Memories of Myspace past or the Cetacean Centipede Rides Again!

Dear Constant Readers,

During my short career of writing blogs on...ugh...Myspace, I'd say that there were only two remotely worth looking at. My last post got transformed into the first two actually posts (2nd one) on this blog. The other one I was thinking about putting in, but now I finally have an excuse. The tail end of my temnospondyl post began to touch on the subject of Cryptozoology, so I am using that as an excuse to talk about this mess.

And what a glorious mess of a subject Cryptozoology is! Just by mentioning the subject probably sends my credibility down the crapper, despite the fact I'm quite skeptical of it. For those of you who didn't know, Cryptozoology is the attempted scientific study of undescribed and possibly non-existent animals. Yes, this included bigfoot and the Loch Ness monsters, but also hundreds of more or (often) far far less credible "cryptids". Despite the social stigma, some brave people of scientific training will look into some "cryptids", but this seems quite uncommon. Cryptozoology is not a recognized branch of science, and anybody with a book on bigfoot can claim to be a "Cryptozoologist" studying Cryptozoology. The amount of quackery, both in books and on the Internet, relating to this subject is quite phenomenal. I have a lot of irks with Cryptozoology which can easily fill a future blog. I can probably also write one on skepticism vs. debunking/cynicism and varying degrees of doubt. But it is time to move towards the subject at hand.

In the field of Cryptozoology, one of the more impressive bodies of (anecdotal) evidence come from hundreds of "Sea Serpent" reports. Yes, I am aware of the popular image of a dragon-like creature, but the sightings are typically of much more mundane looking objects. And I have to say objects because it is quite probable that a good chunk of the sightings are due to wave phenomenon, atmospheric effects and mirages, hoaxes, low-flying birds, known large sea creatures, et cetera. At least for most cases, it all boils down to very rare and unusual but known phenomenon and/or conditions vs large and almost completely unknown sea creatures. While there are always a good deal of sightings than can be dismissed or excluded due to a reasonable doubt of them being a "cryptid", there are some which are quite difficult to explain. Probably the most often cited case of this was the sighting of a "Sea Serpent" by two naturalists aboard the ship Valhalla in 1905. Though few and far between, sightings like this are the reason I want to look into matters further. I don't want to prove genuine unknowns, I'm just curious as to how one could explain the otherwise unexplainable.

Despite a degrading environment and increased human presence in the oceans, they still aren't too terribly well known. It is actually not that unusual for decent sized air breathing creatures to still be discovered with some frequency. Mesoplodont beaked whales seem to be incredibly cryptid for some reason, and publications on them tend to mention the fact that more species will likely be discovered in the future. Perrin's Beaked Whale was discovered from a specimen in 1975, a few sightings in between, and four more specimens in 1997; it was finally described in 2002. The Spade Toothed Whale, first described in 1874, is so rare that even the external appearance is a mystery. These are extremes, but the group as a whole is quite poorly known. Could it be possible that if there are animals with remains but no sightings there could be animals with numerous sightings and no remains? Just because there is that slight chance for Sea Serpents, why not at least give them a look?

Unfortunately, the whole Sea Serpent story is far too large to even properly overview. For those of you with any interest in the subject, I would recommend Bernard Heuvelmans's In the Wake of the Sea Serpents, which should be in most decent-sized libraries. The book may be old, but it is entertaining and quite informative. Of course, it is also quite biased at times. Unbeknownst to the public, current "Cryptozoological thinking" on the subject of Sea Serpents proposes multiple unrelated species. Just what these are is still debated of course, but there is one "type" which is easily recognized. It is quite rare and could be viewed as a mystery within a mystery, and unknown among unknowns.

Enter the Cetacean Centipede

Quite surprisingly, the bizarre Cetacean Centipede appears to have some very early mentions. The first known mention was by the Roman writer Aelian in the second century, who referred to a creature called the "Great Sea Centipede". Several centuries later, French teacher Rondelet linked Aelian's descriptions with reports and apparent strandings, in a book on Ichthyology none the less! He is the one who coined Cetacean (i.e. whale) Centipede, which is my preferred label. Quite helpfully, the book provided an illustration of what the creature supposedly looked like. Of course this was still the era of drawing really stylized monsters, so this thing should be treated like a curiosity instead of evidence of any kind.

This is one incredibly strange looking drawing. It could very well be an "exquisite corpse" hybridizing a carp's head and body, the dorsal fins of a shark, the tail of a whale, and the lateral projections of a polychaete worm. Nothing resembling these drawings has ever been seen, but large sea creature with very peculiar lateral projections has been sighted.

The concept of the Cetacean Centipede went into dormancy again until the young Belgian Zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans connected 19th and 20th century sightings with the old legends. Of his nine types of Sea Serpent, the one called the "Many Finned" corresponded to the Cetacean Centipede. Heuvelmans was quite bold in linking the creatures to dragon-like myths and giant centipede myths from Vietnam, and even with the Leviathan of the Bible! Actually as we'll see later, Heuvelmans was quite liberal with the "Many Finned" label, and the number of sightings showings his diagnostic traits is quite limited. How do you call something a "Many Finned" when the sighting specifies it has no limbs? Despite the problematic opinions of Heuvelmans, the Cetacean Centipede was re-named the "Great Sea Centipede" in the Coleman/Huyghe analysis and left virtually unchanged. The unpublished Champagne analysis accepts far fewer sightings (but included carcasses and a photograph?!?!) of the "Type 7/Multiple Limbed" Sea Serpent, but the design of the creature is still almost identical. I actually did illustrate some of Champagne's Sea Serpents, so here is the "modern" Cetacean Centipede:



The appearance of this animal isn't as fanciful as Rondelet's drawing, but it's not too far off. Coleman/Huyghe and Champagne admit that the appearance of the animal is problematic. Heuvelmans cited speculation by one "Howell" that an elongated primitive whale (Archeocete) called Basilosaurus may have had lateral fins to provide surface area for locomotion. While this does have a certain logic to it (compare the finlets and elongated fins of some fish, but rotated 90 degrees), no fossil evidence indicates this and every reconstruction does not have these structures. Heuvelmans also thought Archeocetes (and maybe the Many Finned) were armored, but this is also a dated subject. Most researchers, except for the eccentricity-prone Shuker, agree that it seems to be mammalian. Heuvelmans and Coleman/Huyghe plump for the Archeocete, but Champagne (perhaps wisely) doesn't specify. In the unlikely probablility that this animal is real, it seems to be too extremely derived to tell exactly what it could be. Since nothing in the fossil record looks too much like it, it would also create a monstrous ghost lineage. I can't recall any considerable ghost lineages for an animal in the 30-60 foot long range, and fossil records of aquatic creatures normally seems to be pretty good. At least the mesoplodont whales still have creatures looking quite similar to them in the fossil record.

The next question to ask is, how exactly did the researchers create a "type" of Sea Serpent? Is this all due to pre-conceived notions, or are there genuine underlying patterns? There are 26+ sightings, and I'll try to give them the best overview I can. The classification is from Heuvelmans, MF=Many finned, MF?=possibly Many Finned, and MH=Many Humped.


August 28, 1852. South of South Africa. Barham. MF
This sighting is recorded by Heuvelmans only, I see no mention by Coleman/Huyghe or Champagne, and probably for good reason. The creature had a head and neck sticking 16-20 feet out of the water, a curiosity since Heuvelmans specified the Many Finned had a short neck. It was about 50-60 feet long, spouted, and had a dorsal crest, all minor Many Finned characteristics. However, they could easily come from his "Long Necked" or "Merhorse" varieties too. And where are the...many fins? The sighting itself was 100 yards away at the closest and was surrounded by hundreds of birds, and Heuvelmans himself says if the alleged sketch of the creature turned up it would "prevent much dubious argument". It is an unlikely hoax since there are a large number of independent eyewitness accounts, I'd suggest it is more likely to be a mistake. What could have been seen, I'm not certain, but this can hardly be considered evidence for a Sea Serpent, let alone a "Many Finned".


July 8, 1856. South Africa. Latitude 34 56' S. Longitude 18 14' E. Princess. MF
Miraculously, the next sighting is much harder to explain. It is one of the definitive sightings for the Cetacean Centipede.
It has all of the characteristics, spouting, a short neck, multiple fins, and a dorsal crest. The fin angles are quite peculiar and non-functional looking, but they could arise from the difficulty of drawing lateral fins on an animal..in theory. The fins are also allegedly continuous in the Cetacean Centipede, but there's hardly any "evidence" for that. Like many other reports, this one was also reportedly shot at, but the effect was not mentioned. So what could this thing be? The distance was not mentioned (presumed short range due to them being able to shoot it), but could it have been a very creatively viewed school of fish, or even birds (the "fins" look wing-like to me)? But what about the spouting? Even though it looks rather different, could it possibly be a hoax inspired by the Cetacean Centipede drawing of Rondelet? Like every sighting, this one is irresolvable but still fascinating...


May 13, 1872. Gulf of Mexico. St. Olaf. MF
Note as how this animal is clearly drawn with dorsal fins. The researchers claim the animal can show a row of fins by having to roll on its side to turn. It would have to be horribly twisted to account for the given sketch. Or, as some might plead, it could be a drawing combining two different periods of observation. The description describes four dorsal fins and continuous thickness, but maybe there wasn't enough room. The increased thickness around the dorsal fins makes me seriously consider if this was nothing more than dolphins following one another. Sure the head and alleged diameter (6 feet) are problematic, but it seems much more likely than a Cetacean Centipede.


