in istiophorids<sup>3</sup>) 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.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><sup>3</sup> The ichthyosaur <span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurhinosaurus" style="font-style: italic;">Eurhinosaurus</a> </span>has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eurhinosaurus_longirostris_3.JPG" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">teeth on the upper jaw</a> which could be a similar instance of "weaponization". </span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Collette, B. B., McDowell, J. R., and Graves, J. E. (2006). Phylogeny of Recent Billfishes. Bulletin of Marine Science 79(3), 455-468. <a href="http://www.vims.edu/people/graves_je/pubs/jeg_Collette_et_al_%202006.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Fierstine, H. L. (2006). Fossil history of Billfishes (Xiphioidea). <i>Bulletin of Marine Science</i> 79(3), 433-453. <a href="http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=bio_fac">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Fierstine, H. L. (1997). An Atlantic Blue Marlin (<i>Makaira nigricans</i>), impaled by two species of billfishes (Teleostei: Istiophoridae). <i>Bulletin of Marine Science</i> 61(2), 495-499. <a href="http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=bio_fac">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Fierstine, H. L., and Voight, N. L. (1996). Use of Rostral Characters for Identifying Adult Billfishes (Teleostei: Perciformes: Istiophoridae and Xiphiidae). <i>Copeia</i> 1996(1), 148-161. <a href="http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=bio_fac">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
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. <a href="http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=bio_fac&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DIstiophoridae%2Bturtle%26btnG%3DSearch%26as_sdt%3D0%252C40%26as_ylo%3D%26as_vis%3D0#search=%22Istiophoridae%20turtle%22">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
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. <i>Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution</i> 56(3), 897-904. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790310001880">doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.04.022</a><br />
<br />
Nakamura, I. (1983). Systematics of billfishes (Xiphiidae and Istiophoridae). <i>Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory</i> 28, 255-396.<br />
<br />
Orrell, T. M., Collette B. B., and Johnson, G. J. (2006). Molecular data supports separate scombroid and xiphioid clades. <i>Bulletin of Marine Science</i> 79(3), 505-519. <a href="http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/umrsmas/00074977/v79n3/s7.pdf?expires=1322673688&id=65989094&titleid=10983&accname=Guest+User&checksum=54FA6FF3F0A7DDC9865709DE84644C22">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Shimose, T., Yokawa, K., Saito, H., and Tachihara, K. (2007). Evidence for use of the bill by blue marlin, <i>Makaira nigricans</i>, during feeding. <i>Ichthyological Research</i> 54(4), 420-422. <a href="doi:%2010.1007/s10228-007-0419-x">DOI: 10.1007/s10228-007-0419-x </a><br />
<br />
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 (<i>Makaira nigricans</i>, Lacepède 1802) (Perciformes: Istiophoridae) of the southwestern equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Brazilian Journal of Aquatic Science and Technology 15(1), 65-70. <a href="https://www6.univali.br/seer/index.php/bjast/article/view/1457/1997">Available</a>.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-55085901092982163772011-11-29T22:11:00.000-05:002011-11-29T22:23:33.014-05:00Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000008 - Eurhinodelphis longirostris<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkE1eG8myb1eq6a6yxNOyVzJ-2pN1CR9aOFdwuQReNfvrgEPNZRNh6hWwobSNnED3608Lu-VLk8XAN1fF38OJs2tF1xa_ArE9qMtJwxSVAGfCZx7YEgOb_RiIfPBq8_qcr0WMobqTBjAdL/s1600/P1015152.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkE1eG8myb1eq6a6yxNOyVzJ-2pN1CR9aOFdwuQReNfvrgEPNZRNh6hWwobSNnED3608Lu-VLk8XAN1fF38OJs2tF1xa_ArE9qMtJwxSVAGfCZx7YEgOb_RiIfPBq8_qcr0WMobqTBjAdL/s400/P1015152.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Eurhinodelphis longirostris</i> at the American Museum of Natural History.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The most striking trait of Eurhinodelphidae is a toothless extension of the rostrum beyond the mandible (Lambert 2005), superficially similar to the bills of <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/FamilySummary.php?ID=419">Billfish</a> and <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/FamilySummary.php?ID=417">Swordfish</a>. 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) [<i>sic</i>] among birds" (Anonymous 1909). Somehow, I find this even <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/05/terrestrial_stalking_azhdarchids.php">less plausible than azhdarchids-as-skimmers</a>. On a curious note, there is a cetacean with the reverse of eurhinodelphid morphology (mandible extending past rostrum) unofficially known as the... <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jobaria/3659209566/">skimmer porpoise</a>.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM-jT88Q0n4TzajenUSeZYY7byZWabLBXrhvbObg8nYKH-Y7y0hMRf-_jwXhBvSjAt_T6veI6H6ccSl2cW6jN9B5nqrebYNzS9JC7RMhvZJNHiuLaXnsVyknvtiUbGxYUNqG-qddPEHzdQ/s1600/P1015154.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM-jT88Q0n4TzajenUSeZYY7byZWabLBXrhvbObg8nYKH-Y7y0hMRf-_jwXhBvSjAt_T6veI6H6ccSl2cW6jN9B5nqrebYNzS9JC7RMhvZJNHiuLaXnsVyknvtiUbGxYUNqG-qddPEHzdQ/s400/P1015154.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Phylogenetically, eurhinodelphids have bounced around from being considered stem-<a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/vz/mammals/beaked_whales/pages/main_menu.htm">ziphiids</a>, the sister group to <a href="http://flatpebble.nceas.ucsb.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=basicTaxonInfo&taxon_no=63496">Delphinida</a>, and the sister group to <a href="http://www.otago.ac.nz/geology/research/paleontology/squalodontidae.html">Squalodontidae</a> + <a href="http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=63677&is_real_user=0">Squalodelphidae</a> (Geisler <i>et al.</i> 2011 - citing various); within Geisler <i>et al.</i> (2011), they were placed outside crown-Odontoceti<sup>1</sup> in an unconstrained analysis and as the sister group of <a href="http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=basicTaxonInfo&taxon_no=53258">platanistoids</a> 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.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><sup>1</sup> It actually states they "did not fall inside crown Cetacea", but this is a typo. Otherwise, they'd be Miocene Archaeocetes. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhij5x0ZJ7vqfVNgHA_eVWaybcYq-sD5wttH9qB3MyYWLrZyRPY7icbEMpjfhzTaFs3aNuekI_XsyAyzGxY59D_56MGYymZhq2sJ71b4k8waZTdxgqvSK_4iHqLkGG6ZRxprnUO2kwmL3Yc/s1600/P1015153.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhij5x0ZJ7vqfVNgHA_eVWaybcYq-sD5wttH9qB3MyYWLrZyRPY7icbEMpjfhzTaFs3aNuekI_XsyAyzGxY59D_56MGYymZhq2sJ71b4k8waZTdxgqvSK_4iHqLkGG6ZRxprnUO2kwmL3Yc/s400/P1015153.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i>Eurhinodelphis longirostris</i> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_dolphin">river dolphins</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monodontidae">monodontids</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorqual">rorquals</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_whale">gray whales</a> (Tinker 1988). The neck of <i>E. longirostris</i> appears to be proportionally longer than those of the baleen whales and <a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/11/picture-of-indiscriminate-interval_22.html">Narwhal</a> and is probably comparable to those of the <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoWX_MlnZN8JsCLbo_NzKvlM0KDANpsgf1QQlh6RFbQRaGxC_XT2-s8nR4zhY-GCNSLmyLmEuXMIve2ZRA4BWNEXettA3GO3ZCZTMrXrL79lw3SY0sTaQlxL6WPl5up37IYsh5hZkue5ti/s1600/Delphinapterus_leucas_skeleton.jpg">Beluga</a> and <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKc5HuSKfo3Dq8ssGA6JQRPymo0UYAaBw5_Q1XJDabQc0WTwDstuECn4X2SNqSi8uqmI-WQIZQENX-th_TcyzpVpG9ZRzBTOPZVgMdFdwu306ZBj6pN-iM4iJiOIu22brxU3Iu4j3Jveyh/s1600/Dorudon_atrox2.jpg" style="font-style: italic;">Dorudon</a>. 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.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://tanystropheus.wordpress.com/">The Theatrical Tanystropheus</a> covered <i><a href="http://tanystropheus.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/weekly-wonders-eurhinodelphis/">Eurhinodelphis</a></i> as well, and it doesn't even overlap that much!</div>
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Anonymous. (1909). Notes. <i>Nature </i>2088 (82), 16. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=I5tFAAAAYAAJ&q=Eurhinodelphis#v=snippet&q=Eurhinodelphis&f=false">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Geisler, J. H., McGowen, M. R., Yang, G., Gatesy, J. (2011). A supermatrix analysis of genomic, morphological, and paleontological data from crown Cetacea. <i>BMC Evolutionary Biology</i> 11 (112). <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-11-112.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Kellogg, R. (1925). On the occurrence of fossil porpoises of the genus <i>Eurhinodelphis</i> in North America. <i>Proceedings of the U. S. National Museum</i> 66(26), 1-40. <a href="http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/15355/1/USNMP-66_2563_1925.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
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. <a href="http://theses.ulb.ac.be/ETD-db/collection/available/ULBetd-06172005-095433/">Partially Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Tinker, S. W. (1988). <i>Whales of the World</i>. E. J. Brill Publishing Company: New York. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=ASIVAAAAIAAJ&dq=ziphiidae+cervical+fusion&source=gbs_navlinks_s">Partially Available</a>.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com312tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-11840781709723165572011-11-25T21:46:00.000-05:002011-11-27T16:46:41.050-05:00Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000007 - Narwhal<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxGgmk3RDStTZuc8z9pTDI25Ldsmh24sTXdDskAAgszl5TZh-75f0IgKiZlczN8O40v3NJqzIkRSBXikUUyiBSa1OAQrpkckTu6E04GlJyyQxhuGURBW_qNnaQmJFMY7LaHW-NEyyxOXKa/s1600/P1015081.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxGgmk3RDStTZuc8z9pTDI25Ldsmh24sTXdDskAAgszl5TZh-75f0IgKiZlczN8O40v3NJqzIkRSBXikUUyiBSa1OAQrpkckTu6E04GlJyyQxhuGURBW_qNnaQmJFMY7LaHW-NEyyxOXKa/s400/P1015081.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Monodon monoceros </i>at the American Museum of Natural History.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Narwhals are a bit strange even by cetacean standards. I'll let the title of this Tet Zoo article speak for itself: "<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/02/a_3m_tooth_that_can_bend_30_cm.php">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</a>".<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBZB6I7v0Bwo8SkMapRZF-768PlISHKQqo9RTFBXjqCjy8NQP8H7bjv7MNvOPv_YWIoar82p49xi2syMDGpf_xbyryd6qlZ2wCDzg6R82dlaCznvgYUrSL1wBeGsr559eJuls7OxtGA3jS/s1600/P1015086.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBZB6I7v0Bwo8SkMapRZF-768PlISHKQqo9RTFBXjqCjy8NQP8H7bjv7MNvOPv_YWIoar82p49xi2syMDGpf_xbyryd6qlZ2wCDzg6R82dlaCznvgYUrSL1wBeGsr559eJuls7OxtGA3jS/s400/P1015086.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/05/dorudon-is-not-monster.html"><i>Dorudon</i> post</a>, there are <a href="http://www.whoi.edu/csi/capabilities/images/narwhal1.jpg">colossal amounts of soft tissue</a> involved.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB_RgHKM-OmGIy34ixpdzF9bt_BGy_uzwl-QMSkQTeuhd-6YNMHpr2V3-x5JzAEwR8n6fgIlBqNai0d4f2ndKkEg-2vg_iFKNwDkiAPqqwiy95N8crBLZ4Hbg-1mAIJPsyDyRVCN3gv2jF/s1600/P1015085.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB_RgHKM-OmGIy34ixpdzF9bt_BGy_uzwl-QMSkQTeuhd-6YNMHpr2V3-x5JzAEwR8n6fgIlBqNai0d4f2ndKkEg-2vg_iFKNwDkiAPqqwiy95N8crBLZ4Hbg-1mAIJPsyDyRVCN3gv2jF/s400/P1015085.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Another soft-tissue feature not hinted at by the skeleton are <a href="http://www.arkive.org/narwhal/monodon-monoceros/image-G12987.html">unusually shaped flukes</a>... in males. Fontanella <i>et al.</i> (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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEIqy_s2xWOXa-PhamBYCM6fTWT23ubfT8WUYRR9ElFZzwnDmY_FBIv3NYqj41U3bIUJxMwemlQDlXcoCDpdSeLIuIDrnKQ_tSPdABrjw8cGZpP32N8MxS6dXUvkZ-WWRvevQ6d5L74gdV/s1600/P1015082.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEIqy_s2xWOXa-PhamBYCM6fTWT23ubfT8WUYRR9ElFZzwnDmY_FBIv3NYqj41U3bIUJxMwemlQDlXcoCDpdSeLIuIDrnKQ_tSPdABrjw8cGZpP32N8MxS6dXUvkZ-WWRvevQ6d5L74gdV/s400/P1015082.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
