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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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



References:

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

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

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

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

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

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



Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

A 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):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dermochelys coriacea from Wikipedia Commons.

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


Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

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

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

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

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


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


References: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Secondary Reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

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

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

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

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


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



References: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 feet long (1)

8 feet long (1)

10 feet long (2)

12 feet long (1)

12-14 feet long (1)

15 feet (2)

15-20 feet long (2)

16 feet long (2)

18-20 feet long (1)

20 feet long (9)

20-23 feet (1)

20-50 feet long (1)

25 feet long (5)

30 feet long (6)

30-40 feet long (1)

32 feet long (1)

35 feet long (2)

35-40 feet (1)

40 feet long (6)

40-100 feet long (1)

40-50 feet long (1)

50 feet long (3)

55 feet long (1)

60 feet long (5)

60-90 feet long (1)

80 feet long (1)

90 feet long (1)

100 feet long (1)

100-110 feet long (1)

150 feet long (1)

300 feet long (1)

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

An accurate assessment, although there are some contradictions.

Snake/serpentine/"garter snake" (12)

Eel (3)

Turtle-like (2)

"caddy-like creature" (1)

Crocodile-like (1)

"dragon" (1)

"hose" (1)

"plesiosaur" (1)

Tapering (1)

"reptilian formation" (1)

"much more reptile than serpent" (1)

...with extraordinary flexibility in the vertical plane

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

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

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


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

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

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

Animal comparisons were not the only way to describe heads:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

2 humps/coils (1)

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

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

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

"three distinct undulations" (1)


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

Other fins are mentioned with unknown placement:


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


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

Dorsal fin (1)

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

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



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

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


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

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

With a couple contradictions:

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


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


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

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


And now for the additional traits:


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


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


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

Smooth, no hair (1)

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

And also:

"eye bumps" (1)


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

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


Traits that do not fit in any category:


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


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


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



Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

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

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

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

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



References: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Taken and modified from Wikipedia Commons.

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

Apparently meaning for an extended period of time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently the size was estimated and not measured.

His lower jaw had a set of sharp tiny teeth

The illustration states that teeth are in both jaws.

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

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

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

The illustration seems to show fin-rays.

and a spade-shaped tail

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

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

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

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

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

 How did he know that?

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

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

 Does this mean the whiskers are mobile?

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

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



Previous entries:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

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

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



References:

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

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

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

Hagelund (1987), pages 177-180:

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

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

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


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

Previous entry:

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

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


References:

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

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

A Baby Cadborosaur No More. Part 1: Introduction

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

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

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

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


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


References:

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

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

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