June 2, 1877. Cape Vito, Sicily. Osbourne. MF?
I'm not sure why Heuvelmans considers this only a possible "Many Finned", this is the only sighting demonstrating what could be his "banking turns". Perhaps it may be due to the geographical distance from all the other sightings, in which case Heuvelmans is much less open minded than what he claimed to be. The sighting is quite interesting, the top view could possibly be explained by a poorly seen pinniped, and the second view could be a school of animals (fish? dolphins?). Could it possibly be sightings of two different phenomenon in quick succession and creating confusion? Front flappers are not typically seen either in Cetacean Centipede sightings. This sighting isn't as inexplicable as the Princess, but it still is one of the better cases for the researchers' arguments.


December 1878. Suez or Aden, Red Sea. Poonah. MFThe witness in this case was aware of the Osbourne sighting, so that automatically makes me suspicious. In all likelihood, this was probably a school of animals made into something it wasn't by an active imagination. The backwards pointing fins are a peculiarity shared with the Princess report and are admittedly a problem. Of course, lateral fins of that orientation are completely unknown as well. I have no reason why this sighting is considered definitive.


March 30, 1879. Geographe Bay, Western Australia. Reverend H. W. Brown, et cetera. MF
A blunt head was not illustrated but mentioned in this sighting. Heuvelmans explained away this sighting as being his "Many Finned" with folded over fins. Uh-huh. Blunt heads sticking out of the water followed by series of projections definitely are a theme in these sightings. I wonder if there is some motorboating behavior occasionally undertaken by schooling animals. I think a very rare behavior is more likely than an abnormally square tipped "Many Finned".


1883. Coast of Amman, Vietnam. Tran Van Con. ?
While Heuvelmans oddly categorizes this stranding (not sighting) as being too vague, this is the publicly best known occurrence of the Cetacean Centipede, called "Con Rit" or "millipede" here. The headless 60 foot animals was segmented; each one measured 3 feet long, 2 feet wide, had 2'4" appendages, was brown on top and yellow below, and rang like sheet metal when struck. Now what isn't reported on the internet is that this was a 38 year old memory of a then 18 year old man. Memories can change quite a bit over time, and perhaps it was heavily influenced, if not outright fabricated by the local legend of the "Con Rit". Dr. A. Krempf, who collected the tale, also collected "confirmation" of the tale by a 30 year old man (!) from tales he heard from his father. Krempf noted that fishermen gave a similar image of a brown and yellow segmented animal when questioned as to what a "Con Rit" was. I think this whole tale should be taken with a pinch of salt though, it still is mostly based on an old man's memory and vague tales.

It is also noteworthy that this tale is the main reason Karl Shuker and a few others classify all "Cetacean Centipede" reports as being arthropods. That classification is impossibly vague, and no arthropod even remotely approached it in size. It was a fairly casual identification, and an extremely outrageous one, far more improbable than the mammalian Cetacean Centipede.


After June 1, 1893. Along Bay, Vietnam. La Mutine. MF
A long black animal seen swimming with vertical undulations. Completely unconvincing as evidence.


Mid-July, 1897. Fai-tsi-long, Vietnam. Avalanche. MF
February 15, 1898. Fai-tsi-long, Vietnam. Avalanche. MF
February 24, 1898. Fai-tsi-long, Vietnam. Avalanche and Bayard. MF
A genuine curiosity, the ship the Avalanche claims to have seen a mysterious animal on three separate occasions! And even more curiously, multiple animals were encountered in the 1st and 2nd sightings, and one of the animals was allegedly chased in the 2nd and 3rd sightings. They breathed loudly, moved in vertical undulations, around 65 feet long and 6-10 feet wide, and had spiny dorsal crests. Only once were "several fins" mentioned, but this hardly proves the Many Finned. I would suggest that a short necked, spiny-backed, "sea serpent" category without lateral fins should have been proposed by Heuvelmans...but what can you do. The whole "people too excited to take cameras" cliche is repeated here, and the whole tale is so fantastic, I can't help but wonder if it has been hoaxed or embellished. Given the sighting frequency, I can't help but wonder if mass hysteria played a role.

July 11, 1898. Along, Vietnam. Vauban. MF
A snake-like animal 35-40 feet long undulating laterally, bearing scales and high-set eyes. 5-6 feet below the surface and thus highly susceptible to refraction and poor visibility. It's clear to me that Heuvelmans accepted this on location alone.


May 21, 1898. Cape Falcon, Algeria. H.M.S. Narcissus. Whales? MF?
Another interesting sighting that Heuvelmans for some reason doesn't place much belief in, but Coleman and Huyghe do. This animal was reportedly 150 feet long (!), and had an "immense number" of fins at the sides (lateral?) going down all the way to the tail. The witnesses seemed to imply that the fins were used in propulsion (no other sighting does) and small "spouts" came from various parts of the body. That last detailed made Heuvelmans wonder if it could have been a pod of cetaceans, despite the witnesses noting they saw porpoises after. This seems to be one of the few sightings with lateral fins noted from above, but the pod of cetaceans hypothesis seems more reasonable. Why didn't Heuvelmans accept this, but accept even more dubious reports?


July 13, 1902. Ram Head, Victoria, Australia. Chillagoe. MF
The eyewitnesses were aware of the Princess sighting, making me dubious already. It was a "typical" sighting of a 30-35 foot animal with four fins 4-5 feet tall and 6 feet apart and with a seal-like head. When the ship got 100 yards away, the "creature" allegedly raised its head and dove. I think an active imagination is the most likely explanation for this.


December, 1903. Tourane, Vietnam. Charles-Hardouin. MF
End December, 1903. Along, Vietnam. Gueydon. MF
February 12, 1904. Along, Vietnam. Chateau-Renault. MF
February 25, 1904. Along, Vietnam. La Decidee. MF
March 1904. Along, Vietnam. Gueydon. MF
More sightings by the French in Vietnam. They all had elongated dark animals undulating vertically. The "La Decidee" report is notable for specifically mentioning no fins were seen! The second Gueydon sighting was allegedly seen by over a hundred people. Heuvelmans undoubtedly summarized these reports, but they only very vaguely match up with his category.


June, 1908. Along, Vietnam. Hanoi. MFA very peculiar turtle-like creature with the visible portions measuring about 30 feet. Unlike other sightings, very defined ridges were present, as long as an implied long neck. A long tail was not drawn, but mentioned in the sighting. It was only 30 yards away, but the witnesses admitted the conditions were bad and hindered viewing the creature. Heuvelmans blames the conditions for the differences between this and his other vague sightings, but why didn't he put this in his "Father-of-all-turtles" category instead? Note the location. Who knows what this sighting could have been of, but it does look rather boat-like.


July, 1920. Miami, Florida. Craigsmere. MF
Another sighting of an animal with multiple (apparent) dorsal fins.


February 11, 1923. Somalia. Mapia. MF?
An animal 6 feet thick, cylindrical, 8 feet out of the water, half-gray and half-brown. Blowing was reported. Very vague and probably a cetacean.

January 21, 1926. Tulear, Madagascar. Dr. Georges Petit. MF?
Heuvelmans connected his "Many Finned" with the "Tompondrano" of Madagascar legend. Petit saw something at a distance disturbing the water (and creating a phosphorescent glow by disturbing small organisms) which the natives described as a "Tompondrano". It could have been any moderate to large sized sea creature.


March 1934. Nassau, Bahamas. Mauretania. MF
One of three "monsters" seen by the ship (the first was a "long necked, the second was a ray) automatically creating suspicion. Their creature was 60 feet long and had 4 humps, each with a dorsal fin. This seems to be due to the active imagination of the crew, and the hump/dorsal fin combination sounds awfully like dolphins to me.

August 25?, 1934. Bowen, Queensland, Australia. Hurst, et cetera. MF?
A 30 foot creature that lifted a turtle-like head 8 feet out of the water. It was described like a "huge armoured hose".

After August 25, 1934. Townsville, Queensland, Australia. 3 Fishing Parties. MF?
A creature that swam around, making an odd noise with a turtle like head and three humps. This and the other sighting resembled another one by Oscar Swanson (he collected the other two sightings), which Heuvelmans did not consider as a Many Finned. His sighting was quite fantastic, and I can't help but think that these may be fabrications to support another tale. They are also quite vague and inconclusive.

1935. Norfolk, Virginia. Electra. MF
A 40-50 foot animal with 6 fins on the back 2' high and 2'6" wide. Fired at and made no attempt to escape.

1960s. Hong Kong. Students.
Mentioned by Coleman and Huyghe, there are no other details.


Yes I did heavily rely on Heuvelmans for my information, but Coleman/Huyghe followed it closely as well. There simply isn't that much more information out there. Champagne appears to have a few more sightings (including carcasses and a photograph?!?!) but I haven't heard much about them and thus can't comment on them.

I know that this is yet another extremely long blog post, but the reason is, this information doesn't appear to be anywhere else on the internet! The only place where it does exist without being heavily summarized is in Heuvelmans's book and lots of old newspapers. It became quite clear to me that this information needed to be scrutinized more, as Heuvelmans's classification system absolutely explodes when it is looked at more closely. That is probably why Cryptozoologists don't show their "work" very often, the patterns that they insist are there often aren't when things are looked at closely.