One female Narwhal was estimated to be 114.8 (± 10.2) years old (Garde <i style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">et al.</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"> 2007) which, if correct, would make Narwhals the third oldest known mammals after </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">humans (122 years) and Bowhead Whales (211 years?). Garde <i>et al.</i> (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 "</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">considerably higher" ages. As for methodology, Garde <i>et al. </i>(2007) used</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"> aspartic acid racemization rate in the eye; this method was also used to calculate the extreme age estimate for Bowheads (George <i>et al.</i> 1999), and ages of over a hundred years have subsequently been supported by bomb lance fragments </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">(George and Bockstoce 2008) and ovarian corpora counts (George </span><i style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">et al.</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"> 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? </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Garde </span><i style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">et al.</i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"> (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 <i>et al.</i> 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.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRsKmFsc7Clf8r4X-GWm4w9NVYAlgaAXj8bIJsPHFmrn4Xn-m3DITQBpSnGmjAvThbw0ZQWPx-rW4oZai1DXE2KlvSxOr63uuMaGWO62bn-3zK41jOP46lr-3JtqkTPSu2kj5gtJOPj2CF/s1600/P1015084.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRsKmFsc7Clf8r4X-GWm4w9NVYAlgaAXj8bIJsPHFmrn4Xn-m3DITQBpSnGmjAvThbw0ZQWPx-rW4oZai1DXE2KlvSxOr63uuMaGWO62bn-3zK41jOP46lr-3JtqkTPSu2kj5gtJOPj2CF/s400/P1015084.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Fontanella, J. E., Fish, F. E., Rybczynski, N., Nweeia, M. T., & Ketten, D. R. (2010). Three-dimensional geometry of the narwhal (<i>Monodon monoceros</i>) flukes in relation to hydrodynamics. <i>Marine Mammal Science</i> 27(4), 889-898. <a href="http://csi.whoi.edu/sites/default/files/literature/j.1748-7692.2010.00439.x.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Garde, E., Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., Hansen, S. H., Nachman, G., and Forchhammer, M. C. (2007). Age-specific growth and remarkable longevity in Narwhals (<i>Monodon monoceros</i>) from West Greenland as estimated by Aspartic Acid Racemization. <i>Journal of Mammalogy</i> 88(1), 49-58. <a href="http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0857ac30-25d9-4753-b8b2-ba0a36d00ab1%40sessionmgr13&vid=2&hid=12">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
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 (<i>Balaena mysticetus</i>) using ovarian corpora counts. <i>Canadian Journal of Zoology</i> 89(9), 840-852. <a href="http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z11-057">doi: 10.1139/z11-057</a><br />
<br />
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. <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/015684g3p006qw24/">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
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 (<i>Balaena mysticetus</i>) via aspartic acid racemization. <i>Canadian Journal of Zoology</i> 77, 571-578.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com200tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-18754755077302247162011-11-18T12:06:00.001-05:002011-11-22T14:09:17.946-05:00The Giant Turtle Therizinosaurus<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5Um7BTe61GLKGDdMy9ktqv7YuNngBeFxMIxJFbbfVzPPdtPI5XIr59mPiYEKqUjFtB1tD3tcetVBIrfCnKIQSi2eNJ1rwpAeBkEmj5mQrnFeSL4TBmELYKyxGC96hcxzKDL3Z0xYO31a5/s1600/Therizinosaurus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5Um7BTe61GLKGDdMy9ktqv7YuNngBeFxMIxJFbbfVzPPdtPI5XIr59mPiYEKqUjFtB1tD3tcetVBIrfCnKIQSi2eNJ1rwpAeBkEmj5mQrnFeSL4TBmELYKyxGC96hcxzKDL3Z0xYO31a5/s1600/Therizinosaurus.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Therizinosaurus</i>, you look... unwell. Reconstruction by K. K. Fierova, from Maleyev (1954).</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I am quite fond of old, weird reconstructions, and the initial classification of <i>Therizinosaurus cheloniformis</i> as a "turtle-like reptile"<sup>1</sup> resulted in the magnificent specimen above. So how could the veritable Jabberwocky we're all familiar with be misinterpreted to such a colossal degree?<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><sup>1 </sup></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">This odd phrasing is mirrored in the scientific name ("saurus" = lizard, "</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">cheloniformis" = turtle-like). Malayev (1954) linked </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Therizinosaurus</i> with members of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protostegidae">Protostegidae</a> and thus (probably) didn't intend to suggest another clade of reptiles which converged on turtles. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">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 <i>Osnovy Paleontologii</i>).</span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvnpoZpBjyX8J5KkQVnCCYdWYGBvqJQ0ZLnAzYc0xUGJhQ2mxKa755HUYGbEEltvz75-oAKH9hajfmqzizfR85mu9E5wT8PlVkU4GsFIRtOAaauhU6K4s6-bCpS1MgMbvHULEoDkxsBIjs/s1600/Terizinozaur_%2528Therizinosaurus%2529_-_JuraPark_Baltow.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvnpoZpBjyX8J5KkQVnCCYdWYGBvqJQ0ZLnAzYc0xUGJhQ2mxKa755HUYGbEEltvz75-oAKH9hajfmqzizfR85mu9E5wT8PlVkU4GsFIRtOAaauhU6K4s6-bCpS1MgMbvHULEoDkxsBIjs/s400/Terizinozaur_%2528Therizinosaurus%2529_-_JuraPark_Baltow.JPG" width="300" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Therizinosaurus </i>in its non-turtle form. From <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Terizinozaur_(Therizinosaurus)_-_JuraPark_Baltow.JPG">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Malayev (1954) described <i>Therizinosaurus</i> 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 <i><a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2010/03/stupendemys-giant-amongst-mega-turtles.html">Stupendemys geographicus</a></i>. The rib was noted to lack costal elements, which is curious since turtle skeletons generally look like this:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxFzHfkzdspbbz4wTnz3D3I-SR-ueMAja4fTo0R9K7fGer6BNsAdhohME1pg-ABcYGBbdAp9hyzqaM2CqyxFLb2bpNj7AD_P8S1DD53W6ixde6Ia620Z1TuX5lpigB97agtXul28nsOpHt/s1600/Museum_of_Science%252C_Boston%252C_MA_-_IMG_3254.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxFzHfkzdspbbz4wTnz3D3I-SR-ueMAja4fTo0R9K7fGer6BNsAdhohME1pg-ABcYGBbdAp9hyzqaM2CqyxFLb2bpNj7AD_P8S1DD53W6ixde6Ia620Z1TuX5lpigB97agtXul28nsOpHt/s400/Museum_of_Science%252C_Boston%252C_MA_-_IMG_3254.JPG" width="300" /></a> </td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Common Snapping Turtle (<i>Chelydra serpentina</i>) skeleton. Note the plastron is missing. From <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Museum_of_Science,_Boston,_MA_-_IMG_3254.JPG">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
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 <i>Archelon</i> and <i>Protostega</i>:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGJ2Rn0aMJkG6mLeREnxfxPoFNCRyCBtN9ZWNzZCwo-gL14TWv0ON8F0vNL1_ThXLmZdfUeVkbrfgLzy1OMWRxdkHIwiVqqlQ12Ty14OV-3ELt8K59u34fShy5LklssHNryO-uYDFy3jdi/s1600/Archelon_skeleton.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGJ2Rn0aMJkG6mLeREnxfxPoFNCRyCBtN9ZWNzZCwo-gL14TWv0ON8F0vNL1_ThXLmZdfUeVkbrfgLzy1OMWRxdkHIwiVqqlQ12Ty14OV-3ELt8K59u34fShy5LklssHNryO-uYDFy3jdi/s400/Archelon_skeleton.jpg" width="377" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Archelon skeleton. From <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archelon_skeleton.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
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 <i>Therizinosaurus</i> 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 (<i>Dermochelys coriacea</i>) was not mentioned, as it entirely lacks costal elements and instead has thousands of dermal ossicles (Cebra-Thomas <i>et al.</i> 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:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLpSURKRDilwo6-jRZZImN6W8wuXY5hyi1ePbu4yL8uK1y36gm13FVCutsb9MrXR47870G48vUYAFteP0fGAdOmntUZLWa6YtXdT2Fdz1c7RlROozfIStwKuMgAHzhQkMpPdQsLv-ewPzy/s1600/Leatherback_turtle_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="255" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLpSURKRDilwo6-jRZZImN6W8wuXY5hyi1ePbu4yL8uK1y36gm13FVCutsb9MrXR47870G48vUYAFteP0fGAdOmntUZLWa6YtXdT2Fdz1c7RlROozfIStwKuMgAHzhQkMpPdQsLv-ewPzy/s400/Leatherback_turtle_2.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leatherback_turtle_2.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The rib material used to describe <i>Therizinosaurus cheloniformis</i> 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, <i>Therizinosaurus cheloniformis</i> 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).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjDZ5Jfwd_WcJVzbeFNuBta2VN7KyazJ9JmJK6ClJAffQoE8wT6lildHvI4czPhrx2nueBOk1iKLO6KCztS_GQo5Crlci3z0gtfeZ5sr47HQKFYtUvt84bFhrV5fHOTkN2tYWbGdBNtAJ1/s1600/Therizinosaurus_claw.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjDZ5Jfwd_WcJVzbeFNuBta2VN7KyazJ9JmJK6ClJAffQoE8wT6lildHvI4czPhrx2nueBOk1iKLO6KCztS_GQo5Crlci3z0gtfeZ5sr47HQKFYtUvt84bFhrV5fHOTkN2tYWbGdBNtAJ1/s400/Therizinosaurus_claw.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Therizinosaurus_claw.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/dcAFKDk657k?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
I like to think that <i>Therizinosaurus</i>, despite not being turtle-shaped anymore, waved its giant claws seductively in the faces of prospective mates.<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
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. <i>Journal of Experimental Zoology</i> 304B, 558-569. <a href="http://exa.unne.edu.ar/biologia/embriologia.animal/public_html/Articulos%20de%20lectura/How%20the%20Turtle%20Forms%20its%20Shell.%20A%20Paracrine%20Hypothesis%20of%20Carapace%20Formation.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Maleyev, E. A. (1954). A new turtle-like reptile from Mongolia. <i>Priroda</i> 3, 106-108. <a href="http://home.comcast.net/~theropod-archives/pdf/Maleev_1954_Priroda_1954(3)_106_NOC_T.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Rozhdestvensky, A. K. (1977). The study of Dinosaurs in Asia. <i>Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India</i> 20, 102-119. <a href="http://palaeontologicalsociety.in/vol20/v18.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Rozhdestvensky, A. K. (1974). History of the dinosaur fauna of Asia and other continents and questions concerning paleogeography. <i>Transactions of the Joint Soviet–Mongolia Paleontological Expedition</i> 1, 107–131. <a href="http://www.paleoglot.org/files/Rozhdestvensky%2074.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Rozhdestvensky, A. K. (1970). On the gigantic claws of mysterious Mesozoic reptiles. <i>Palaeontological Journal</i> 1, 131-141.<br />
<br />
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 <i>Pelodiscus sinensis</i> (Testudines: Trionychidae). <i>Journal of Morphology</i> 270, 1381-1399. <a href="http://www.cdb.riken.jp/emo/old-japanese/pubj/pdf/marcelo_09270.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Wyneken, J. (2001). <i>The Anatomy of Sea Turtles</i>. U.S. Dept Commerce NOAA Tech Mem NMFS SEFSC-470. <a href="http://csi.whoi.edu/sites/default/files/literature/SeaTurtle%20Anatomy%20Part%20I.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Zanno, L. E. (2010). A taxonomic and phylogenetic re-evaluation of Therizinosauria (Dinosauria: Maniraptora). <i>Journal of Systematic Palaeontology</i> 8(4), 503-543. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=4sccQuT0bJ4C&dq=Therizinosaurus&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s">Draft Available</a>.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-45575800256098950502011-11-08T21:44:00.001-05:002011-11-08T21:45:21.997-05:00A Giant Snapper At Last!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Of course, I've documented <a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2010/04/lord-geekington-in-field-giant-snappers.html">a big snapping turtle before</a>, but my subsequent failures were astounding. I saw the turtles on multiple occasions this year (alluded to <a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/05/picture-of-indiscriminate-interval.html">here</a>), 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):</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1sl-OPa04eeSovAvsrvZIBd6nEdVsX_q84E0-kgleV_abM5t4TQs2aV193ZznmZsapnB4EvqhGGhQZUsei4rKTru36XQuB-l1Ct4JrGMAKthqsTYv69-NuMNz35MwMRP01qwZC5Jhkmtd/s1600/P1016201.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1sl-OPa04eeSovAvsrvZIBd6nEdVsX_q84E0-kgleV_abM5t4TQs2aV193ZznmZsapnB4EvqhGGhQZUsei4rKTru36XQuB-l1Ct4JrGMAKthqsTYv69-NuMNz35MwMRP01qwZC5Jhkmtd/s1600/P1016201.JPG" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiExdnteWY0dVt86FiEyTjJMUNThx80cyw2yWbUKFpH7NXi1IsNitxz_osa7Fz2hSlVh33dux7n91b4mYvTW2xKuxWOfT-3h4G-ePjlf693GM-qzoH93Hxw63-3O1fqxWb5n1iU9ZcLZbZL/s1600/P1016209.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiExdnteWY0dVt86FiEyTjJMUNThx80cyw2yWbUKFpH7NXi1IsNitxz_osa7Fz2hSlVh33dux7n91b4mYvTW2xKuxWOfT-3h4G-ePjlf693GM-qzoH93Hxw63-3O1fqxWb5n1iU9ZcLZbZL/s400/P1016209.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVQmF8vQdMnSDadMyEC7Gpu7yAXz_a8qgSxzyfIW65pugkk6sJb9Mpam5Une_e77O8XGsV8-oLermUi8G9UO2QJzmi1xYzqYsFUsv9ij0Jl2OQYp2K3PUsbhmKl_jhqumzltoSTj7xcM39/s1600/P1016213.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVQmF8vQdMnSDadMyEC7Gpu7yAXz_a8qgSxzyfIW65pugkk6sJb9Mpam5Une_e77O8XGsV8-oLermUi8G9UO2QJzmi1xYzqYsFUsv9ij0Jl2OQYp2K3PUsbhmKl_jhqumzltoSTj7xcM39/s400/P1016213.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Getting closer, I confirmed my suspicions that, yes, this turtle is really really big.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh89_vWC6do5F2FDY2cV09_Sj27UgVQCTZrsRbNe-5BlgE-BG5PA-li05EYcZOgO50CGkDyuZXk0UTTVvTPgFXuHslEzQGpJwQ7qVtUhi_5kerYxTTQ9Tr_SC-3Zp02YE5zlxd4Id92yEEG/s1600/P1016221.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh89_vWC6do5F2FDY2cV09_Sj27UgVQCTZrsRbNe-5BlgE-BG5PA-li05EYcZOgO50CGkDyuZXk0UTTVvTPgFXuHslEzQGpJwQ7qVtUhi_5kerYxTTQ9Tr_SC-3Zp02YE5zlxd4Id92yEEG/s400/P1016221.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The closest thing I could get to a measurement.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHCiBzJVLDNEhZbkjRGdAvz3-VeNgXcRPK8dtejz6PDcSXAGOjNYI5ohctMfGUC9d6YFl9yBDmOVEJCRjFW6i9c4QdR7FrTDQIbviRzapQA1OoNqHdYd1HgErqjOYWA4ywUJ4kohHVjnX5/s1600/P1016226.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHCiBzJVLDNEhZbkjRGdAvz3-VeNgXcRPK8dtejz6PDcSXAGOjNYI5ohctMfGUC9d6YFl9yBDmOVEJCRjFW6i9c4QdR7FrTDQIbviRzapQA1OoNqHdYd1HgErqjOYWA4ywUJ4kohHVjnX5/s400/P1016226.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>Chelydra serpentina</i>. 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.