I can assure you this Nightmare Mode identification challenge is solvable. Okay, so maybe fish crania are rarely figured in the literature and this particular example was damaged before I could photograph it, but all the pieces are there, I swear!
Location is a major clue. The specimen was found far into Narragansett Bay in an area with a salinity of 30.0 ppt (Hicks 1959), which is right at the brackish-saline transition. Considering that this delicate structure was recovered intact, it seems probable that the fish died in the immediate vicinity. I think it's safe to conclude that the owner of the cranium was tolerant of marine and brackish conditions, which reduces the number of candidates considerably.
Then there's size. After having recently skeletonized a fish and being surprised at the comparatively puny cranium, I was startled to see a cranium around 6" (15 cm) long, when complete. Since it does not appear that any large local fish have a head less than 1/3 of the total length (yes, even American Angler and Oyster Toadfish) and since cranium ≠ head, I set a very conservative lower bounds of 50 cm (20"). This is still a massive body size and coupled with the presumed habitats, a very manageable number of candidates emerges.
The Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) is anadromous and very large, however, the cranium is radically different. I cannot resist mentioning the bizarre proboscis-mouth. Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) are certainly large enough, however the cranium is not a match, despite being much more similar than that of the sturgeon. I have observed a large dead Tautog (Tautoga onitis) in almost the same locale, but cannot find the neurocranium illustrated anywhere. Before trying to acquire a dead Tautog and testing that hypothesis, I wondered if there was a better candidate I overlooked. I recalled seeing Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) being caught nearby and photographs of local specimens which demonstrated that they reached colossal sizes fairly regularly. By sheer dumb luck, I stumbled across Jordan (1905) which had the cranium figured:
The supraoccipital (sagittal crest-like structure) and end of the snout strongly resembled the illustration below before being damaged.
Note that the mystery specimen still has an attached vertebrae. It seems somewhat wider than the Striped Bass cranium, but this could be due to damage, variation, or the illustration being inaccurate.
The mystery specimen lacks the paired foramina (?) on the midline about 3/4 of the way up. Considering that the crania appear to be otherwise identical, maybe it was just weird shading or these fish are variable.
One odd difference aside, this is certainly the owner's species (being held):
The Striped Bass has some other relatives in the 'family' Moronidae and while a couple species in my area attain record lengths approaching 50 cm TL (Morone americana, M. chrysops), such sizes are apparently freakish and I doubt the crania would be large enough anyways.
My hat is off to anyone seriously working with fish skeletons. After my little tastes, I am completely and utterly traumatized.
References:
Hicks, S. D. (1959). The Physical Oceanography of Narragansett Bay. Limnology and Oceanography 4(3), 316-327. Available.
Jordan, D. S. (1905). A Guide to the Study of Fishes. Volume 1. Henry Holt and Company: New York. Available.
Woodley et al. (2011) didn't just concern itself with poachers, pipefish, and 'Cadborosaurs'; everything vaguely similar to the Hagelund specimen in the region was considered. Just in case.
Tube-snouts (Aulorhynchus flavidus) are pipefish-like relatives of sticklebacks (Gasterosteiformes) which fit the Hagelund specimen's proportions, head shape, and coloration. The dorsal, anal, and pelvic fins are small and transparent and thus possible to overlook. The forked caudal fin could be confused for overlapping fins if folded. Lateral scutes are present, albeit not extensive (illustrated here); it could be possible for the scutes and spines before the dorsal fin to suggest more extensive armor to an eyewitness.
Tube-snouts appear to swim primarily with their pectoral fins while keeping their bodies stiff (similar to poachers, sans ground effect), which makes sustained undulatory locomotion seem improbable. The largest known specimen was 18.8 cm in total length (Bayer 1980), which is less than half of the Hagelund specimen's reported length and hugely problematic for Tube-snouts as candidates.
The Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) reaches sizes far beyond 40 cm. The extensive bony scutes, barbels (= "whiskers"), and elongated body are interesting similarities with the Hagelund specimen. The major problem is that the dorsal, anal, and pelvic fins are prominent and don't seem capable of folding, unlike the other, more derived candidates. Plus, you'd think a sturgeon would be recognizable... but you never know.
Cutlassfishes (Trichiuridae) are interesting candidates as they are unambiguously eel-like, capable of anguilliform locomotion, have vestigial or outright absent pelvic fins, and (unlikely quite a few of the candidates) have teeth.