When the garbage reports are thrown away, there still are some interesting similarities between sightings. Could they be based on each other as well as the Cetacean Centipede of Aelian and Rondelet? My personal opinion is that the Cetacean Centipede almost certainly doesn't exist, all of the sightings being products of the imagination and known phenomenon. If Champagne's statements about other carcasses and even a photo have basis in reality or are of good quality, I may have to sit down and reconsider things. But now, the answer is a rather certain "no".

Heuvelmans and Coleman/Huyghe included reports that don't seem to be from the Cetacean Centipede, but could be from some other elongated vertical undulating creature with a spiny dorsal crest. Now, and here's where my credibility goes down the toilet for sure, I'm not so willing to dismiss the idea of there being something unknown in the oceans. Remember the Valhalla and mesoplodont whales from waaay back at the beginning of this post? So while the Cetacean Centipede is an almost-certain myth that stretched from the 2nd century all the way into the 60's or later, perhaps all hope is not lost. Of course, it could very well be extinct by now. But perhaps one day I can write about Sea Serpents that aren't nearly this far-fetched.

This post took a while to write and re-write, but I have quite a few planned to get out before my break ends. Coming up next, the return of the temnospondyls!

-Cameron

The history of Supersnakes and historical Python sp. range.

One of the major catalysts for my previous post was discovering that a supersnake hypothesis of sorts had actually made it into an academic journal. Unlike reports of outsized boids in the 20-30 foot (6-9 m) range, supersnakes are far outside the recorded or projected maximums. It has been hypothesized that supersnakes are a new subspecies or species, possibly a Pleistocene relict or even a non-snake. Distinctive characteristics suggesting a new species outside of size are rare, and it should be noted that large snakes are prone to wild exaggeration. Murphy & Henderson mention that large snakes already have mechanical problems, so a theoretical supersnake would have to overcome pumping blood to extremities and blood pooling in the tail. Rectilinear locomotion will presumably become impractical at some size, so a supersnake may also have to be entirely aquatic. Unless one presumes that Gigantophis* has had unrecorded examples of very outsized specimens, there is nothing to indicate a snake or snake relative has gotten much larger than 10 meters. So for numerous reasons I find it extremely improbable that one of the largest living or recently living animals is an undiscovered species of extremely big snake.

*Not in the snake crown group, although it was a constrictor. Mosasaurs, which aren't are a sister group to snakes, were the largest squamates at 15 meters long.

Stothers 2004 did not discuss the mechanical or ecological implications of supersnakes, but instead suggests that a population of large pythons existed in Northern Africa and Southwestern Asia - where they do not live today. Another focal point of this paper is that historical evidence of giant snakes (aside from mythology and interpreted animal remains) has had a huge effect on serpent lore. Since this affects the history of the sea serpent and perhaps the giant anaconda reports, this should be of interest to cryptozoology. The author rhetorically asks if we are "dealing with zoology or cryptozoology", although to me it clearly falls into the latter category (as we shall see). Peer reviewed articles on cryptozoology, in journals I can find, are exceedingly rare, so I find the very existence of this article interesting. Oh yes, and it mentions the cetacean centipede.

Ancient literature on giant serpents is apparently quite sparse until the Bagrada river incident of 256 B.C. where Regulus and his troops met a monstrous serpent. After it ate several men, it was fired at with javelins and darts which had no effect. Eventually its spine was crushed with a rock fired from a ballista and it was overcome with spears. When it died, according to one author, its corpse polluted the landscape for a considerable time. The 120 foot skin was then brought to Rome, allegedly measured under the instruction of the Senate, and was viewed as "an object of wonder to all". The description of the "feet of the ribs" (which don't actually move) made it clear this was a boid using rectilinear locomotion, although aside from that observation I do not find most of this story trustworthy. The story was apparently used to foreshadow the defeat and capture of the general in the following year by some, making it something of a legend. The detail of it repelling darts (or arrows) and javelins also seems rather unrealistic. I agree with Stothers that we can probably discount that this was an outright fabrication or that the animal actually was numerous crocodiles, the anatomical details hint at a real snake being involved somewhere. The author suggested that the length in feet may have been confused for rib "feet" somewhere along the line. The world's largest snake skeleton (22 feet, 26 originally) appears to have far in excess of this number, so I find this possibility very unlikely. The final option, the one Stothers plumps for, is that snakes two millennia ago actually could reach 120 feet in length. He probably should have discussed exactly how big a "foot" back then was anyways, and that snake skins can be stretched to 140% the original length while carefully avoiding stretching (Murphy & Henderson 1997 p.25). After reading through the reports, I've become cynical enough to suggest at least a preserved skull (and preferably the rest of the skeleton) to demonstrate snake size.

Size is not the only issue involved, the presence of a large snake (Python sp. ?) near the Mediterranean is remarkable enough as it is. Supposedly Ptolemy II Philadelphus had a 45 foot "Ethiopian" snake, although he may have actually had 21 and 19.5 foot snakes. Stothers suggests that the lengths may have been combined (and further exaggerated), and if this actually was a trend it could have huge implications for the other stories. This and other stories from Africa and Arabia support the notion of large indigenous pythons.

India is known to have giant snakes (Python molurus), but Stothers discussed stories from this region regardless. During Alexander the Great's conquests in the sub-continent, a king supposedly possessed two snakes well over 100 feet, although since only the "head" was seen, Stothers thinks this may have been something of a joke. Alexander himself supposedly displayed a 75 foot long snake, but Stothers suggests that this and other large reports may have been something of a "circus-show hyperbole". In one incident a report of the maximum size of Indian snakes was exaggerated from 24 feet to...500 feet! This might even be worse that giant squid claims. While there's nothing to suggest a range or size extension, these stories of "ox-swallowing and elephant-toppling" snakes undoubtedly had an effect on the image of giant "serpents".

Apparently this fifth century B.C. Greek gem was meant to show a connection between snake observations and serpent legend - I don't see how.The crest and structures behind the "neck" suggest and oarfish to some degree (and its pelvic fins). I assumed the archetype for a maned serpent originated much later and further up north...

As the above picture indicates, Stothers moves from "terrestrial" serpents to sea serpents. He says that ancient reports of sea monsters rarely resembled modern ones (the above one excluded apparently) and had a variety of causes. "Large snakes" or the impression of them, can theoretically be caused by some sort of weather phenomenon, large fish and whales. While not relevant to our theoretical population, this still effects the image of supersnakes. I must comment upon Stothers insistence that fish continue to grow until they die - even if a fish continued to add weight at a steady rate (which I really doubt) the cube law would make the fish grow less and less per amount of weight added. His reference to "some prehistoric sharks" reaching 100 feet in length (!) is either an incredibly outdated reference to C. megalodon or related to Richard Ellis' suggestion that Parahelicoprion grew that large (A notion I have never heard discussed or mentioned elsewhere). Despite the subject, Zoology isn't really too focused upon in this paper. The author's affiliation with NASA and very little information online about him puzzles me even further...

Oh yes, the Scolopendra aka cetacean centipede aka many-finned makes an appearance. Two rarely mentioned references are mentioned: the rib of a thousand-footed specimen from Italy was mentioned by Theodoridas and another mutilated 48-foot specimen mentioned by Antipater. Stothers mentions speculations that it (Aelian's original mention) may have been a 120 foot whale with suckfish attached to a belly or ripples appearing as if many fins are at work. The giant squid was mentioned as a (dubious) candidate, demonstrating its inevitability while discussing sea monsters. Despite the author's claim, one group of extinct fish did have numerous fins, although it is undoubtedly a coincidence. Exactly why this bizarre creature was mentioned is not very clear. It is later suggested to be "possibly related" to African serpents, despite not really being described as serpentine. The only possible connection I could think of is that the numerous ribs of snakes could be confused for actual appendages in a rotting carcass. The insistence that it doesn't fit in with any of Heuvelmans' categories is strange (since it was partially defined with the original sighting).

Looking over everything, I'd say this paper definitely falls under the category of cryptozoology. The discussion of snakes and snake-like creatures and their place in the development of snake lore is interesting, but I think it could have been covered in a separate paper. Tales of giant Indian snakes and cetacean centipedes and their implications lead away from what is truly interesting, a unique Python sp. population. The snakes could be relatives or members of the Indian P. molurus or sub-Saharan P. sebae (hence sp.), and it is not clear if their ranges were larger or they were actually brought over by humans. It is possible that a unique species was involved as well, and I'm surprised Gigantophis wasn't brought up (since it lived in Egypt - in the Eocene). Heuvelmans made mention of giant snakes from North Africa, which wasn't brought up either, but it appears there is more evidence to support the existence of this population. So here we go, a potential new species that allegedly reaches large sizes, a supersnake of sorts I suppose. Stothers suggests that ancient pythons may have reached larger sizes and that while there is not proof of snakes over 45 feet long, "it is hard to deny categorically that they actually existed." It is hard to deny, but also impossible to prove. As demonstrated numerous times, the size of large snakes is prone to exaggerations or outright lies. If even estimates from a few years ago can be dubious, I sincerely doubt the accuracy of reports several thousands of years old. It is possible for species in the past to have had more common large specimens, although there is no physical evidence for snakes far exceeding the maximum known sizes today. Historical evidence can have its uses in Zoology, but I think that describing new, possibly very large species is beyond what it is capable of. It does give us a clue where to look for large python bones, and all somebody has to do is dig up a few bones.


And yet again, another conclusion that we need more information to really make a conclusion.