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-82982292070147024492011-11-01T22:23:00.001-04:002011-11-01T22:33:18.221-04:00Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000006b - Morone saxatilis<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB8boIvg5ZUqhIRNNb8Hc1u-eBA_vvyhiKr0sQV3rak9InkzEoTbXum-0z7TmxI8e8hNfd-9KogTsctU_MHv892hCAD3JqTagMChVzUXN67LMLQHxbBmo8TLbfJb6MWkfG00WyjclAX0qJ/s1600/P1016180.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB8boIvg5ZUqhIRNNb8Hc1u-eBA_vvyhiKr0sQV3rak9InkzEoTbXum-0z7TmxI8e8hNfd-9KogTsctU_MHv892hCAD3JqTagMChVzUXN67LMLQHxbBmo8TLbfJb6MWkfG00WyjclAX0qJ/s400/P1016180.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I can assure you this Nightmare Mode <a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/10/picture-of-indiscriminate-interval.html">identification challenge</a> 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!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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 <a href="http://www.fishbase.us/summary/Lophius-americanus.html">American Angler</a> and <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=3069">Oyster Toadfish</a>) 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. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=2593" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Atlantic Sturgeon (<i>Acipenser oxyrinchus</i>)</a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"> is anadromous and very large, however, </span><a href="http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/14300/14395/sturgeonskul_14395.htm" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">the cranium</a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"> is radically different. I cannot resist mentioning the </span><a href="http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/sturgeon/images/sturgeon_mouth.jpg" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">bizarre proboscis-mouth</a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">. </span><a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=69" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Atlantic Cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>)</a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"> are certainly large enough, however </span><a href="http://www.nabohome.org/products/manuals/fishbone/fish/Skull/skull.htm#lateral" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">the cranium is not a match</a>, despite being much more similar than that of the sturgeon. I have observed a large dead <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=458" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Tautog (<i>Tautoga onitis</i>)</a> 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 <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Morone-saxatilis.html" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Striped Bass (<i>Morone saxatilis</i>)</a> 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:</div>
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeL2CR5WO4GWsp2ESDyrgXgcgyM3Su5OkdpCuVaZNg17_PzW3GI0VHYxulAhs_SatkQCkgIFyJd_MeiuwRd8rdCAutpSCofeXy_ZaOp4uZ7SlMMHzSEzb7Qb_uSE4r3K-Pdi30RwDHn0Ls/s1600/FishCompare-Lateral.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeL2CR5WO4GWsp2ESDyrgXgcgyM3Su5OkdpCuVaZNg17_PzW3GI0VHYxulAhs_SatkQCkgIFyJd_MeiuwRd8rdCAutpSCofeXy_ZaOp4uZ7SlMMHzSEzb7Qb_uSE4r3K-Pdi30RwDHn0Ls/s400/FishCompare-Lateral.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The supraoccipital (sagittal crest-like structure) and end of the snout strongly resembled the illustration below before being damaged.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA2TpIEu_uEsNs3bruljy_uwnZ_2OKhyzOIUlTtACZLH0EEgnkXP1BT_o4HTxBCjp1F59GY9ZH4UK1exGD86bVLXmbyjo4faxova1dRkNaqMxs_vAo3b8EZUcpRZ8gZFY3qims7SNEa6r9/s1600/FishCompare-Dorsal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA2TpIEu_uEsNs3bruljy_uwnZ_2OKhyzOIUlTtACZLH0EEgnkXP1BT_o4HTxBCjp1F59GY9ZH4UK1exGD86bVLXmbyjo4faxova1dRkNaqMxs_vAo3b8EZUcpRZ8gZFY3qims7SNEa6r9/s400/FishCompare-Dorsal.jpg" width="361" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">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. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnGdh7X3jFBLehhzqxVrI_C_kBcTqHLrXjGvTlMKBTMHkrxkBv-e_XDBW93D5tow1nOmaDONaJrzxHIxEHFHkVgNodJJJjnxNMgA3qb-K2QHz6eAzMMXWzhiQEme37OfqHPHMdZf2POlFQ/s1600/FishCompare-Ventral.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnGdh7X3jFBLehhzqxVrI_C_kBcTqHLrXjGvTlMKBTMHkrxkBv-e_XDBW93D5tow1nOmaDONaJrzxHIxEHFHkVgNodJJJjnxNMgA3qb-K2QHz6eAzMMXWzhiQEme37OfqHPHMdZf2POlFQ/s400/FishCompare-Ventral.jpg" width="373" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">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.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
One odd difference aside, this is certainly the owner's species (being held):</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikPErON2mGi_gJy8xArNEn7ZilvdEz8b_ZrEGaBhRtIG1o6-Xb7p9gtCfcMtPKfo1wBqage9k-r_gmBLKJWJ8-kczGD49gIgT_eaywLnlyF2veiZPcAJhpIjD6ScVJlS6g2YvCsio1a9BZ/s1600/Chesapeake-Bay-Striped-Bass-Fishing.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikPErON2mGi_gJy8xArNEn7ZilvdEz8b_ZrEGaBhRtIG1o6-Xb7p9gtCfcMtPKfo1wBqage9k-r_gmBLKJWJ8-kczGD49gIgT_eaywLnlyF2veiZPcAJhpIjD6ScVJlS6g2YvCsio1a9BZ/s400/Chesapeake-Bay-Striped-Bass-Fishing.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chesapeake-Bay-Striped-Bass-Fishing.JPG">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The Striped Bass has some other relatives in the <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/FamilySummary.php?id=487">'family' Moronidae</a> and while a couple species in my area attain record lengths approaching 50 cm TL (<i><a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Morone-americana.html">Morone americana</a></i>, <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Morone-chrysops.html"><i>M. chrysops</i></a>), such sizes are apparently freakish and I doubt the crania would be large enough anyways.<br />
<br />
My hat is off to anyone seriously working with fish skeletons. After my little tastes, I am completely and utterly traumatized. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Hicks, S. D. (1959). The Physical Oceanography of Narragansett Bay. <i>Limnology and Oceanography</i> 4(3), 316-327. <a href="http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_4/issue_3/0316.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Jordan, D. S. (1905). <i>A Guide to the Study of Fishes</i>. Volume 1. Henry Holt and Company: New York. <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/guidetostudyoffi01jord">Available</a>.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com88tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-17335190650733573132011-10-30T16:29:00.001-04:002011-10-30T16:29:37.479-04:00Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000006a<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I am getting bored of 'Cadborosaurus', so before finishing the series, here is a mysterious object found on the shoreline near <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=1076286624448019664&q=Independence+Park,+Bristol,+RI&hl=en&ved=0CA4Q-gswAA&sa=X&ei=ArGtTue4MaH2ygSXuYnrBQ">Independence Park, Bristol, Rhode Island</a>. 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.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAZaoHmgbsUcIBhhgX0bQ-tukvivFd4BO1h23UaJGKesBQ03sa9CCRHOZSJMLJlb12NgOSUvxJ6D1Ae0Suoo7FfjfeHlGxaN5I83b0EPvBrYio0jTuLUBLRLPCoos25uWfCw0rmaVSnsit/s1600/P1016194.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAZaoHmgbsUcIBhhgX0bQ-tukvivFd4BO1h23UaJGKesBQ03sa9CCRHOZSJMLJlb12NgOSUvxJ6D1Ae0Suoo7FfjfeHlGxaN5I83b0EPvBrYio0jTuLUBLRLPCoos25uWfCw0rmaVSnsit/s400/P1016194.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRMpvUHebPJC_APR5xP3zmG5_nOLb7oEcsswSm-fS6MGXJ9UjbUkRVVziE6FXUQxOjhiF-q3eBxFEPgj8AgCb8tSOCwtXYr40jHXA1QQhk0RZSJGR5f0cOe5cbLwvfJyOsfFs3YIh0uLcP/s1600/P1016188.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRMpvUHebPJC_APR5xP3zmG5_nOLb7oEcsswSm-fS6MGXJ9UjbUkRVVziE6FXUQxOjhiF-q3eBxFEPgj8AgCb8tSOCwtXYr40jHXA1QQhk0RZSJGR5f0cOe5cbLwvfJyOsfFs3YIh0uLcP/s400/P1016188.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgRwNsue9m1CMFUnqazf6ssKlqWTHzVlcraVt7DDHkcj-K-K7odW6sBntfS0IZyhzUoPeQcO3uq2R8KX7Gp9TCYtxsZkKnh2l_QgF_3mbBTiatCV4kuRJVlUa016GesNA2ZanMVuflXHoM/s1600/P1016190.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgRwNsue9m1CMFUnqazf6ssKlqWTHzVlcraVt7DDHkcj-K-K7odW6sBntfS0IZyhzUoPeQcO3uq2R8KX7Gp9TCYtxsZkKnh2l_QgF_3mbBTiatCV4kuRJVlUa016GesNA2ZanMVuflXHoM/s400/P1016190.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-72483696664742027762011-10-10T11:15:00.001-04:002011-10-10T11:19:16.115-04:00A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 9: ... and the rest!Woodley <i>et al. </i>(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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpMGVPpQ5LPyXhcmAUmxVQ5FucEOAxjSPSW0eUF9FdfVEk5escr56kyCJ51t0ENW5Tldn5zAeQ5vKy-kppoCZLg61G7TsG_pp7QM7sKuZEh_7feWZ_-4DI_yD3svFPrKRelEeiDfB0SLjh/s1600/4109649315_f5b5c98e72_b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpMGVPpQ5LPyXhcmAUmxVQ5FucEOAxjSPSW0eUF9FdfVEk5escr56kyCJ51t0ENW5Tldn5zAeQ5vKy-kppoCZLg61G7TsG_pp7QM7sKuZEh_7feWZ_-4DI_yD3svFPrKRelEeiDfB0SLjh/s400/4109649315_f5b5c98e72_b.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/43162672@N05/4109649315/">Aulorhynchus flavidus</a> from Flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/43162672@N05/">jmandecki</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=3270&genusname=Aulorhynchus&speciesname=flavidus">Tube-snouts (<i>Aulorhynchus flavidus</i>)</a> 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 <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/Photos/PicturesSummary.php?StartRow=2&ID=3270&what=species&TotRec=4">here</a>); it could be possible for the scutes and spines before the dorsal fin to suggest more extensive armor to an eyewitness.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/2dcE82nDxAM?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIeK31PYgaC9b4-wrPmWJbWiPkd8J5-992WW0Y1LOWU-BHBtnIksPB5jn7zMBgaVJndA08EwBdUpJQIUZ84GaDvHxcqAt6JtJ_UMygB3rtG_mYYr4WqDkhE7nNMkZYkFzbpn5oyIexEw8I/s1600/Acipenser_medirostris.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIeK31PYgaC9b4-wrPmWJbWiPkd8J5-992WW0Y1LOWU-BHBtnIksPB5jn7zMBgaVJndA08EwBdUpJQIUZ84GaDvHxcqAt6JtJ_UMygB3rtG_mYYr4WqDkhE7nNMkZYkFzbpn5oyIexEw8I/s400/Acipenser_medirostris.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Acipenser_medirostris.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The Green Sturgeon (<i>Acipenser medirostris</i>) 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 <a href="http://gothamist.com/2011/05/23/weird_huge_monster_in_east_river_ap.php">you never know</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhECoYiwiAEfg1QTCBeG9z7hKiKPeEXJs3U652Dnpj-qNlkNSqcTGHKoP2Au8XB2Le2mag-tZDzOxi5e_lItUdsIXq7ra1l2IKTbn18qTrWSS9hk1xI8IhQ1auS3H4SwxWHtA7iN_QAHnIL/s1600/Aphanopus_carbo1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="136" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhECoYiwiAEfg1QTCBeG9z7hKiKPeEXJs3U652Dnpj-qNlkNSqcTGHKoP2Au8XB2Le2mag-tZDzOxi5e_lItUdsIXq7ra1l2IKTbn18qTrWSS9hk1xI8IhQ1auS3H4SwxWHtA7iN_QAHnIL/s400/Aphanopus_carbo1.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aphanopus_carbo1.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/FamilySummary.php?ID=415">Cutlassfishes (Trichiuridae)</a> 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.</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/T2QQaeC4iu4?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
The <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=59043&genusname=Aphanopus&speciesname=arigato">Pacific Black Scabbardfish (<i>Aphanopus arigato</i>)</a> and <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=3910&genusname=Lepidopus&speciesname=fitchi">Pacific Scabbardfish (<i>Lepidopus fitchi</i>)</a> 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ9XRNZctIZ7qWY0_37CPHoG9UTXv7bl_urSYGMhi7AYKe-ILeE01k7AUeCG5_FYrIDyhGjdESq5qmCQ7akW0nMdDuBJKPa-w9Pl_A7voyf6DUyvmzT7gSXpNwpyqBhyphenhyphenJKiHINLknILgkU/s1600/4590235411_f75d0b915d_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ9XRNZctIZ7qWY0_37CPHoG9UTXv7bl_urSYGMhi7AYKe-ILeE01k7AUeCG5_FYrIDyhGjdESq5qmCQ7akW0nMdDuBJKPa-w9Pl_A7voyf6DUyvmzT7gSXpNwpyqBhyphenhyphenJKiHINLknILgkU/s400/4590235411_f75d0b915d_o.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/islandvittles/4590235411/">bc-spot-prawns-alive</a> from Flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/islandvittles/">Island Vittles</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
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 (<i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandalus_platyceros">Pandalus platyceros</a></i> - pictured above) being around half the size of the Hagelund specimen with a radically different coloration and proportions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaMXSa0a6KY5QD4nY32_r8Zzzl7sI7c_XxzlNnjSRpNFt1_9lMoo-VygwNJCqMep7o0OkC6WXFWeX0AGAfILVAap2JtmUOlOydoIrrLPVURw55s8anCXP3Aq4MhXQGhAloBWTLwPV8ySWa/s1600/Pinniped_underwater.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="322" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaMXSa0a6KY5QD4nY32_r8Zzzl7sI7c_XxzlNnjSRpNFt1_9lMoo-VygwNJCqMep7o0OkC6WXFWeX0AGAfILVAap2JtmUOlOydoIrrLPVURw55s8anCXP3Aq4MhXQGhAloBWTLwPV8ySWa/s400/Pinniped_underwater.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pinniped_underwater.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
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 <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poland_Hel_-_seal.jpg">long heads</a>, <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic,_Leopard_Seal_(js)_31.jpg">slender bodies</a>, and <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:080704_V%C3%ADde%C5%88sk%C3%A1_ZOO_158.jpg">sorta similar coloration</a>. 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Bayer, R. D. (1980). Size and Age of the Tube-snout (<i>Aulorhynchus flavidus</i>) in the Yaquina Estuary, Oregon. Northwest Science 54(4), 306-310. <a href="http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_nws/NWSci%20journal%20articles/1980%20files/Issue%204/v54%20p306%20Bayer.PDF">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Hagelund, W. A. (1987). <i>Whalers No More</i>. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.<br />
<br />
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). <i>Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep</i>. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.<br />
<br />
Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. <i>Journal of Scientific Exploration</i> 25(3), 495-512.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Previous entries:</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-1.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2a.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-3-dealing.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits</a></div>
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-4-what-is.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-5.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The Cadborosaurus</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-6.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6a: Cold Water on the 'Reptilian Hypothesis'</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-6b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6b: Reptilian Reproduction</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/10/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-7.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 7: Poachers</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/10/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-8a.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 8a: Pipefish in a Bucket</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/10/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-8b-bay.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 8b: The Bay Pipefish</a><br />
<br />
<b>Tet Zoo Coverage: </b><br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/09/26/baby-sea-serpent-no-more/">A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus</a>Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com196tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-12250742743456263672011-10-08T15:18:00.002-04:002011-10-08T15:28:08.639-04:00A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 8b: The Bay Pipefish<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/10/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-7.html">Poachers</a>, 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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju5PLeFdpBZg7jio7hMXDbf-bB7OhO3SnzRp0i-Ti2Lop3cFKc9b2M-UzOy9nPBDNL5OED1qbee0Pe90wTxHewTe8iXsz41mRWe6c15q26FCj_n25D-BvbNltUdFBL55WdL1S7h5HTczZ_/s1600/Hagelund+specimen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="88" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju5PLeFdpBZg7jio7hMXDbf-bB7OhO3SnzRp0i-Ti2Lop3cFKc9b2M-UzOy9nPBDNL5OED1qbee0Pe90wTxHewTe8iXsz41mRWe6c15q26FCj_n25D-BvbNltUdFBL55WdL1S7h5HTczZ_/s400/Hagelund+specimen.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcdcQ0PiGXajM5ZZtZjVfxFWGcvCG8v5gtc9tGJJbDs5TQuS0hanhfGgZ7VksALnLLGGvUTY2XAmhWt17jOasEd4v01PXOj7LD0r5ArzIZx3v5vJPQqJs6VaJJAuPVfZpAjHjq0gDlYzE4/s1600/4110414064_a783e21b95_b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcdcQ0PiGXajM5ZZtZjVfxFWGcvCG8v5gtc9tGJJbDs5TQuS0hanhfGgZ7VksALnLLGGvUTY2XAmhWt17jOasEd4v01PXOj7LD0r5ArzIZx3v5vJPQqJs6VaJJAuPVfZpAjHjq0gDlYzE4/s400/4110414064_a783e21b95_b.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/43162672@N05/4110414064/">Syngnathus leptorhynchus</a> from Flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/43162672@N05/">jmandecki</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF5DGcZk6pMqLxQQQ6Qw-3AOWHigpl1snWVNLBKnWn8glcpaF2Bm2fXJY2keXGNC8xKwtwxP3wJc4ZHzDnlhPXdLM_PLoQ-_sLyhAZ19pEu4NJbW-lI63eTQ3gGs_repqVV7pmp2ygvzXH/s1600/4110413984_11e12cc6bd_b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF5DGcZk6pMqLxQQQ6Qw-3AOWHigpl1snWVNLBKnWn8glcpaF2Bm2fXJY2keXGNC8xKwtwxP3wJc4ZHzDnlhPXdLM_PLoQ-_sLyhAZ19pEu4NJbW-lI63eTQ3gGs_repqVV7pmp2ygvzXH/s400/4110413984_11e12cc6bd_b.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/43162672@N05/4110413984/">Syngnathus leptorhynchus</a> from Flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/43162672@N05/">jmandecki</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Hagelund's drawing portrays the upper bounds of the estimated depth (1-1.5 inches), so the difference from the above pictures of <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=3303">Bay Pipefish (<i>Syngnathus leptorhynchus</i>)</a> 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<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">†</span>) 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.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">† log W = -3.70 + <b>3.12</b> log TL(cm)</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzgDXa08Kle7v8AChyphenhyphentopW2o3fQqRee0Z2_jiBKbhVZLFl3EWnpBiet8F_c0uTeLJ_Fyo0rTpmuNvRXSahTbKCR5IuNw0qyOi7FAs7g9OvXf_BJcuc1k_hEak3ZJ_9jTDoz3-MFfH4mcXC/s1600/Syngnathus_leptorhynchus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzgDXa08Kle7v8AChyphenhyphentopW2o3fQqRee0Z2_jiBKbhVZLFl3EWnpBiet8F_c0uTeLJ_Fyo0rTpmuNvRXSahTbKCR5IuNw0qyOi7FAs7g9OvXf_BJcuc1k_hEak3ZJ_9jTDoz3-MFfH4mcXC/s400/Syngnathus_leptorhynchus.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A rather thick Bay Pipefish from <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syngnathus_leptorhynchus.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=23128">Hairy Pipefish</a>, 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 <i>S. leptorhynchus</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Bayer, R. D. (1980). Size, Seasonality, and Sex Ratios of the Bay Pipefish (<i>Syngnathus leptorhynchus</i>) in Oregon. <i>Northwest Science</i> 54 (3), 161-167. <a href="http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_nws/NWSci%20journal%20articles/1980%20files/Issue%203/v54%20p161%20Bayer.PDF">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Dawson, C. E. and Fritzsche, R. A. (1975). Odontoid processes in pipefish jaws. <i>Nature</i> 257, 390. <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v257/n5525/abs/257390a0.html">doi:10.1038/257390a0</a><br />
<br />
Hagelund, W. A. (1987). <i>Whalers No More</i>. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.<br />
<br />
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). <i>Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep</i>. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.<br />
<br />
Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. <i>Journal of Scientific Exploration</i> 25(3), 495-512.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Previous entries:</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-1.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2a.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-3-dealing.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits</a></div>
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-4-what-is.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-5.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The Cadborosaurus</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-6.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6a: Cold Water on the 'Reptilian Hypothesis'</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-6b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6b: Reptilian Reproduction</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/10/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-7.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 7: Poachers</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/10/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-8a.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 8a: Pipefish in a Bucket</a><br />
<br />
<b>Tet Zoo Coverage: </b><br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/09/26/baby-sea-serpent-no-more/">A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus</a>Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-35939523432059932002011-10-05T16:31:00.000-04:002011-10-05T16:32:57.377-04:00A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 8a: Pipefish in a BucketInternets. Is there anything they can't do?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/ptrkpCkQ3oo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Previous entries:</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-1.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2a.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-3-dealing.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits</a></div>
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-4-what-is.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-5.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The Cadborosaurus</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-6.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6a: Cold Water on the 'Reptilian Hypothesis'</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-6b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6b: Reptilian Reproduction</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/10/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-7.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 7: Poachers</a><br />
<br />
<b>Tet Zoo Coverage: </b><br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/09/26/baby-sea-serpent-no-more/">A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus</a>Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-69276930731800819302011-10-04T21:07:00.001-04:002011-10-04T21:09:02.024-04:00A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 7: PoachersI'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.<br />
<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/FamilySummary.php?ID=283">poachers (Agonidae)</a> which are compellingly similar to the Hagelund specimen. Notable shared traits include proportions, large eyes, plate-like scales, and barbels (= "whiskers"):<br />
<br />
<span id="goog_1566183075"></span><span id="goog_1566183076"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju5PLeFdpBZg7jio7hMXDbf-bB7OhO3SnzRp0i-Ti2Lop3cFKc9b2M-UzOy9nPBDNL5OED1qbee0Pe90wTxHewTe8iXsz41mRWe6c15q26FCj_n25D-BvbNltUdFBL55WdL1S7h5HTczZ_/s1600/Hagelund+specimen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="88" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju5PLeFdpBZg7jio7hMXDbf-bB7OhO3SnzRp0i-Ti2Lop3cFKc9b2M-UzOy9nPBDNL5OED1qbee0Pe90wTxHewTe8iXsz41mRWe6c15q26FCj_n25D-BvbNltUdFBL55WdL1S7h5HTczZ_/s400/Hagelund+specimen.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR8AxVw9ux70jsH648h2vfIvpNGJ_RXvQrRFUWr6dzsAZI0MVnMtht32r_FlttsDbV1la-bTWwap99ZIySFmV1OWvsdBcSXZH4F8mzpj31hTO2ueruYBSBrEMVj820zdncg4q-R_izoneY/s1600/Leptagonus_decagonus1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="92" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR8AxVw9ux70jsH648h2vfIvpNGJ_RXvQrRFUWr6dzsAZI0MVnMtht32r_FlttsDbV1la-bTWwap99ZIySFmV1OWvsdBcSXZH4F8mzpj31hTO2ueruYBSBrEMVj820zdncg4q-R_izoneY/s400/Leptagonus_decagonus1.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=4154">Atlantic Poacher (<i>Leptagonus decagonus</i>)</a> from <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leptagonus_decagonus1.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>. This isn't a candidate, but it's the closest freely available image I could find.<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The anal, dorsal, and pelvic fins can fold down to the point of near-invisibility, heightening the similarity:</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6AiKVSF14W-F_DSUkq6toIa7FT69_3iAqlS-gRgtihL0brwY-AOHNVUkyzxDWnOqg-9DOV_L2IORrlrqOqLlzLoEzCEOH3LTAjaBnsLk2tC5hU4hDhbqu_OELyLnCUKdtOw_-s44BZaK4/s1600/Agonus_cataphractus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6AiKVSF14W-F_DSUkq6toIa7FT69_3iAqlS-gRgtihL0brwY-AOHNVUkyzxDWnOqg-9DOV_L2IORrlrqOqLlzLoEzCEOH3LTAjaBnsLk2tC5hU4hDhbqu_OELyLnCUKdtOw_-s44BZaK4/s400/Agonus_cataphractus.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=36">Hooknose (<i>Agonus cataphractus</i>)</a> from <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Agonus_cataphractus.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
It appears the pectoral fins can <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwiaht/4617412104/">fold significantly as well</a>. Poachers are also flexible enough to <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/Photos/PicturesSummary.php?ID=4168&what=species">bend the head upwards</a>.<br />
<br />
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<i> et al.</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>et al.</i> 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 <i>et al.</i> 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 <i>et al.</i> 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
The strongest candidate is the <a href="http://fishbase.org/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=4153">Sturgeon Poacher (<i>Podothecus accipenserinus</i>)</a> which is reasonably similar in size and coloration, but are somewhat thick-bodied and large-headed comparatively. Other possible candidates included <i><a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=4169">Pallasina barbata</a></i> (intertidal, similar color, however very small) and <i><a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=4170">Sarritor frenatus</a></i> - it should be noted that there are many other poachers in the area, but they are either far too small or deep-bodied.<br />
<br />
Pipefish next, then everybody else.</div>
<div>
<div>
.<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). <i>Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep</i>. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.<br />
<br />
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 (<i>Agonopsis vulsa</i>). <i>Zoology</i> 112, 393-402. <a href="https://faculty.washington.edu/fishguy/Resources/Research_PDFs/2009-pectoral-fin-lift-poacher.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. <i>Journal of Scientific Exploration</i> 25(3), 495-512.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Previous entries:</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-1.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2a.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-3-dealing.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits</a></div>