References:

Stothers, Richard B. 2004. Ancient Scientific Basis of the "Great Serpent" from Historical Evidence. Isis. 95: 220-238. Available: Here

Murphy, John C. & Henderson, Robert W. Tales of Giant Snakes. Krieger Publishing Company; Malabar, Florida; 1997.

Return of the Many-Finned!

One of the earliest posts on this blog discussed a bizarre marine cryptid known as the Many-Finned; after more than three years I believe it deserves a revisitation. Research on this admittedly arcane topic hasn't exactly progressed by leaps and bounds in the interim, but I believe Paxton (2009) shifted the paradigm for what can be possible in cryptozoological research. Paxton (2009) is a must read for anybody seriously interested in cryptozoology as it suggests that anecdotal evidence can be a source of data if the conclusions drawn are limited, e.g. the unexpected proximity of "Sea Serpent" sightings (most under 200 m) suggests that misidentification due to distance is not a major factor behind sightings. At the very least, read the abstract from that paper!

Inspired by that paper, I decided to go through Heuvelmans (1968) and subject his "Many-Finned" category of marine cryptid to as much statistical scrutiny as I can muster. Rather than discuss the theories behind the monster, I'll let the reports do the talking for themselves. As I can't expect everyone to pull out a Home Edition of "In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents", that meant I had to do a lot of typing...

circa 2nd century A.D. Aelian aka Claudius Aelianus. 

On the Nature of Animals, Book 13, Chapter 23

Original Greek, Latin Translation

Cameron: This alleged encounter will not be included in any data matrices, but is included here as it has inspired some "Many-Finned" theories, and possibly even sightings. I'm very suspicious of any anecdote more than a couple centuries old and passages from Aelian's book back up these thoughts.

Guillaume Rondelet

circa 16th century A.D.

L'Histoire entire des poissons (translated in Heuvelmans 1968):

There are two species of marine centipede... one is small, of the number of those which have several sections in the body, which we shall speak of in its place. The other is a cetacean, which is called centipede because of the multitude of feet, as the land centipedes have many feet. The feet of this centipede are as oars with which it propels itself. I have a portrait of one from those who have assured me they have seen such in the Indies, which portrait is not different from the description of Aelian, who says that the centipede is a very big cetacean fish, which one cannot look at dead on the beach but with great fear. Mariners say that he rises sometimes upon the sea, and that one can see the hairs of his very big nostrils, a tail like the tail of a lobster, the rest of the body may be compared to a galley with three oars on each bench, the feet here and there like oars for swimming.

Cameron: Presumably the small marine "centipede" is a polychaete? Like Aelian's description, this report cannot be taken seriously and should only be treated as a curiosity. Please note that this era is infamous for depicting even well known animals quite fancifully (e.g. dolphins)! 




August 28, 1852. South of South Africa. Barham. MF
Heuvelmans (1968) citing letter from Captain Steele to the Zoologist:

On the 28th August, in long. 40° E., lat. 37° 16' S., about half-past two, we had all gone down below to get ready for dinner, when the first mate called us on deck to see a most extraordinary sight. About five hundred yards from the ship there was the head and neck of an enormous snake; we saw about sixteen or twenty feet out of the water, and he spouted a long way from his head; down his back he had a crest like a cock's comb, and was going very slowly through the water, but left a wake of about fifty or sixty feet, as if dragging a long body after him. The captain put the ship off her course to run down to him, but as we approached him, he went down. His colour was green, with light spots. He was seen by every one on board.

Anonymous officer to The Times:

You will be surprised to hear that we have actually seen the great sea-serpent, about which there has been so much discussion... His head appeared to be about sixteen feet above the water, and he kept moving it up and down, sometimes showing his enormous neck, which was surmounted with a huge crest in the shape of a saw. It was surrounded by hundreds of birds, and we at first thought it was a dead whale. He left a track in the water like the wake of a boat, and from what we could see of the head and part of his body, we were led to think he must be about sixty feet in length, but he might be more. The captain kept the vessel away to get nearer to him, and when we were within a hundred yards he slowly sank into the depths of the sea. While we were at dinner he was seen again, and a midshipman took a sketch of him, of which I will send you a copy.

Cameron: Heuvelmans could not recover the sketch. This is the only "Many-Finned" report featuring a long neck and one of the many not featuring multiple fin-like structures! The sea birds, coloration, crest, and limited movement could be consistent with a cetacean corpse, although the long "neck" and relative proximity are problematic.




July 8, 1856. South Africa. Latitude 34 56' S. Longitude 18 14' E. Princess. MF
Heuvelmans (1968) citing letter from Edmund J. Wheeler and Co. to the Illustrated London News:

We hand you the following extract from the log-book of our ship Princess, Captain A. R. N. Tremearne, in London Docks 15th inst. from China, viz:-

'Tuesday, July 8, 1856. Latitude accurate 34° 56' S.; Longitude accurate 18° 14' E. At one p.m. saw a very large fish, with a head like a walrus, and twelve fins, similar to those in a black fish, but turned the contrary way. The back was from 20 to 30 feet long; also a great length of tail. It is not improbable that this monster has been taken for the great sea-serpent. Fired and hit it near the head with a rifle-ball. At eight, fresh wind and fine.'

Illustration by Alika Watteau after Captain Tremearne in Heuvelmans (1968).

Cameron: Although Paxton (2009) notes a correlation between likely hoaxes and a lack of reported distance, the log books of ships are legal documents unlikely to be hoaxed. It's difficult what to make of this report. While the description is lackluster, the sketch adds the traits of visible breath, small eyes, a short neck, contrasting coloration, a dorsal crest, and shows that the twelve fins occur in two laterally placed rows pointing upwards awkwardly. It is possible that the drawing is a composite of different positions, and that Rondelet's illustration may have had some influence, albeit likely subconsciously. 

May 13, 1872. Gulf of Mexico. St. Olaf. MF
Heuvelmans citing report from Captain A. Hassel to the Graphic:

Two days before arrival at Galveston, at about 4:30 P.M. on May 12, weather calm, smooth sea, lat. 26° 52', long. 91° 20', I saw a shoal of sharks passing the ship. Five or six came under the vessel's stern, but before we could get out a line they went off with the rest. About two minutes after, one of the men sang out that he saw something on the weather bow, like a cask on its end. Presently another one called out that he saw something rising out of the water like a tall man. On a nearer approach we saw it was an immense serpent, with its head out of the water, about 200 ft. from the vessel. He lay still on the surface of the water, lifting his head up, and moving the body in a serpentine manner. Could not see all of it; but what we could see, from the after part of the head, was about 70 ft. long and of the same thickness all the way, excepting about the head and neck, which were were smaller, and the former flat, like the head of a serpent. It had four fins on its back, and the body of a yellow greenish colour, with brown spots all over the upper part and underneath white. The whole crew were looking at it for fully ten minutes before it moved away. It was about six feet in diameter. One of the mates has drawn a slight sketch of the serpent, which will give some notion of its appearance. 

Cameron: The only known instance of a flat head reported for a "Many-Finned". The illustrations arguably add the trait of multiple humps to this sighting, which are suggestive of a row of small cetaceans. The time and distance are problematic for the mundane explanation, although not enough to wholly discount it.




June 2, 1877. Cape Vito, Sicily. Osbourne. MF?
Heuvelmans (1968) citing Hayes:

On the evening of that day, the sea being perfectly smooth, my attention was first called by seeing a ridge of fins above the surface of the water, extending about thirty feet, and varying from five to six feet in height. On inspecting it by means of a telescope, at about one and a-half cables' distance, I distinctly saw a head, two flappers, and about thirty feet of an animal's shoulder. The head, as nearly as I could judge, was about six feet thick, the neck narrower, about four to five feet, the shoulder about fifteen feet across, and the flappers each about fifteen feet in length. The movements of the flappers were those of a turtle, and the animal resembled a huge seal, the resemblance being strongest about the back of the head. I could not see the length of the head, but from its crown or top to just below the shoulder (where it became immersed), I should reckon about fifty feet. The tail end I did not see, being under water, unless the ridge of fins to which my attention was first attracted, and which had disappeared by the time I got a telescope, were really the continuation of the shoulder to the end of the object's body.

 The animal's head was not always above water, but was thrown upwards, remaining above for a few seconds at a time, and then disappearing. There was an entire absence of 'blowing' or 'spouting.' I herewith beg to enclose a sketch (A) showing the view of the 'ridge of fins,' and (B) of the animal in the act of propelling itself by its two fins

The Times:

The Osbourne was steaming westward at 10 1/2 knots an hour, and, having a long passage before her, could not stay to make minute observation

The fins were progressing in an eastwardly direction, and as the vessel more nearly approached them, they were replaced by the foremost past of a gigantic sea monster. Its skin was, so far as could be seen, altogether devoid of scales appearing, rather to resemble in sleekness that of a seal. The head was bullet-shaped, with an elongated termination, being somewhat similar in form to that of a seal, and was about six feet in diameter. Its features were only seen by one officer, who described them as like those of an alligator.

Cameron: The distance is greater than usual (278 m) and judging by the illustrations, visibility was rather poor even with a telescope. The relation of the ridge of fins to the turtle-like object is perplexing, are they necessarily even the same object? It could be possible for the turtle-like object to have actually been a very exaggerated large sea turtle, although there don't seem to be any associated phenomenon that would produce a ridge of fin-like structures.