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-4-what-is.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-5.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The Cadborosaurus</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-6.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6a: Cold Water on the 'Reptilian Hypothesis'</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-6b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6b: Reptilian Reproduction</a><br />
<br />
<b>Tet Zoo Coverage: </b><br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/09/26/baby-sea-serpent-no-more/">A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus</a></div>
</div>
Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-8975859210943376692011-09-30T11:39:00.002-04:002011-09-30T12:11:26.840-04:00A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6b: Reptilian ReproductionHere's that quote again, from LeBlond and Bousfield (1995), page 82:<br />
<blockquote>
The thinness and elongation of the body, the poikilothermy<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span>(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. </blockquote>
The <a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-6.html">previous article</a> 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.<br />
<br />
Backing up, this is the evidence LeBlond and Bousfield (1995) present for comparatively tiny precocial young (page 80):<br />
<blockquote>
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.</blockquote>
Woodley <i>et al.</i> (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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Island_%28Washington%29">Johns Island</a>. The sheer lack of detail is remarkable<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">†</span> and the description "dinosaur" can refer to just about anything<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">‡</span>. I find it interesting that LeBlond and Bousfield drew conclusions from this valueless anecdote, despite apparently having some reservations about it.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">† For comparison, Hagelund's account had 24 traits, of which only a few were worthless. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">‡ Dinosauria proper has a diverse assortment of body plans, many other creatures are often incorrectly labeled as dinosaurs (ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, <i>Dimetrodon</i>...), and some extant animals (snapping turtles, alligator gars, bichirs, sturgeon...) are often compared to "dinosaurs". </span><br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 (<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-4-what-is.html">which is not supported by the actual sightings</a>), 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%.<br />
<br />
Out of the five or so extant clades of marine reptiles<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">†</span>, only the "true" sea snakes (Hydrophiini) give live birth; however as this is by far the most speciose marine clade with ~60 representatives (Sanders <i>et al.</i> 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.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">† </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">The others being seaturtles (Chelonioidea), the marine iguana (<i>Amblyrhynchus cristatus</i>), sea kraits (<i>Laticauda spp.</i>), and </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">saltwater crocodiles (<i>Crocodylus porosus</i>)... the lattermost makes me wonder if other reptiles deserve this status, certainly the softshell turtle </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Trionyx</i> should be considered. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">As for how sea snakes, sea kraits, and other elapids are related (Wikipedia's article is highly untrustworthy), </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://coo.fieldofscience.com/2011/02/southern-snakes-at-sea.html">Catalogue of Organisms</a> has an excellent summary.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
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 <i>Polycotylus latippinis</i> estimated to have a fetus 35% of the maternal length at full term (O'Keefe and Chiappe 2011). The mosasauroid <i>Carsosaurus marchesetti</i> 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 <i>Stenopterygius quadriscissus</i> showing a <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/polycotylus-the-good-mother-plesiosaur/ichthyosaur-live-birth/">juvenile half-emerged from its mother</a>, which seems to be around a quarter of the parental length.<br />
<br />
<br />
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 <i>et al.</i> (2011) but it was eventually deemed tangential as the Hagelund specimen was already reclassified and the dead horse was already beaten into a liquid.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Caldwell, M. W., and Lee, M. S. Y. (2001). Live birth in Cretaceous marine lizards (mosasauroids). <i>Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. </i>268, 2397-2401. <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/268/1484/2397.full.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). <i>Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep</i>. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.<br />
<br />
Lemen, C. A. and Voris, H. K. A. (1981) Comparison of Reproductive Strategies among Marine Snakes. <i>Animal Ecology </i>50, 89-101. <a href="http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=natrespapers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fgcx%3Dc%26ix%3Dc1%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3DLemen%2BVoris%2Bsnake#search=%22Lemen%20Voris%20snake%22">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
O’Keefe, F. R. & Chiappe, L.M. (2011). Viviparity and K-selected life history in a Mesozoic marine reptile. <i>Science </i>333, 870-873. <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6044/870.short">DOI: 10.1126/science.1205689</a><br />
<br />
Sanders, K. L., Mumpuni, Lee, M. S. Y. (2010). Uncoupling ecological innovation and speciation in sea snakes (Elapidae, Hydrophiinae, Hydrophiini). <i>Journal of Evolutionary Biology</i> 23(12) <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02131.x/abstract">DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02131.x</a><br />
<br />
Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. <i>Journal of Scientific Exploration</i> 25(3), 495-512.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Previous entries:</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-1.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2a.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-3-dealing.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits</a></div>
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-4-what-is.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-5.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The Cadborosaurus</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-6.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6a: Cold Water on the 'Reptilian Hypothesis'</a><br />
<br />
<b>Tet Zoo Coverage: </b><br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/09/26/baby-sea-serpent-no-more/">A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus</a>Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-56549352413964074232011-09-27T11:10:00.001-04:002011-09-28T07:20:02.892-04:00A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 6a: Cold Water on the 'Reptilian Hypothesis'LeBlond and Bousfield (1995) made remarkable conclusions about the affinities of 'Cadborosaurus' (page 82):<br />
<blockquote>
The thinness and elongation of the body, the poikilothermy<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span>(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. </blockquote>
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.<br />
<br />
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<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">†</span>. I do not find this reasoning convincing. The slimmest cetacean is the <a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2008/01/nearly-eel-shaped-dolphins.html">Northern Right Whale Dolphin (<i>Lissodelphis borealis</i>)</a> 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 <a href="http://www.davidbarrphotography.com/">are also quite slender</a> and occur in Antarctica. Both of these ectotherms are compared to snakes by some observers (<i>L. borealis</i> 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.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">† 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.</span><br />
<br />
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 <i>tolerate</i> these temperatures. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelamis_platura">Pelagic Sea Snake</a> <i>Pelamis platura</i> <a href="http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/p.platurus.html">barely straggles into California</a> 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 <i>et al. </i>1971). Graham <i>et al. </i>(1971) telling describe this snake as "weak swimming", which makes me wonder, isn't an ectothermic 'Cadborosaurus' with a "very high swimming speed" contradictory?<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz9mzrmK-cargJjYVFnNo24s6KnuekZVZEU1U4yEACJeL3xIJUr2ERZuC4KOI7d6DfpBx04zM7AAfsMfwNZDT_TzOW4olzCiRnpTfame-_4_5MVYsJJDU6J0wTwk9l544BWK4SescWspUd/s1600/Pelamis_platuras.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz9mzrmK-cargJjYVFnNo24s6KnuekZVZEU1U4yEACJeL3xIJUr2ERZuC4KOI7d6DfpBx04zM7AAfsMfwNZDT_TzOW4olzCiRnpTfame-_4_5MVYsJJDU6J0wTwk9l544BWK4SescWspUd/s400/Pelamis_platuras.jpg" width="252" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Pelamis platura</i>, apparently the most cold-tolerant marine reptile which isn't a turtle. From <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pelamis_platuras.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The Leatherback Seaturtle (<i>Dermochelys coriacea</i>) is presently viewed as an uncommon seasonal resident of British Columbia (McAlpine <i>et al.</i> 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 <i>et al.</i> 2006) and retain heat through a thick layer of blubber (unique among reptiles) along with their large size (Wallace and Jones 2008, Davenport <i>et al. </i>2009). Leatherbacks are not the only turtles known from high latitudes; Green Seaturtles (<i>Chelonia mydas</i>) have been reported from British Columbia (McAlpine <i>et al.</i> 2004) and Alaska, and there are records of Loggerhead (<i>Caretta caretta</i>) and Olive Ridley Seaturtles (<i>Lepidochelys olivacea</i>) 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 <i>et al.</i> (2007) warn that interest in Canadian seaturtles is recent and that their status off British Columbia needs assessment.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1umMV74CgBezTA8-R_LQEn1n4IV5lxE-4oAbp76QlEDImZaGkaBZ5174bw1zmchdrduj1jAj9-Dx1RqGCurvZQGMpuYfVkIyRgtE3f6S4o7ivJgWdnjlnbpv4dzmbOZ4YITOK0Z2kn8Mt/s1600/Leatherback_sea_turtle_benson_swfsc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="295" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1umMV74CgBezTA8-R_LQEn1n4IV5lxE-4oAbp76QlEDImZaGkaBZ5174bw1zmchdrduj1jAj9-Dx1RqGCurvZQGMpuYfVkIyRgtE3f6S4o7ivJgWdnjlnbpv4dzmbOZ4YITOK0Z2kn8Mt/s400/Leatherback_sea_turtle_benson_swfsc.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Dermochelys coriacea</i> from <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leatherback_sea_turtle_benson_swfsc.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Previous entries:</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-1.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2a.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-3-dealing.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits</a></div>
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-4-what-is.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-5.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The Cadborosaurus</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Tet Zoo Coverage: </b><br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/09/26/baby-sea-serpent-no-more/">A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References: </b><br />
<br />
Baird, R. W. and Stacey, P. J. (1990). Status of the Northern Right Whale Dolphin (<i>Lissodelphis borealis</i>), in Canada. <i>The Canadian Field-Naturalist</i> 105, 243-250. <a href="http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/robin/Lissodelphisstatus.pdf">Available</a>. <br />
<br />
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 (<i>Dermochelys coriacea</i>). <i>J Exp Biol</i> 212, 2753-2759. <a href="http://jeb.biologists.org/content/212/17/2753.full">doi: 10.1242/jeb.026500</a>.<br />
<br />
Fish, F. E. (1993). Influence of Hydrodynamic Design and Propulsive Mode on Mammalian Swimming Energetics. <i>Australian Journal of Zoology</i> 42, 79-101. <a href="http://darwin.wcupa.edu/~biology/fish/pubs/pdf/1993AJZhydrodynamicDesign.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Graham, J. B., Rubinoff, I., and Hecht, M. K. (1971). Temperature Physiology of the Sea Snake <i>Pelamis platurus</i>: An Index of Its Colonization Potential in the Atlantic Ocean. <i>PNAS</i> 68(6), 1360-1363. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/68/6/1360.full.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Hodge, R. P., and B. L. Wing. (2000). Occurrences of marine turtles in Alaska waters 1960-1998. <i>Herpetological Review</i> 31,: 148-151. <a href="http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Hodge_2000_HerpetolRev.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
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. <i>Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology</i> 335, 221–226. <a href="http://www.fmap.ca/ramweb/papers-total/James_etal_2006b.pdf">Available</a>. <br />
<br />
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). <i>Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep</i>. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.<br />
<br />
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. <a href="http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/McAlpine_2007_EcoConsStatReptCanada_Chptr.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
McAlpine, D. F., Orchard, S. A., Sendall, K. A., and Palm, R. (2004). Status of marine turtles in British Columbia waters: a reassessment. <i>Canadian Field-Naturalist</i> 118(1), 72-76. <a href="http://www.canadianfieldnaturalist.ca/index.php/cfn/article/view/885/886">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
Wallace, B. P., and Jones, T. J. (2008). What makes marine turtles go: A review of metabolic rates and their consequences. <i>Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology</i> 356, 8–24. <a href="http://web.mac.com/bryan.wallace/bryan_wallace/research_files/Wallace+Jones_JEMBE2008%28authors%29.pdf">Available</a>. <br />
<br />
Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. <i>Journal of Scientific Exploration</i> 25(3), 495-512.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Secondary Reference:</b><br />
<br />
Leatherwood, S., and Walker, W. A. (1979). The northern right whale dolphin <i>Lissodelphis borealis</i> Pede in the eastern North Pacific. In: <i>Behavior of Marine Animal</i> volume 3 (Eds H. E. Winn and<br />
B. L. Olla.) pp. 85-141. (Plenum Press: New York.) Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-74465163440645921542011-09-22T16:05:00.001-04:002011-09-26T09:30:50.624-04:00A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 5: Hagelund's Specimen And The CadborosaurusThe <a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-4-what-is.html">previous article</a> 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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-etSUHC34fRl8BNoeXvW_84m0DKc5uncar6vfTq9ECznGZDU1t6zfxpXOpJBtSUR7uFSG4tT9-xg1Eq6jx4jW3-hyCJspUi2t3CwdPUSs2T2ZYIqXHD1beyq1d2RliFpwi06m7Yx-Kc7W/s1600/NadenHarbourCarcass-side.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="93" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-etSUHC34fRl8BNoeXvW_84m0DKc5uncar6vfTq9ECznGZDU1t6zfxpXOpJBtSUR7uFSG4tT9-xg1Eq6jx4jW3-hyCJspUi2t3CwdPUSs2T2ZYIqXHD1beyq1d2RliFpwi06m7Yx-Kc7W/s400/NadenHarbourCarcass-side.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Not only are the traits assigned to 'Cadborosaurus' a house of cards, they barely resemble those given to the Hagelund specimen:<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPS7YShCN820grFUujcp9gHGgvxGQHtTvSW48DPJAxKqSN79p8Hp9C0hRCBI-Udt0R3oaxnRukbTQeZh1kIYrYlK-_3raMHWs2htE71NIzYL7Qlm3EIZlpRMPfcB0MBQpeXcdUah7bPhii/s1600/Hagelund-Cadborosaurus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPS7YShCN820grFUujcp9gHGgvxGQHtTvSW48DPJAxKqSN79p8Hp9C0hRCBI-Udt0R3oaxnRukbTQeZh1kIYrYlK-_3raMHWs2htE71NIzYL7Qlm3EIZlpRMPfcB0MBQpeXcdUah7bPhii/s400/Hagelund-Cadborosaurus.jpg" width="328" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The system in Woodley <i>et al. </i>(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.<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This is the reasoning presented by LeBlond and Bousfield for why the Hagelund specimen represented a 'Cadborosaurus' (page 58-59):</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote>
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.</blockquote>
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:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju5PLeFdpBZg7jio7hMXDbf-bB7OhO3SnzRp0i-Ti2Lop3cFKc9b2M-UzOy9nPBDNL5OED1qbee0Pe90wTxHewTe8iXsz41mRWe6c15q26FCj_n25D-BvbNltUdFBL55WdL1S7h5HTczZ_/s1600/Hagelund+specimen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="88" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju5PLeFdpBZg7jio7hMXDbf-bB7OhO3SnzRp0i-Ti2Lop3cFKc9b2M-UzOy9nPBDNL5OED1qbee0Pe90wTxHewTe8iXsz41mRWe6c15q26FCj_n25D-BvbNltUdFBL55WdL1S7h5HTczZ_/s400/Hagelund+specimen.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The original has a much smoother back... whoops.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNFOk0mpPZvlvNl5JKayGgJ-3jfk7PkU4XdhXcFzFo80PW96RRP0vj4dSUO0LNYo8OEIb7cIG6ouesN_j3rnkB8GtgPmofVsHibZmINXgCLkmZj9fG-ewvMhNtdD_IzTO5LBb116qa-Hht/s1600/CaddyScan.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNFOk0mpPZvlvNl5JKayGgJ-3jfk7PkU4XdhXcFzFo80PW96RRP0vj4dSUO0LNYo8OEIb7cIG6ouesN_j3rnkB8GtgPmofVsHibZmINXgCLkmZj9fG-ewvMhNtdD_IzTO5LBb116qa-Hht/s400/CaddyScan.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">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.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
More and better candidates will follow, but first, what are the implications of losing the Hagelund specimen from the 'Cadborosaurus' data set?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Previous entries:</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-1.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2a.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-3-dealing.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits</a></div>
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-4-what-is.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Tet Zoo Coverage: </b><br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/09/26/baby-sea-serpent-no-more/">A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References: </b><br />
<br />
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). <i>Cadborosaurus: Survivor from the Deep</i>. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-32872851272835289162011-09-21T00:00:00.000-04:002011-09-26T09:30:33.678-04:00A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 4: What is 'Cadborosaurus'?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNFOk0mpPZvlvNl5JKayGgJ-3jfk7PkU4XdhXcFzFo80PW96RRP0vj4dSUO0LNYo8OEIb7cIG6ouesN_j3rnkB8GtgPmofVsHibZmINXgCLkmZj9fG-ewvMhNtdD_IzTO5LBb116qa-Hht/s1600/CaddyScan.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNFOk0mpPZvlvNl5JKayGgJ-3jfk7PkU4XdhXcFzFo80PW96RRP0vj4dSUO0LNYo8OEIb7cIG6ouesN_j3rnkB8GtgPmofVsHibZmINXgCLkmZj9fG-ewvMhNtdD_IzTO5LBb116qa-Hht/s400/CaddyScan.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
In Woodley <i>et al</i>. (2011), we used LeBlond and Bousfield's '<i>Cadborosaurus wilsi</i>' 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 <i>Cadborosaurus: Survivor from the Deep</i> actually say about 'Cadborosaurus'?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>1. Its dimensions, ranging from five to 15 meters in length</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i>Note: Sightings are exclusively in feet. The converted range is 16'5" to 49'2.5".</i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
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?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
5 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
8 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
10 feet long (2)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
12 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
12-14 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
15 feet (2)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
15-20 feet long (2)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
16 feet long (2)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
18-20 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
20 feet long (9)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
20-23 feet (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
20-50 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
25 feet long (5)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
30 feet long (6)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
30-40 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
32 feet long (1)</div>
<div>
35 feet long (2)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
35-40 feet (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
40 feet long (6)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
40-100 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
40-50 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
50 feet long (3)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
55 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
60 feet long (5)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
60-90 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
80 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
90 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
100 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
100-110 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
150 feet long (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
300 feet long (1)</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>2. Its body form: snake-like, or serpentine...</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
An accurate assessment, although there are some contradictions.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Snake/serpentine/"garter snake" (12)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Eel (3)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Turtle-like (2)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"caddy-like creature" (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Crocodile-like (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"dragon" (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"hose" (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"plesiosaur" (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Tapering (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"reptilian formation" (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"much more reptile than serpent" (1)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>...with extraordinary flexibility in the vertical plane</b></div>
<i>Note: I did not include reports of neck motion, which were usually from side-to-side. </i><br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
"vertically"/"up and down"/"rise and fall" (5)<br />
"undulation" (3)<br />
"side to side"/"like those of a crocodile" (2)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>3. The appearance of its head, variously described as resembling that of a sheep, horse, giraffe or camel</b><br />
<br />
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"?<br />
<br />
Horse-like (23)<br />
Camel-like (7)<br />
Snake-like/serpentine/garden snake-like/python-like (5)<br />
Giraffe-like (3)<br />
Seal-like (3)<br />
Camel/giraffe (2)<br />
Horse/Giraffe/Camel (1)<br />
Dog-like/Giraffe-like (1)<br />
Sheep-like (1)<br />
Cow-like (1)<br />
Airedale-like (1)<br />
Boxer dog-like (1)<br />
Cat-like head (1)<br />
Lizard-like (1)<br />
"Reptile head" (1)<br />
Frog-like (1)<br />
Eel-like (1)<br />
Seahorse-like (1)<br />
<br />
Animal comparisons were not the only way to describe heads:<br />
<br />
Flat head//flattish (3)<br />
"long" (1)<br />
"bulky" (1)<br />
"blunt" (1)<br />
"immense forehead" (1)<br />
"heavy snouted" (1)<br />
"square" (1)<br />
"nose about a foot long" (1)<br />
"round, ball-like head" (1)<br />
"gaping maw like hippo" (1)<br />
"thicker than body" (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4. The length of its neck, elongated, ranging from one to four meters</b><br />
<i>Note: This is about 3'3" to 13'1.5"</i><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
3.5 feet long (1)<br />
4 feet long (2)<br />
4-5 feet long (1)<br />
5 feet long (1)<br />
6 foot neck (2)<br />
6-8 feet long (2)<br />
7 feet long (1)<br />
10 feet long (1)<br />
12 feet long (1)<br />
15 feet long (1)<br />
15-16 feet long (1)<br />
20-30 feet long (1)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Head 2 feet above water (1)<br />
Head 3-4 feet above water (1)<br />
Head 4 feet out of water (1)<br />
Head 4-5 feet above water (2)<br />
Head 6-7 feet above water (1)<br />
Head 6-8 feet above water (1)<br />
Head 7 feet above water (1)<br />
Head 10 feet above water (1)<br />
"neck and upper part 25 feet out of water" (1)<br />
"like 30 foot telephone pole" (1)<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Long neck (20)<br />
Short neck (1)<br />
"no long neck" (1)<br />
Giraffe-like (2)<br />
"Log that raised up" (1)<br />
"Eel-like neck" (1)<br />
"Thick" (1)<br />
"Slender" (2)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>5. The vertical humps or loops of the body, arranged in tandem series directly behind the neck</b><br />
<i>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.</i><br />
<br />
Hump/Dome/"upturned barge" (9)<br />
Humps/Bumps/lots of humps (6)<br />
2 Humps (6)<br />
3 humps (7)<br />
4 humps (1)<br />
4-5 humps (1)<br />
5 bumps/humps (3)<br />
5-7 humps (1)<br />
<br />
2 humps/coils (1)<br />
<br />
1 coil/loop/arch (5)<br />
Coils (3)<br />
2 coils (3)<br />
3 coils (1)<br />
3-4 coils (1)<br />
5 coils (1)<br />
5-6 coils (1)<br />
<br />
"folds"/"fold after fold" (2)<br />
<br />
"resembling a gable of a house floating in the water... back looked much like the roof of a shed" (1)<br />
<br />
"three distinct undulations" (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>6. The presence of a pair of anterior flippers...</b><br />
"Flippers" (3)<br />
"no fins or flippers" (1)<br />
<br />
Other fins are mentioned with unknown placement:<br />
<br />
<br />
fins 4 feet high (1)<br />
"revolving fins" (1)<br />
"fins all over the body" (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
Dorsal fins are mentioned more frequently than flippers, yet LeBlond and Bousfield make no mention of them:<br />
<br />
Dorsal fin (1)<br />
<br />
long fin on back (1)<br />
fin on back (1)<br />
<br />
"fin on its back reached to about three feet" (1)<br />
"2 foot fin on its back" (1)<br />
"continuous fin running the length of the body" (w/ illustration showing dorsal placement) (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>...posterior flippers absent or nearly fused with the body</b><br />
What is the evidence for this claim? The only relevant (and highly bizarre) detail I could find was:<br />
<br />
"little feet on the side back of the tail" (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>7. The tail, dorsally toothed or spiny...</b><br />
Known from precisely one report:<br />