December 1878. Suez or Aden, Red Sea. Poonah. MF
Heuvelmans (1968) citing letter from Robert P. Greg to Oudemans, regarding sighting by one Mrs. Turner:

She says it almost exactly resembled the marine animal seen by the officers of the Osbourne... only it had no flippers (being motionless); and she saw both the head and 7 or 8 fins of the back, all at the same time being in a line. She cannot remember exactly how many dorsal fins there were, but they were large, slightly curved back and not all the same size. She did not notice any eyes or mouth, seeing for such short a time, and being so surprised at its size and a glimp. The head looked 4-6 feet diameter, like a large tree trunk say at 150 feet. The head was very glumsy and thick, and very like the butt end of a cannon, as shown in Lieut. Haynes drawing... and without the flippers, which at once very strongly reminded her of the animal she saw. The colour was nearly black like a whale. The whole length appeared considerable, perhaps as long as an ordinary tree, or moderate sized ship! The fins were very large.

Cameron: The factors of not being mentioned in a ship log, not mentioning a distance, and having knowledge of a prior sighting speaks strongly against the credibility of this encounter. It is curious that the description states that the fins are curved back when the illustration has them curved frontwards like the "Princess" sighting. The estimated size makes it highly unlikely that the illustration is to scale, making it possible that this is in fact the product of unusual cetacean behavior. The limited duration of the sighting also supports the mundane contention.




March 30, 1879. Geographe Bay, Western Australia. Reverend H. W. Brown, et cetera. MF
Heuvelmans (1968:

...Rev. H. W. Brown... was riding home from Lockville along the beach when he met two friends, C. McGuire and his wife, walking in the opposite direction. soon afterwards he saw 'what looked like a log of wood in the water a stone's throw from the shore'. It seemed to be moving towards Lockville, leaving a wake behind it. He turned his horse and followed it until he had caught up with McGuire and could attract his attention

Heuvelmans citing Brown:

 Just as I met him the fish again came to the surface, showing gradually more and more of his length, till, when he was almost at rest, and all was apparently in view, I estimate the length to be 60 feet, strait and taper, like a long spar, with the butt end, his head and shoulders, showing well above the surface.

I can only describe the head as like the end of a log, bluff, about two feet in diameter; on the back we noticed, showing very distinctly above water, several square-topped fins... I saw no lateral fins and no fish-tail.

Cameron: The worst illustration in all of Sea Serpent-dom combined with one of the most vague units of measure possible! It could be a wave phenomenon of some sort considering how few animals have square-topped dorsal fins.




1883. Coast of Amman, Vietnam. Tran Van Con. ?
Heuvelmans (1968) citing letter from Dr. A. Krempf to Professor Abel Gruvel:

Here is some information which although it smacks of the marvellous [sic], cannot fail to interest you. I have received it at sea from the coxswain of a Customs launch, a 56-year-old native called Tran Van Con.

38 years ago (that is to say in 1883, 14 years before Lieutenant Lagresille's account), this Annamite saw and touched the so-called sea-serpent. Here is his account, faithfully translated: the animal was washed up and dead: it was a carcase in a very advanced state of putrefaction. The head had gone. The body alone was 60 feet long by 3 feet wide.

The animal was formed of successive segments all alive one another. Each segment was 2 feet long and 3 feet wide and had a pair of appendages 2 feet 4 inches long.

The teguments were of a remarkable consistency and rang like sheet-metal when hit with a stick. The colour of this tegumentary envelope was dark brown on the dorsal surface and light yellow on the ventral surface.

The stench that arose from this prodigious animal was such that even the Annamites would not go near it, and it was decided to tow the remains out to sea and sink them.

The name given to this animal by my informant is con rit, or 'millipede'. It is thus, according to its name and from all the description that I have given you, an Arthropod... unless it is all a dream, and certainly it is very detailed, and as another theory about the sea-serpent can do no harm, I have thought fit to send you this information, but ask you to await further details before doing anything about it.

 This event occurred at Hongay in Along Bay 38 years ago, and I have confirmation of it from a 30-year-old Chinese who had heard the tale from his father.

Cameron: By far the least reputable "Many-Finned" sighting. It should be thrown out because not only are people highly prone to bizarre interpretations of corpse morphology, something like a memory is going to change a great deal after 38 years - but there is an interest in this case from some cryptozoologists anyways. Instead of a giant arthropod (with uncharacteristically unarticulated appendages!) or a mega-polychaete, it could have been a cetacean spinal column with only transverse processes (or maybe even ribs) remaining which morphed into a centipede-like creature when combined with local folklore.




After June 1, 1893. Along Bay, Vietnam. La Mutine. MF
Heuvelmans (1968):

...a big long black animal in Along Bay 'swimming with vertical movements'.

Cameron: Not exactly very useful information!




Mid-July, 1897. Fai-tsi-long, Vietnam. Avalanche. MF
Heuvelmans (1968) citing Lieutenant Lagresille:

In the month of July last [1897] the Avalanche saw for the first time, off Along Bay, two animals of weird shape and large dimensions; their length was reckoned at about 65 feet and their diameter at 6 to 10 feet. The feature of these animals was that their body was not rigid like that of the known cetaceans, but made undulatory movements similar to a snake's, but in a vertical direction. A revolving gun was loaded and fired at 600 yards, at slightly too short range. They immediately dived, breathing loudly and leaving a wash on the surface like breakers. They did not reappear, but we thought we saw their heads, which we judged to be of small dimensions.

Cameron: Considering the distance of this sighting and the vagueness, it is probably not distinguishable from some sort of standing wave phenomenon.




February 15, 1898. Fai-tsi-long, Vietnam. Avalanche. MF
Heuvelmans (1968), continuing Lt. Lagresille:

On 15 February of this year [1895], when crossing the Bay of Fai-tsi-long, I saw similar animals again. I at once gave chase and had the revolving guns loaded. Several shots were fired at one of them, at ranges of between 300 and 400 yards, and at least two shots reached them without seeming to do them the least harm, the shells bursting on the surface. I also tried to reach them with the bow of the ship, but their speed was greater than that of the Avalanche. Each time, however, that this animal came into shallow water it turned back, which enabled me to gain upon it and confirm its great size. It frequently emerged, and always one noticed its undulatory movements. Each emergence was preceded by a jet of water, or rather water vapour made by a loud breath, unlike the ordinary Blowers which inhale water and blow it out to a certain height [sic].

The colour of the animal was grey with several black fins. Its trail was easily followed by the release of its breath which formed circles of 4 to 5 yards in diameter of the surface of the sea, which was then perfectly calm. At one moment I thought I had reached it. The chase went on without success for an hour and a half and had to be abandoned as night was falling.

Cameron: It seems unlikely that somebody would chase a wave for an hour and a half without success. It is frustrating that the plane of undulation is not mentioned and it is especially frustrating that the fins are mentioned so vaguely. While the English word "several" implies more than two, this may not be the case with the word it was likely translated from (plusieurs - somebody please correct this if necessary!), so there is a chance it could have been pectoral and/or pelvic fins rather than numerous dorsal or lateral fins. As such, I'm forced to leave this trait unclassified.




February 24, 1898. Fai-tsi-long, Vietnam. Avalanche and Bayard. MF
Heuvelmans (1968) citing Lt. Lagresille again:

We gave chase to one of them for thirty-five minutes [reported Lagresille], and at one particular moment we saw it clearly about 200 yards on the beam, floating horizontally. It had three undulations without a break, which ended with the appearance of its head, which much resembled a seal's, but almost double the size. We could not see whether it had a neck, joining it to the body, of relative much greater dimensions: this was the only time we saw the undulations appear without a break. Until then we might have thought that what we took for them were humps appearing in succession; but from the testimony of all the witness doubt it no longer permissible, for, before they appeared, we saw the animal emerging by the same amount all along its length. Two of the officers present possessed a camera: they ought to have been able to use it then, but they were so surprised by what they saw, that when they thought of aiming their cameras the animal dived, only to appear much further away in much less clear conditions unfavourable to taking a photograph.

 To sum up, the animals seen by the Avalanche are not known. Their length is about 65 feet (minimum), their colour grey and black, their head resembles that of a seal, and their body is subject to undulations that are sometimes very marked: finally their back is covered with a sort of saw-teeth which, removes any resemblance to known cetaceans; like the latter they reveal their presence by blowing noisily, but they do not spout a jet of inhaled water like the whales; it is, rather, their violent respirations which cause a sort of vaporization of water which is ejected in drops and not in a jet. Undoubtedly these animals, known and feared by the Annamites, must have provided the idea of the Dragon, which modified and amplified by legend, has been, if I may so term it, heraldized into the national emblem.

Cameron:  The "camera will not function" trope is severely worn out in these stories - were they really unreliable to the degree of having a 0% success rate in capturing unexpected animals? It is also frustrate that none of the French encounters in Vietnam have any sketches, although it could be possible that they exist in some archived document. It is difficult to find a potential mundane explanation for this encounter.




July 11, 1898. Along, Vietnam. Vauban. MF
Heuvelmans (1968) citing merchant captain Jean-Baptiste A..:

I was looking at the sea at the bottom of the ladder, when my attention was attracted by a strange beast which passed at about ten feet from the bottom of the gang-ladder making undulations like those of a snake in the fore-and-aft direction of the boat.

The animal measured about 35 to 40 feet long and seemed to be about 16 to 20 inches in diameter at the middle of its body. It bore scales the size of a turtle's; the neck was much thinner than the body, and the proportion of the head to the body was as in a snake; the tail ended in a point. The eyes appeared to be a little higher in the head than in an ordinary snake; two very conspicuous holes were to be seen a little way back on the nose. The colour of the animal seemed to be greenish grey, but no doubt this was due to the colour of the sea and the reflection of the sky. It was about 5 to 6 feet below the surface.