<br />
"Toward the tail it appeared serrated like the cutting edge of a saw... with something moving flail-like at the extreme end" (1)<br />
<br />
With a couple contradictions:<br />
<br />
"flat like that of a beaver" (1)<br />
rounded like lizard tail" (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>... and split horizontally or fluke-like at the top</b><br />
Flukes (1)<br />
Split tail tip (1)<br />
Fish-like tail (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>8. The very high swimming speed, clocked at up to 40 knots at the surface</b><br />
<i>Note: About 46 miles per hour or 74 kilometers per hour. Units converted to knots.</i><br />
3 knots (1)<br />
3.48 knots (1)<br />
5.2 knots (1)<br />
10 knots (1)<br />
13-17.4 knots (1)<br />
25 knots (1)<br />
34.7 knots (1)<br />
35 knots (1)<br />
<br />
"Fast swimmer" (1)<br />
"Much faster than boat" (1)<br />
"Very fast swimmer" (1)<br />
"Moving fast" (1)<br />
"speed... astounding" (1)<br />
"low speed" (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>And now for the additional traits:</i></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sometimes the back is described as serrated, sometimes as smooth</b><br />
Serrated back (2)<br />
Not serrated (2)<br />
"horns on its back" (1)<br />
"line of moving spines" (1)<br />
Jagged dorsal crest (1)<br />
Spines 8" apart (1)<br />
"serrated markings along the top and sides" (1)<br />
Ridge running across top of body (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Body colour is reported as ranging from "gun-metal" blue, through orange, green, brown, gray to black</b><br />
Brown/Brownish (10)<br />
Dark/Blackish (6)<br />
Dark brown (5)<br />
Gray (4)<br />
Dark green/greenish (4)<br />
Light brown (3)<br />
Grayish brown (3)<br />
Dark gray (2)<br />
Chestnut brown (2)<br />
Green (2)<br />
Shiny black (2)<br />
Blue-gray (1)<br />
Greenish Brown/Dark Olive Green (1)<br />
Greenish-Blue (1)<br />
Bluish-Green... some in the sun like aluminium (1)<br />
Yellow and blue (1)<br />
Stripe brown and yellow (1)<br />
Yellow head (1)<br />
Camel-colored (1)<br />
Brownish yellow (1)<br />
Bright orange brown (1)<br />
Fawn-colored (1)<br />
Flesh-colored face (1)<br />
"whitish tan in color on the throat & lower front... solid tan upper head" (1)<br />
"Light brown [head] with white streaks running up and down it" (1)<br />
"gray brown with a dark brown stripe running along the body slightly to one side" (1)<br />
Mouse colored (1)<br />
Gray, silvery like dogfish (1)<br />
Color of kelp (1)<br />
Color of porpoise (1)<br />
Color of wet seal (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>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</b><br />
This is completely inaccurate. There is precisely one report which describes the animal as smooth and not hairy:<br />
<br />
Smooth, no hair (1)<br />
<br />
Other reports also suggest that hair was absent, but make no mention of smoothness:<br />
<br />
No mane (3)<br />
No hair (1)<br />
"wart-like rather than hairy" (1)<br />
"scaly appearance" (1)<br />
<br />
Mention of hair is, however, comparatively much more common:<br />
<br />
Hair on head and body (1)<br />
"Shaggy" (1)<br />
Hair (1)<br />
Covered with hair (1)<br />
Short fur (1)<br />
Furry (1)<br />
Smooth-haired, like seal (1)<br />
Mane (1)<br />
Long floppy mane (1)<br />
Mane like seaweed (1)<br />
"kind of mane"... looking like the teeth of a drag saw (1)<br />
"stuff hanging down like hair" (1)<br />
"sort of mane" (1)<br />
Mane the color of seaweed (1)<br />
"sort of mane" (1)<br />
"dirty hair covering long neck" (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Some witnesses see bumps on the head, which they variously describe as ears or horns, sometimes both together.</b><br />
"no ears" (6)<br />
Ears (3)<br />
Small ears/short ears (2)<br />
Horns or ears (2)<br />
Small ears/small strait horns (1)<br />
horns or horse-like ears (1)<br />
small horns... giraffe-type stubs AND large, floppy ears (1)<br />
2 blunt horns (1)<br />
2 knobs like horns (1)<br />
Two protrusions, possibly horns (1)<br />
pointed formation above eyes resembling horns (1)<br />
Two bumps, rounded on top (1)<br />
Bulgy on top (1)<br />
bulge behind ears (1)<br />
No horns or ears (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Most mention eyes, sometimes large, sometimes coloured.</b><br />
This is certainly not "most".<br />
<br />
Eyes (5)<br />
Large/Big (7)<br />
2 eyes in front/"set to look forward"/"in the front of the head" (3)<br />
No eyes seen (3)<br />
<br />
Red eyes (2)<br />
Jet black eyes (2)<br />
Large black eyes (1)<br />
<br />
"roll" from reddish to green (1)<br />
Cow-like, film over them, large, timid (1)<br />
Eyes like alligator (1)<br />
Bulgy eyes (1)<br />
<br />
And also:<br />
<br />
"eye bumps" (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>There is also occasional mention of facial whiskers.</b><br />
Very occasional.<br />
<br />
Whiskers (2)<br />
Whiskers under jaw (1)<br />
Beard (1)<br />
No whiskers (1)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Traits that do not fit in any category:</i></b><br />
<br />
<br />
"sea pet" (1)<br />
"body appeared smooth from one side, but with spikes when turned in other direction" (1)<br />
"looking like huge diver wearing a helmet" (1)<br />
"broad flat chest" (1)<br />
"shoulders" (1)<br />
"exaggerated lips one sees in a minstrel show" (1)<br />
<b>ON LAND (2)</b><br />
<br />
<br />
Ever since pondering over Heuvelmans' <a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2010/01/many-finned-and-cladistics.html">Many-Finned</a>, 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
So what does this mean for how 'Cadborosaurus' and the Hagelund specimen compare? Stay tuned...<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Previous entries:</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-1.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2a.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-3-dealing.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With Traits</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Tet Zoo Coverage: </b><br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/09/26/baby-sea-serpent-no-more/">A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References: </b><br />
<br />
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). <i>Cadborosaurus: Survivor from the Deep</i>. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-52888563426075771852011-09-20T12:27:00.002-04:002011-09-26T09:30:15.363-04:00A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 3: Dealing With TraitsWilliam 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 <i>et al. </i>(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 <i>et al. </i>(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.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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. </div>
<br />
Descriptions of colors can be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguishing_blue_from_green_in_language">culturally subjective</a>,
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju5PLeFdpBZg7jio7hMXDbf-bB7OhO3SnzRp0i-Ti2Lop3cFKc9b2M-UzOy9nPBDNL5OED1qbee0Pe90wTxHewTe8iXsz41mRWe6c15q26FCj_n25D-BvbNltUdFBL55WdL1S7h5HTczZ_/s1600/Hagelund+specimen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="88" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju5PLeFdpBZg7jio7hMXDbf-bB7OhO3SnzRp0i-Ti2Lop3cFKc9b2M-UzOy9nPBDNL5OED1qbee0Pe90wTxHewTe8iXsz41mRWe6c15q26FCj_n25D-BvbNltUdFBL55WdL1S7h5HTczZ_/s400/Hagelund+specimen.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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>i.e.</i>, 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.<br />
<br />
"Whiskers" was broadened to include barbels, and the location wasn't specified since the origin of the Hagelund specimen's "whiskers" aren't clear.<br />
<br />
Hagelund unfortunately did not illustrate lips, so anything that would be described as possessing lips was given credit (<i>i.e.</i> all but the reptilian candidates).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/11513216@N00/3335560534/">pipefish</a> and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/40295335@N00/4843250168/">sturgeon</a>, 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. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<b>Previous entries:</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-1.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2a.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2b.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotated</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<br />
<b>Tet Zoo Coverage: </b><br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/09/26/baby-sea-serpent-no-more/">A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Hagelund, W. A. (1987). <i>Whalers No More</i>. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.<br />
<br />
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). <i>Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep</i>. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.<br />
<br />
Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. <i>Journal of Scientific Exploration</i> 25(3), 495-512.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-43826391717910934742011-09-16T15:25:00.001-04:002011-09-26T09:29:27.561-04:00A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2b: Hagelund's Account - annotatedSee the <a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2a.html">previous article</a> for an uninterrupted version of Hagelund's account.<br />
<br />
<br />
The encounter took place at <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pirate%27s+Cove+Marine+Provincial+Park&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl">Pirate's Cove Marine Provincial Park, De Courcy Island</a>, British Columbia in August 1968. It runs from pages 177 to 180 in Hagelund (1987).<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<b>With my two sons and their grandfather aboard our centre cockpit sloop, </b></blockquote>
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.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>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 </b></blockquote>
My initial impression of Hagelund's illustration is that it's not particularly "eel-like":<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju5PLeFdpBZg7jio7hMXDbf-bB7OhO3SnzRp0i-Ti2Lop3cFKc9b2M-UzOy9nPBDNL5OED1qbee0Pe90wTxHewTe8iXsz41mRWe6c15q26FCj_n25D-BvbNltUdFBL55WdL1S7h5HTczZ_/s1600/Hagelund+specimen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="88" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju5PLeFdpBZg7jio7hMXDbf-bB7OhO3SnzRp0i-Ti2Lop3cFKc9b2M-UzOy9nPBDNL5OED1qbee0Pe90wTxHewTe8iXsz41mRWe6c15q26FCj_n25D-BvbNltUdFBL55WdL1S7h5HTczZ_/s400/Hagelund+specimen.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=296">American Eel (<i>Anguilla rostrata</i></a><a href="http://www.fishbase.org/summary/speciessummary.php?id=296">)</a> - 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 <i>A. rostrata</i> is relatively more elongated.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmZFHwoRUPaPskQOim80fY3SIgzzMTH4E6xHjqTzKuV3xsAcFWXVl75GYfwBKGkBBVGthOCiQAn1HA20OTM8bixaJR9K1AB5XJlGwkj8bCWSpNIVFg4hsbOXKkMtWClIbPDbHhsLr5jzXB/s1600/Anguillarostratakils+-+modified.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="71" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmZFHwoRUPaPskQOim80fY3SIgzzMTH4E6xHjqTzKuV3xsAcFWXVl75GYfwBKGkBBVGthOCiQAn1HA20OTM8bixaJR9K1AB5XJlGwkj8bCWSpNIVFg4hsbOXKkMtWClIbPDbHhsLr5jzXB/s400/Anguillarostratakils+-+modified.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Taken and modified from <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anguillarostratakils.jpg">Wikipedia Commons</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote>
<b>swimming along with its head held completely out of the water, </b></blockquote>
Apparently meaning for an extended period of time.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>the undulation of its long, slender body causing portions of its spine to break the surface. </b></blockquote>
This does not necessarily mean vertical undulation, particularly when...<br />
<blockquote>
<b>My first thought that it was a sea snake was quickly discarded </b></blockquote>
This makes lateral undulation seem very probable. The comparison with a sea snake is odd since the nearest species is <i><a href="http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/p.platurus.html">Pelamis platurus</a>, </i>which barely ranges into California. Sea snakes apparently can accomplish the described behavior:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/dzPyhIttmNQ?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/gA7YgFyJ28Q?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<b>when, on drawing closer, I noticed the dark limpid eyes, large in proportion to the </b></blockquote>
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".<br />
<blockquote>
<b>slender head, </b><b>which had given it a seal-like appearance when viewed from the front.</b></blockquote>
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.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>When it turned away, a long, slightly hooked snout could be discerned.</b></blockquote>
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.<br />
<blockquote>
<b> As the evening's darkness made observation difficult, </b><b>and the swiftness of the creature's progress warned that he could quickly disappear, </b></blockquote>
Unfortunately this description of "swiftness" is too vague to be useful.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>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. </b></blockquote>
This now seems to indicate that the creature wasn't constantly swimming with its head out of the water.<br />
<blockquote>
<b> 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. </b></blockquote>
Apparently the size was estimated and not measured.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>His lower jaw had a set of sharp tiny teeth </b></blockquote>