Cameron: Despite the rather svelte proportions, the large scales, size, high-set eyes, and pointed end of the tail suggest a crocodilian. Saltwater crocodile distribution maps show that they do not range as far north as Ha Long Bay, but that is no reason to discount this as a possibility.




May 21, 1898. Cape Falcon, Algeria. H.M.S. Narcissus. Whales? MF?


The most important Many Finned sighting. If you are skipping the others, read this one!


Heuvelmans (1968) citing Lieutenant Boothby:

Observed a sea monster on the port bow, certainly over 150 feet in length; apparently propelled by large fins, and lying very low in the water.

Heuvelmans:

Plenty of sailors were on deck while the monster swam for half an hour on the same course as the ship. When a journalist asked one of them, a signalman, if he was sure it was not a school of porpoises, he replied:

Sailor:

We saw some porpoises just after and their motion was not the same. You could see the porpoises jump or tumble over, but this creature lay steadily on the surface, gently gliding through the water... The monster seemed to be propelled by an immense number of fins. You could see the fins propelling it along at about the same rate the ship was going. The fins were on both sides, and appeared to be turning over and over. There were fins right down to the tail.

 Heuvelmans:

 The signalman also said that the head could not be seen because of the waves it was making, and added:

 Sailor:

Another curious thing was that it spouted up water [sic] like a whale, only the spouts were very small and came from various parts of the body. [Empasis mine]

Cameron: Not only is this one of the few "Many Finned" reports which clearly states that the fins are oriented laterally, but is the only one to state that they are used to propel the animal. Despite the eyewitnesses having seen "porpoises" earlier, Heuvelmans, the man who believes in a Cetacean Centipede, considers the possibility that the animal in question may have been "a strangely close-knit collection of several cetaceans". Why Heuvelmans does not consider this a possibility for any other sighting with multiple fins is a real mystery.




July 13, 1902. Ram Head, Victoria, Australia. Chillagoe. MF
From Heuvelmans (1968):

...It was reckoned to be 30 to 35 feet long and had four fins 4 to 5 feet high and about 6 feet apart. Its head was like a seal's but bigger, being about 2 feet across. When the ship came within a hundred yards of the monster it raised its head, stared at the ship, and disappeared. The  captain added that, 'All agree that it resembled the serpent seen by those on board the Princess, illustrated in the Strand Magazine, the only visible difference being the fins, which seemed more angular than those in the magazine.

Cameron: Due to the familiarity with a previous sighting, with report should be viewed with suspicion. Despite the proximity, the details are sparse to the degree that it cannot be distinguished from a pod of cetaceans.




December, 1903. Tourane, Vietnam. Charles-Hardouin. MF
Heuvelmans (1968) citing anonymous mate:

15 to 20 yards from the ship a double mass appeared, the length of each part must have been about 25 feet and the distance between them about 18. The bulk of each of these coils could be compared to that of a big half-hogshead barrel: a spiky crest gave the coils quite a singular appearance.

 It all undulated like a snake in motion, and its speed was markedly greater than that of the ship, which was then doing 9 knots so far as I recall. The colour was 'dirty black'. A few seconds later the animal dived horizontally, churning the water violently.

Cameron: The horizontal dive would seem to suggest that lateral fins are not present.




End December, 1903. Along, Vietnam. Gueydon. MF
Heuvelmans (1968) mentions no details.




February 12, 1904. Along, Vietnam. Chateau-Renault. MF
Heuvelmans (1968):

[Lieutenant] Peron was making soundings that morning from a steam-launch in the west of Crapaud (Toad) Roads, with an old native fisherman pointing out the submerged rocks for him, when he was surprised to hear the sailor in the bow cry out: 'A rock dead ahead!'

Heuvelmans (1968) citing witness:

I stood up and stopped the engines, then I saw, not very far ahead, a grey mass shaped like a turtle's back, which we reckoned to be more than 12 feet across; almost at once it disappeared. I supposed it was a sperm-whale. The launch still having way on her, we came near where it had surfaced, and I saw that there was a big patch of oil on the water.

I still remained stopped, and am glad I did; soon afterwards we heard the water churning to the west, and we saw, almost touching the nearby shore a little south of Chandelier [Candlestick] Rock, two huge coils which I supposed must belong to a monstrous eel at least 3 feet in diameter. I saw to my great surprise that the skin of this beast and the rocks on the shore were the same colour; dark grey with patches of dirty yellow. From the distance that I was the skin seemed smooth and even. It appeared briefly, the two coils disappeared with a repetition of the noise we had already heard.

 Once again we looked all around us; there was not a breath of wind, the surface of the water was very smooth; in the end we saw ripples rather far away in the direction of the Crapaud. We could not see clearly, for we were too low down. All the same I got the impression that the animal was just awash and moving by vertical undulations.

Cameron: The turtle-like object turning into a multi-humped one certainly is an interesting repeated occurrence in these reports as it is not a very mundane phenomenon. Note how small the diameter is in this report compared to many others, except Vauban.



February 25, 1904. Along, Vietnam. La Decidee. MF
Heuvelmans (1968) citing a letter from Lieutenant L'Eost to Rear-Admiral de Jonquieres:

Sir, On the afternoon of 25 February last, when steaming out of Along Bay, La Decidee met, off the 'Noix' ['Nut'] Rock, a strange animal apparently of the same species as that seen in the same locality in 1897 and 1898 by Lieutenant Lagresille on board the Avalanche, which observations were published in the Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France (1902), which I had no knowledge of until after I made my own

I first saw the back of the animal at about 300 yards, on the port bow, in the shape of a rounded blackish mass, which I took first for a rock and then, seeing it move, for a huge turtle 12 to 16 feet in diameter.

Shortly afterwards I saw this mass lengthen, and there emerged in succession, in a series of vertical undulations, all the parts of the body of an animal having the appearance of a flattened snake, which I reckoned to be about a hundred feet long and the greatest diameter 12 to 16 feet.

 The animal having dived, I did not observe it again, my attention being distracted by handling the ship.

The observations which follow were gathered from various members of the staff and crew.

The animal appeared a second time about 150 yards away and dived beneath the ship just aft of the gangway. Its back, on this second appearance, was all that was visible at first. It was semi-circular in section, not at all like that of the cetaceans (Dr Lowitz). Its skin was black, showing patches of mottled yellow (Able Seaman Sourimant); according to Seaman Leguen, it was dark yellow and quite smooth. 

The back then disappeared, leaving big ripples, and the head alone appeared near the gangway. Here are the observations of Leading Engineer Pinaud, who was in this position. All the other seamen prevent have confirmed every detail.

 When he heard voices on the bridge he looked out and saw waves like the sea breaking or a rock awash, or like those made by a submarine diving. He turned to call his mates, and they all came and watched.

The head and neck came out of the water only 40 yards away. The head was the colour of the rocks in the bay (greyish, white mixed with yellow). It was like a turtle's; the skin seemed rough, and this roughness seemed due to scales rather than hair.

The witnesses' estimates of the widest diameter of the head vary between 15 and 30 inches; it was slightly greater than that of the neck.

The head blew two jets of water vapour. The rest of the body appeared a fleur d'eau. It undulated in a horizontal direction. The animal moved at a speed estimated at 8 knots.

When it was almost alongside, the head dived, and a series of vertical undulations were seen running along the body, just out of the water.

 The animal at once reappeared near the ship's starboard quarter. Marine Lecoublet and Seaman Le Gall were there.

The body moved forwards in vertical undulations. In its whole length there were 5 or 6 marked undulations. This length is estimated by these two witnesses as more than 30 feet. They describe a head wider at the back than the front and longer than a seal's.

The body seemed to them to be almost of the same dimensions all along its length. They compare it to a 'Blower's'. This estimate, together with what seems to me much too small a figure for the length, makes me think these witnesses only saw part of the body.

The skin was smooth. Nobody saw fins. The animal did not blow at this time.

It dived again and appeared some way astern. One could now only make out a long blackish body, with moving curves and jets of water vapor.

From what the witnesses at the gangway saw, the animal breathes through its nostrils rather than through the top of its head.

Nobody observed the head in detail. 

Cameron: It deserves to be noted that while the Lieutenant may not have known about the Avalanche encounter, he may have been influenced indirectly by the other sightings earlier in the month. The contradictions are exceptionally noteworthy (coloration, plane of undulation, smooth vs. scaled skin) and either show that the purported animal varied in different parts of its body (highly unlikely) or that eyewitness observation of these traits is highly unreliable. Regardless, it is difficult to say what animal could possibly have been misidentified at only 40 yards and considering the highly unlikely situation of a hoax, this stands as one of the most intriguing sightings of a cryptid.




March 1904. Along, Vietnam. Gueydon. MF
Heuvelmans (1968) only mentioned that this sighting had over 100 eyewitnesses. Presumably it had similar morphology as the other encounters.




June, 1908. Along, Vietnam. Hanoi. MF
Heuvelmans (1968) citing Ouest-Eclair inquiry from unnamed Captain (possibly P. Merlees):

In June 1908 I was captain of the steamer Hanoi belonging to A. R. Marty of Haiphong and at about 6 in the morning was about 5 miles east of the Norway islands which lie at the entrance to the Along Bay (Tongking), and I was steering to pass between these islands and the land when I saw it.

I saw, some way ahead, a black mass which at first I took for a capsized boat. On approaching and examining it with binoculars, I found it had a strange shape. This resembled a framework over which sail had been tightly stretched. The ribs were very marked. Seen from the side and from some way off it would certainly look indented, for the ridges were very sharp. I had a three-quarter view which enabled me to make a rough estimate of its size.

The colour was black; the length about 16 feet and the width about 5 feet. It was quite motionless.

 As I wondered what it could be I kept coming closer and clearly distinguished all its features. When I reached some thirty yards away a huge head emerged some 4 or 5 yards from what I could see, and therefore nearer to me.

Although surprised by this sudden apparition, I could observe it very well, and it was very like the head of a turtle, but longer and certainly 2 feet wide by 3 feet long; it had two very bright black and white eyes and large nostrils. It was blackish like the rest. I could not see the jaw, the mouth being shut, but the mouth was clearly marked on the sides of large dimensions.

 The head turned to look at the ship, blew noisily without spouting water and at once dived, the rest following and making a big wash. 

When I reached where the animal had been I could see nothing but the wash in the water, and that was all.

Given the dimensions of this animal it could not possibly be confused with a turtle. For one thing it certainly had no scales, of that I am sure. The skin was more like old tanned leather, and with my binoculars I could see it very well.

 The head appeared for a few seconds only, and I did not look at it with my binoculars, but it was very close, perhaps 25 yards away, and what struck me most were the eyes. The turtle has only very small eyes, veiled by a membrane, and not big bright eyes like these. And so far as I know there are no turtles of this size.

From the head to the end of the visible part was a good 30 feet; so it was indeed an extraordinary animal. 

From the disturbance of the water at the moment when it dived and from the part of the body that I saw, the shape of the body must be: a very long and flexible neck, indicated by the distance of the head from the visible part of the body, and by the head which turned without the middle part moving; then a much broader part in the middle, the part that I saw; and finally a fairly long tail which did not show above the surface, but was clearly marked by the disturbance of the water.

Observation was hindered by the fact that the sun was partly hidden behind small clouds and made a white reflection on the surface which prevented one from seeing to any depth.

Cameron: Leatherback turtles do have fairly prominent eyes, and I cannot help but consider the possibility that the eyewitness exaggerated the size and extent of the neck and misremembered the details of the ridges. Heuvelmans (1968) used this sighting to propose that the Many-Finned had armadillo-like armor and segments, a trait very rarely actually observed. It was not supposed to be contradictory with the possession of smooth skin, somehow.

1912. William I. Cook. Westward Ho!, Devon, England.

From the Standard, July 1, 1912. Available in NABR #7 (p. 23)

An attempt has been made to photograph the sea serpent. This puts to rest any doubts about his having really arrived, decorously dressed in seaweed, as all self-respecting sea serpents should be. But now come the disquieting question: How many of him are there?

He was last heard of as having put to flight a considerable portion of the British fleet of the Lowestoft coast, or, as the lady witness of the event put it, "at the moment I saw the sea serpent the battleships were disappearing in the opposite direction."

 Now the sea serpent has been surprised of the Devon coast, near Westward Ho! The gentleman who enjoys the rare experience of stalking a sea serpent unawares was Mr. William I. Cook, of Alexanda House, Instow, and his description of the awful monster at Westward Ho! tallies in many respects with that given by Miss Rider Haggard of the awful monster at Lowestoft.

Mr. Cook was boating with some ladies, and saw ahead what appeared to be a reef of rocks; on approaching nearer the voyagers took it for a mass of floating seaweed; on approaching nearer still "we found that the thing was alive."

 Mr. Cook tried to photograph it, but his terrified boatman at once pulled for shore. This is in gratifying contract with the callous conduct of Lowestoft's longshoremen, who, as already recorded, persisted in leaning against their spanker booms, and talking of the sea serpent in tones of derision.

Mr. Cook continues: "The thing then stretched itself out in an undulating coil, lashing the water." After lashing the water made of towards Clovelly at a  fair pace, leaving a wake of foam. For several days there had been no mention of Clovelly in the world's news. In view of the above facts this silence becomes ominous. Clovelly is a small place; what stand could the marine hamlet make against a monster sixty to eighty feet long, with a body as thick as a thirty gallon cask, with black fins running along the whole of the back, and with scales. This is Mr. Cook's description.

 But to the fate of Clovelly is added another problem. Is this awful monster seen by Mr. Cook the same awful monster seen by Miss Rider Haggard? Are there two? Or was the Devon sea serpent merely the other end of Lowestoft's visitor? In short was the sea serpent shaking its head at Lowestoft and wagging its tail at Westward Ho!?

Cameron: A non-Heuvelmans account and certainly not a subtropical one like the others! If the "Many Finned" sea serpent category is based on mundane phenomenon, we should expect its distribution to roughly coincide with that of dolphins. Champagne claims that there are several other "Many Finned"-type reports in boreal latitudes, but documentation has yet to surface.




July, 1920. Miami, Florida. Craigsmere. MF
Heuvelmans (1968) citing eyewitness:

The Captain, mate on watch, helmsman and some others of the crew saw it. As I remember it they say it was long with dorsal fins somewhat like a porpoise only several in number with its head some distance ahead of the body and partly submerged.

Cameron: Should be indistinguishable from a pod of cetaceans.




February 11, 1923. Somalia. Latitude 11° 50' N., Longitude 57° 37' E. Mapia. MF?
Heuvelmans (1968) citing fourth officer, H. J. Van Nouheys:

...I was on starboard deck with the second officer, A. de Wild, when we were startled by a violent blow on the water. It was so close to the port side of the ship that we could not see what it was nor exactly where it had happened. When we dashed to port we heard another violent splash (louder even than that made by a dolphin leaping out of the water) and we saw, some 30 yards away, a colossal sea-animal disappearing below the surface. It was about 6 feet thick, cylindrical, and as far as we could see it was 8 feet out of the water. It was shining, half light grey and half brown.

Cameron: It is not clear if the "violent blow" is respiratory. What exactly is sticking 8 feet out of the water is certainly mysterious. This report cannot be distinguished from cetaceans, possibly even large sharks if the blow was not respiratory.

January 21, 1926. Tulear, Madagascar. Dr. Georges Petit. MF?

Heuvelmans (1968) citing Petit:

We had ourselves [says Dr Petit in the official plural] been witness of a fact sufficiently remarkable and enigmatic to be summarized here.

 On the night of 20 to 21 January 1926, being worried by the fall of the barometer announcing the cyclone on the 22nd, we had to leave our camp at Lavenombato, on the left bank of the Onihaly. We went back to Tulear, some thirty miles by canoe. The weather was very close; the night was very dark and the sea rough. About half an hour after midnight, as we had just passed Sarodrano and were going towards Ankilibe, my attention was drawn by some bright but fleeting and intermittent lights, a few seconds apart, which rose above the level of the water, less than a mile from our boat. Though much less powerful, they could be compared to the beam of light of a ship's searchlight. They seemed to be coming from a body rolling on its axis. Behind this source of light one could see a phosphorescent trail, the length of which was difficult to estimate in the conditions under which it was observed. The man in the bow of our canoe had dropped his paddle and turned and looked back so as not to see it. My 'commander' obstinately kept his eyes on the bottom of the boat, and the after paddler trembled in every limb. It was not until some time after the lights had gone out near the rocks behind us that we could get under way again. The fishermen told us that we had met the tompondrano, that we had been in great peril, and that back luck awaited us. They did not tail to associate our singular encounter with the storms that followed. My commander also blamed it for the death of a distant relative.

Cameron: Astoundingly, no morphology relevant to the Many-Finned was observed! Heuvelmans himself stated in the next paragraph stated that Dr. Petit's sighting should not be given much weight as the phenomenon he observed was a "fluorescent sea" (i.e. phosphorescence caused by dinoflagellates) or (much less plausibly) a "big sea-animal" being attacked by luminous fish and squid. Heuvelmans is being dishonest here because the classification as a possible "Many-Finned" relies on folklore that Dr. Petit collected:

The Lord-of-the-Sea appears rarely. But he shows himself, whenever the time may be, by always moving against the wind. He is 70 to 80 feet long, and his wide flat body is covered with hard plates, rather like the bony armour on the back of a crocodile, but bigger. The tail is like a shrimp's tail with its terminal flap. The mouth is ventral, the animal must turn on its back to attack. A sort of hood which the animal may raise and lower at will protects its eyes which look forwards but are places well to the side. The head is luminous and shines light as it comes to the surface. It moves in vertical undulations.

Some Malagasies say the animal has no legs. Others say it has front flippers like a whale's. Finally the body is striped in a longitudinal direction, with striped of different colours, white, red, green or darker. It has no smell. The most frequent appearances occur in the area of Ankilibe, at Nosy Ve, and Lanivato (Tulear province).

To avoid the dangers which the tompondrano causes, an axe and a silver ring are hung on the boat's bows.

Cameron: I'm extremely dubious that folklore of this sort has any potential data. Note the missing, and contradicted, characteristic morphology!




March 1934. Nassau, Bahamas. Mauretania. MF
From Heuvelmans (1968):

The third monster, which was a good 60 feet long, and which appeared above water as four humps, each with its fin, was seen about 600 miles east of Nassau in the Bahamas during the following March.

Cameron: Considering that this vessel claimed to have seen three "Sea Serpents" in one winter, this automatically makes the case extremely suspect. The classification as an undoubted "Many-Finned" is absurd, this sighting displays no characteristics that can't be explained by a pod of cetaceans.