The illustration states that teeth are in both jaws.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>and his back was protected by plate-like scales, while his undersides were covered in a soft yellow fuzz. </b></blockquote>
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".<br />
<blockquote>
<b>A pair of small, flipper-like feet protruded from his shoulder area, </b></blockquote>
The illustration seems to show fin-rays.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>and a spade-shaped tail </b></blockquote>
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.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>proved to be two tiny flipper-like fins that overlapped each other.</b></blockquote>
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.<br />
<blockquote>
<b> 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.</b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>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. </b></blockquote>
How did he know that?<br />
<blockquote>
<b>Such exertion, I began to realize, could cause him to perish before morning. </b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>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. </b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
Does this mean the whiskers are mobile?</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b>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.</b></blockquote>
... and that's why the case is still being discussed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Previous entries:</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-1.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-2a.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Tet Zoo Coverage: </b><br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/09/26/baby-sea-serpent-no-more/">A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Hagelund, W. A. (1987). <i>Whalers No More</i>. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.<br />
<br />
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). <i>Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep</i>. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & SchubCameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-58852497638060427292011-09-16T00:00:00.000-04:002011-09-26T09:28:22.037-04:00A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 2a: Hagelund's Account<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Hagelund (1987), pages 177-180:</div>
<blockquote>
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.</blockquote>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju5PLeFdpBZg7jio7hMXDbf-bB7OhO3SnzRp0i-Ti2Lop3cFKc9b2M-UzOy9nPBDNL5OED1qbee0Pe90wTxHewTe8iXsz41mRWe6c15q26FCj_n25D-BvbNltUdFBL55WdL1S7h5HTczZ_/s1600/Hagelund+specimen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="88" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEju5PLeFdpBZg7jio7hMXDbf-bB7OhO3SnzRp0i-Ti2Lop3cFKc9b2M-UzOy9nPBDNL5OED1qbee0Pe90wTxHewTe8iXsz41mRWe6c15q26FCj_n25D-BvbNltUdFBL55WdL1S7h5HTczZ_/s400/Hagelund+specimen.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span">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 1</span>½<span class="Apple-style-span"> inches in diameter, yellow tail, ragged ends (pointing to tail).</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Hagelund noted that the encounter took place at Pirate's Cove; LeBlond and Bousfield (1995) clarified that the encounter occurred on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Courcy_Island">De Courcy Island</a> in August 1968.<br />
<br />
<br />
An annotated version of this account will appear soon. I felt it was important for Hagelund's account to be available uninterrupted and uncut.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Previous entry:</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/09/baby-cadborosaur-no-more-part-1.html">A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Tet Zoo Coverage: </b><br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/09/26/baby-sea-serpent-no-more/">A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Hagelund, W. A. (1987). <i>Whalers No More</i>. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.<br />
<br />
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). <i>Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep</i>. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-2028436573834514182011-09-15T00:00:00.005-04:002011-09-15T00:00:08.161-04:00A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It all began in the comments section of a Tet Zoo (v. 2.0) article, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/03/statistics_seals_sea_monsters.php">Statistics, seals and sea monsters in the technical literature</a>:</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih_EDJKlTJmhWXxEPjfbcK1Tx3kIXI_k_UhjGg_405DZp40NnUB-vi1omXUvXYrktRJOOhV_XEnSyfh4_8JpicLcOYVU_O0Hm2sOfzRvAMhl9uQYEZs-eUFV5QHK-WS_wIsSjVMM6jZrO2/s1600/CaddyPaperBegins.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih_EDJKlTJmhWXxEPjfbcK1Tx3kIXI_k_UhjGg_405DZp40NnUB-vi1omXUvXYrktRJOOhV_XEnSyfh4_8JpicLcOYVU_O0Hm2sOfzRvAMhl9uQYEZs-eUFV5QHK-WS_wIsSjVMM6jZrO2/s1600/CaddyPaperBegins.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
And what a cool illustration it was. Some time after this comment was posted, I received an e-mail from <a href="http://publicationslist.org/M.A.Woodley">Michael A. Woodley</a> and <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/">Darren Naish</a> 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:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNAsvZeTgNsD39orD9r5QdbsHqFtHTJNEHCMyKwlT66wq0q0G98vb8MqGf5-9UtF-ZwwLLQ7VfdlK1dcRC0Z0_gtdZfRTCUnups8u8rO7HKn9UG7qaNDYPi3rM8502wlxxBQSR-K_HPK4a/s1600/Woodley+et+al.+2011.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNAsvZeTgNsD39orD9r5QdbsHqFtHTJNEHCMyKwlT66wq0q0G98vb8MqGf5-9UtF-ZwwLLQ7VfdlK1dcRC0Z0_gtdZfRTCUnups8u8rO7HKn9UG7qaNDYPi3rM8502wlxxBQSR-K_HPK4a/s400/Woodley+et+al.+2011.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The main argument of Woodley <i>et al.</i> (2011) is that the Hagelund specimen, an enigmatic creature reportedly captured in <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=De+Courcy+Island&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl">Pirate's Cove Marine Provincial Park</a> in 1968, is most likely a <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=3303">Bay Pipefish (<i>Syngnathus leptorhynchus</i>)</a> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Hagelund, W. A. (1987). <i>Whalers No More</i>. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.<br />
<br />
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). <i>Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep</i>. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.<br />
<br />
Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. <i>Journal of Scientific Exploration</i> 25(3), 495-512.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-56529344953401289442011-07-16T12:00:00.000-04:002011-07-16T12:00:33.621-04:00Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000005a - The Bulldog-Turtle<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5veJz4l4ZPFhXETlFcji61iyS4mVcsIwsDhkBJPw9gWfLMzrdai6WSzu1ReuPdk9e4ozTPej8k6mZaYQF-8MuLGtuN7NjKICdo6fDrOkFlvHSnDqa0DbPwHx9qZWq7nQ0Crp8WcrL9H5E/s1600/P1015214a.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5veJz4l4ZPFhXETlFcji61iyS4mVcsIwsDhkBJPw9gWfLMzrdai6WSzu1ReuPdk9e4ozTPej8k6mZaYQF-8MuLGtuN7NjKICdo6fDrOkFlvHSnDqa0DbPwHx9qZWq7nQ0Crp8WcrL9H5E/s320/P1015214a.JPG" width="318" /></a></div><br />
No time for a proper write-up, so here's a mysterious teaser. Can anyone identify the mystery skull?Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6903316070344664352.post-81893828618541425322011-07-14T12:37:00.001-04:002011-07-14T12:41:25.771-04:00Picture of the Indiscriminate Interval #000004b - Megalocnus rodens<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDZYUfB0eArKUXETsBd-SrXUzibe8HLEMc-U9MmdLq6TC5EpfLXok7juKryc1PPgXQMAZf4ojcHkJm3hTf7ltH6s6xyrgDHFWLtcW8flQzWtgiDv1smr0nsopSI6NdEeaYOBG9xbcL7nE2/s1600/P1015103.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDZYUfB0eArKUXETsBd-SrXUzibe8HLEMc-U9MmdLq6TC5EpfLXok7juKryc1PPgXQMAZf4ojcHkJm3hTf7ltH6s6xyrgDHFWLtcW8flQzWtgiDv1smr0nsopSI6NdEeaYOBG9xbcL7nE2/s320/P1015103.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div><br />
</div><div>The unusual skull from the <a href="http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/07/picture-of-indiscriminate-interval.html">last article</a> does not belong to some huge rodent, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyptodon">glyptodont</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diprotodontidae">diprotodontid</a>, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacoleo" style="font-style: italic;">Thylacoleo</a> - it is from the extinct Cuban sloth <i>Megalocnus rodens</i>. This particular specimen was part of a panoply of sloths at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMNH">American Museum of Natural History</a>:</div><div><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxe2rFF9c0QxuDbMEtynY3LuX98ybkxdJPRBXeMps4YrUFGe9qSDFMYsV3eW1JPiJg28gxQKhdoAIu0ZFrdxxhTDAKIpEUjtlLjPARkPW06Bycr4BetbVvcrq2t8XOTCDynnYpgjsAgVCC/s1600/P1015103.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxe2rFF9c0QxuDbMEtynY3LuX98ybkxdJPRBXeMps4YrUFGe9qSDFMYsV3eW1JPiJg28gxQKhdoAIu0ZFrdxxhTDAKIpEUjtlLjPARkPW06Bycr4BetbVvcrq2t8XOTCDynnYpgjsAgVCC/s400/P1015103.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Megalocnus</i> is in the foreground, with <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalonyx">Megalonyx</a></i> facing towards it, <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scelidotherium">Scelidotherium</a></i> facing away, and <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lestodon">Lestodon</a> </i>rearing up in the background. </td></tr>
</tbody></table><i>Megalocnus</i> 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 <i>Choloepus</i> (Two-Toed Sloths) are living representatives, and grouped closely (albeit not strongly) with <i>Megalocnus</i> and other Antillean sloths in at least one phylogeny (Gaudin 2004). Yes, this means that <a href="http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/Choloepus_hoffmanni/">Two</a>- and <a href="http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/Bradypus_variegatus/">Three-Toed Sloths</a> are distant relatives, with the former being far more closely related to large-bodied 'ground sloths'. I'd recommend <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/01/ten_things_you_didnt_know_abou.php">this article from the old Tet Zoo</a> 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvrjkS75NqFgCd8iKBQ7RXtKSFrg-LoWqrFbLhth9DZp4Y9Ta_M-izlFA74MW6KM-ZrSQ4eNBP5EoXl8PWS7FnTHSS4dtAjLr8Q10UTpsG2zTbBuDerX1ibJsxJKU72_kDkCL-f_ihkK2V/s1600/P1015107.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvrjkS75NqFgCd8iKBQ7RXtKSFrg-LoWqrFbLhth9DZp4Y9Ta_M-izlFA74MW6KM-ZrSQ4eNBP5EoXl8PWS7FnTHSS4dtAjLr8Q10UTpsG2zTbBuDerX1ibJsxJKU72_kDkCL-f_ihkK2V/s400/P1015107.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span">Note the radically different skull of </span><i>Scelidotherium</i><span class="Apple-style-span"> - it is a mylodontid unlike the other two megalonychids. 'Ground Sloths' are far from a homogeneous group. </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
The most striking aspect of <i>Megalocnus rodens</i> 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 <i><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Megalonyx_wheatleyi.JPG">Megalonyx</a> </i>(de Paula Couto 1967). Compared with the other sloths on display, <i>M. rodens</i> displays an elongated neck, heavy body, short tail, and plantigrade hands and feet (de Paula Couto 1967). <i>M. rodens</i> may have been the second-smallest 'ground sloth' on display at the AMNH (<i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapalops">Hapalops</a></i> 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 <i>et al.</i> 2010). Not bad for a terrestrial Cuban mammal<br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Megalocnus rodens</i> is most notable for when it went extinct - the latest fossil dates from 4200 years before <i>present</i> (MacPhee <i>et al.</i> 2007). These sloths were still trundling about when the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid">Great Pyramid of Giza </a>was hundreds of years old. All mainland sloths, except of course <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-toed_sloth">Bradypus</a></i> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-toed_sloth" style="font-style: italic;">Choloepus</a>, were extinct by about 10,000 years ago; in contrast, the Antilles had 13 species of sloths in the late Quaternary (Steadman <i>et al.</i> 2005). Most remarkable of all, <i>M. rodens</i> appears to have co-existed with humans on Cuba for over a millennium (MacPhee <i>et al.</i> 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Gaudin, T. J. (2004). Phylogenetic relationships among sloths (Mammalia, Xenarthra, Tardigrada): the craniodental evidence. <i>Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society</i> 140, 255–305. <a href="https://www.utc.edu/Academic/BiologicalAndEnvironmentalSciences/Webpage-gaudin/Gaudin%202004.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
van der Geer, A., Lyras, G., de Vos, J., and Dermitzakis, M. (2010). <i>Evolution of Island Mammals: Adaptation and Extinction of Placental Mammals on Islands</i>. John Wiley and Sons. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=JmSsNuwMAxgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false">Partially Available</a>.<br />
<br />
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. <i>Caribbean Journal of Science</i> 43(1), 94-98. <a href="http://caribjsci.org/June07/43_94-98.pdf">Available</a>.<br />
<br />
de Paula Couto, C. (1967). Pleistocene edentates of the West Indies. <i>American Museum Novitates</i> 2304: 1–55.<br />
<br />
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. <i>PNAS</i> 102(33), 11763-11768. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/102/33/11763.full">Available</a>.Cameron McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08521083680718243221noreply@blogger.com0