August 18, 1934. Townsville, Queensland, Australia. Oscar Swanson et al. ??
From Heuvelmans (1968):

On 18 August 1934 Mr Swanson went to fish with his son Harold and William Quinn. Soon after they had left Townsville breakwater in their motor launch they saw four dark object in the water beyond the Fairway Beacon, which was half-way between that port and Magnetic Island. Puzzled, they went closer and found that it was a sea-monster. They got within 150 yards of it before it 'submerged, going down like a submarine, sinking slowly'.

Citing witness:

Then we thought it would come at us, and we turned to make for the Beacon, which has a ladder to the top on which a lamp is lit.

We were wishing that we were in a speed boat. We stowed the little fellow up forward under the bit of decking we had, and hoped for the best. I might mention that the sea at this time was smooth as glass. After about five minutes the monster arose again in the same place (coming up just like a submarine). We were about three-quarters of a mile past the Beacon; on reaching it we caught hold of the ladder and watched to see what movements the monster would make. After waiting half an hour and seeing no movements, excepting the head swaying from side to side, as if watching us, we decided to make back to town, get rid of the boy, and get a camera, as it looked as though the monster would stop there all day. On reaching the jetty wharf, I rang Mr. Jim Gibbard, sub-editor of the Townsville Bulletin, who picked up a press photographer, Mr. Ellis, and, armed with two cameras, we once more set out (without the boy).

 From Heuvelmans (1968):

But the monster seemed to have been disturbed by the S.S. Marella coming round Magnetic Island, and they saw nothing but two dark objects about 20 feet apart, which 'may have been the monster as it put its head up near a man fishing in a small dinghy just outside the breakwater at 3:30 p.m.; and he lost no time in getting home'. Mr Swanson gave Mattingley a very detailed description:

Citing witness:

 You will see, by the rough sketch submitted, what the monster was like. The head rose about 8 feet out of the water, and resembled a huge turtle's head; the mouth remained closed. the head was about 8 feet from the back of the head to the front of the mouth, and the neck was arched. The colour was greyish-green. The eye (we could see only one, being side on) was small in comparison to the rest of the monster. The other part in view was three curved humps about 20 feet apart, and each one rose from 6 feet in the front to a little less in the read. They were covered with huge scales about the size of saucers, and also covered in barnacles. We could not get a glimpse of the tail, as it was under the water.

From Heuvelmans (1968):

Mr Swanson told Mattingley that he saw neither fins nor legs. As the animal was motionless on the water he could not see how it swam. It had no mane, but a dark line along its spine. The scales shone in the sun and seemed to be 'butted and perpendicular'. Some of the barnacles were as big as soup-plates.

Swanson's Sketch. Darkness of the last hump is a scanning artefact.

Cameron: A lack of movement beyond the head swaying and submerging/emerging could imply an inanimate object; the epibiontic growth and coloration also support this contention as well. The reported close proximity would argue against this. Given the reasonable array of Many-Finned-like traits, why did Heuvelmans not consider this a Many-Finned? This is especially baffling considering the following reports.




August 25?, 1934. Bowen, Queensland, Australia. Hurst, et al. MF?
From Heuvelmans (1968):

A week later the North Queensland Register reported that it had been seen near Bowen, and Dinsdale tells us that the witnesses were H. Hurst and two others, who said it was about 30 feet long and lifted a huge turtle-like head about 8 feet out of the water. Its body was like 'a huge armoured hose'.

Cameron: Note the considerably smaller size estimate in this sighting.




After August 25, 1934. Townsville, Queensland, Australia. 3 Fishing Parties. MF?
Heuvelmans (1968) citing Dinsdale:

Later three separate parties of fishermen farther north, near Townsville, reported seeing it on the same day. One man told the local newspaper: 'Its head resembled a huge turtle more than anything else, and was slightly arched. Farther along three smaller dark objects were seen, giving the appearance of a Monster of the sea with a series of humps.'

Cameron: It should not have been possible to categorize this report as a "Many-Finned" rather than a "Many-Humped" as the former is distinguished by Heuvelmans in having an ovoid head and multiple humps. Townsville and Bowen are about 100 miles apart, implying multiple objects. It could be possible that the latter two 1934 Queensland Sea Serpent sightings were heavily influenced by the first and by far the most descriptive sighting.




1935. Norfolk, Virginia, USA. Electra. MF
From Heuvelmans (1968):

[O]ff Norfolk, Virginia, half-way between Massachusetts and Florida, Lieutenant W. C. Hogan of the coastguard vessel Electra saw an animal 40 to 50 feet long with six fins on its back, each 2 feet high and 2 feet 6 inches wide at the base. When they fired at it, the strange animal made no attempt to escape.

Cameron: The third attempted slaying of a Many-Finned. It is a common trope in Sea Serpent reports for firearms to have no apparent damage, even when aimed at the head from a very short distance. This implies that either the guns are woefully underpowered, or the object is in fact inanimate.



Cryptid Characteristics:
In my interpretation of anecdotal information, here is the trait frequency:


Round head (turtle-like, seal-like) = 11 reports (14 unknown, 1 other)
Flat head = 1 report (14 unknown, 11 other)
Small eyes = 2 reports (23 unknown, 1 other)
Large eyes = 1 report (23 unknown, 2 other)
Short neck = 4 reports (19 unknown, 3 other)
Long neck = 3 reports (19 unknown, 4 other)
Multiple dorsal fins = 9 reports (17 other - too prominent to be unknown state)
Pectoral appendages = 1 report (25 unknown)
Pelvic appendages = 0 reports (26 unknown - used for other types)
Multiple lateral fins = 3 reports (23 unknown)
Armor or Scales = 5 reports (18 unknown, 3 other)
Smooth skin = 4 reports (18 unknown, 4 other)
Segmentation = 2 reports (24 unknown)
Dorsal crest = 5 reports (18 unknown, 3 other)
Single hump = 4 reports (14 unknown, 8 other)
Multiple humps = 9 reports (12 unknown, 5 other)
Long tail = 1 report (25 unknown)
Bilobate tail = 0 reports (25 unknown, 1 other - used for other types)
Pointed tail = 1 report (24 unknown, 1 other)
Uniform coloration = 5 reports (11 unknown, 10 other)
Contrasting coloration = 3 reports (23 unknown)
Mottled coloration = 9 reports (15 unknown, 2 other)
Visible breath = 8 reports (18 other - likely too prominent to overlook)
Lateral undulations = 3 reports (2 unknown, 21 other)
Vertical undulations = 3 reports (9 unknown, 14 other)
Ventral mouth = 0 reports (26 unknown - used for other types)
Head hair = 0 reports (26 unknown - used for other types
Single dorsal fin = 0 reports (26 other - too prominent to overlook, used for other types)
Mane = 0 reports (26 other - too prominent to overlook, used for other types)
Horns = 0 reports (26 unknown - used for other types)


Note that some of these traits are not necessarily contradictory (coloration can be mottled and contrasted from dorsum to ventrum) and some reports contain internal contradictions (most notable in the La Decidee contradictions about texture, coloration, and plane of locomotion).



Sighting Distance and Traits in "Many-Finned" Encounters:

Out of the 29 sightings documented in this post, we can eliminate 3 from any further analysis: the Petit sighting is vague to the point of uselessness and the Gueydon encounters were mentioned without detail in Heuvelmans (1968). The 26 remaining reports were overall very vague; the least detailed had only 1 reported trait and the most detailed had 8, the average was 3 traits and the standard deviation was 1.78 - meaning that the most detailed report was 2.8 standard deviations above the norm and the least detailed was 1.12 below.

There were 12 sightings without a reported distance which had between 1 and 8 reported traits; the average was 2.75 with a standard deviation of 1.96, meaning that the most detailed was 2.68 standard deviations higher than the average and the least detailed 0.89 below.

The 14 remaining sightings had between 1 and 6 reported traits; the average was 3.2 with a standard deviation of 1.57, meaning that the most detailed was 1.78 deviations above the average and the least detailed was 1.032 below.

Thus, it can be determined that sightings with reported distances are somewhat more detailed and consistent in detail. This is what was anticipated, although far too subtle to be considered well-supported.

Sighting distance ranged between 0 m (Tran Van Con stranding) and 548.64 m; the average was 125.79 m with a standard deviation of 147.68 m, meaning that the furthest distance was 2.86 standard deviations above the average and the nearest was 0.85 below. This is consistent with Paxton (2009), as these sightings are far closer than what would be expected.


Using Pearson's r to calculate correlation, I got an r value of -0.236, suggesting a small negative correlation between reported distance and detail. This does not necessarily support the purported cryptid identity behind these reports, as some of the reported characteristics include traits such as noticeable respiration, color description (mottled, contrasting, uniform), and even eye or head description which could be potentially met with a non-cryptid identity (e.g. line of dolphins). Thus, this data can be used to indicate that eyewitnesses really did observe something and reasonably estimate distance, but to say anything more would be stepping beyond what these figures say.

Cryptid Cladistics:

Due to the already extreme length of this post, I have decided to expand this section and make it a separate entity.

References:

Heuvelmans, B. (1968). In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents. New York: Hill and Wang.

Paxton, CGM. (2009). The plural of 'anecdote' can be 'data': statistical analysis of viewing distances in reports of unidentified large marine animals 1758–2000. Journal of Zoology 279(4), 381-387.