Staude and Lambert suggested that the Hagelund specimen may be a decapod in an editorial responding to LeBlond and Bousfield's description of 'Cadborosaurus' in Amphipacifica... an amphipod publication. In order for this identification to work, the "whiskers" would be head appendages (antennae, mandibles, maxillae), the "head" would be the carapace, the "fuzz" would be thoracic and abdominal appendages (maxillipeds, pereiopods, pleopods), the "plate-like scales" would be segments, and the tail appendages would be uropods. This is certainly thought-provoking, but it would require Hagelund to somehow fail to distinguish a vertebrate from an arthropod. There also aren't any obvious candidates, with the largest (Pandalus platyceros - pictured above) being around half the size of the Hagelund specimen with a radically different coloration and proportions.
The Hagelund specimen is surprisingly similar to pinnipeds, as it is the only group to possess a similar appendage arrangement (in phocids, at least), have true whiskers and fur, and be unambiguously coded as having a "seal-like face". Various pinnipeds also demonstrate long heads, slender bodies, and sorta similar coloration. Describing a pinniped as "eel-like" and "undulatory" is problematic, and the lack of plate-like scales and much larger size (even when born) are critical flaws. If the Hagelund specimen were to be taken literally and assumed to be a cryptid, a pinniped would be the most likely identification (far more so than 'Cadborosaurus'); of course, a misinterpreted known fish would be far more likely.
References:
Bayer, R. D. (1980). Size and Age of the Tube-snout (Aulorhynchus flavidus) in the Yaquina Estuary, Oregon. Northwest Science 54(4), 306-310. Available.
Hagelund, W. A. (1987). Whalers No More. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.
Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. Journal of Scientific Exploration 25(3), 495-512.
Poachers, despite a startling similarity to Hagelund's illustrated specimen, are problematic candidates as they are apparently incapable of undulatory locomotion and at-surface behavior is unlikely. Pipefishes don't look as similar but are capable of undulating at the surface and can be unambiguously described as "eel-like" or "sea snake-like"... unlike Hagelund's own drawing.
Hagelund's drawing portrays the upper bounds of the estimated depth (1-1.5 inches), so the difference from the above pictures of Bay Pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus) may not be as great as shown. Bay Pipefish have been recorded up to 38.5 cm in total length (Bayer 1980) - comfortably similar to 40 cm, I'd say - and it seems likely that allometry could make them more similar to the Hagelund specimen. The equation Bayer (1980) used to estimate pipefish weight from length indicated that the fish were proportionally more massive at larger sizes (the rate was somewhat higher than cubed†) and the largest specimens tended to be underestimated in weight; this suggests that Bay Pipefish are proportionally thicker-bodied at large sizes. Another potential explanation is that Hagelund captured a pregnant male; males are somewhat smaller than females with a maximum size of 32.5 cm TL (Bayer 1980), although this is within a plausible margin of error, considering the Hagelund specimen was estimated rather than measured. It seems that there is some variation in Bay Pipefish head length (see below) which may be related to size as well.
Bay Pipefish match the described behavior and shape of the Hagelund specimen as well as the coloration, long snout, slender head, lips, and large dark eyes; the pelvic fins are absent and the dorsal and anal fins are small and transparent enough to be easily overlooked. The snout of the Hagelund specimen has a similar profile to that of a Bay Pipefish (with a bulbous protrusion at the end) which Hagelund mysteriously labels as a "hooked upper jaw". The Bay Pipefish lacks hair-like structures, although the mesh-like coloration on the ventrum (somewhat visible above) could potentially explain this trait; there is such a thing as a Hairy Pipefish, but they are found nowhere near the northeast Pacific. The biggest issues with the Bay Pipefish are the lack of teeth and whisker-like structures. Hagelund's illustration is very unclear as to where the whiskers are located (the original illustration is full of mysteriously interpretive lines), but since they protruded from the head, they can't be due to coloration and it would be implausible for Hagelund to mistake the pectoral fins for separate structures. All pipefish lack teeth, however some have inconspicuous tooth-like odontoid processes (Dawson and Fritzsche 1975)... which have not been described from S. leptorhynchus.
Bay Pipefish are not a perfect fit for the Hagelund specimen, but then, nothing is. Since the pipefish is more similar than any other northeast Pacific fish, the most reasonable conclusion is that the differences are due to the account being misremembered after nearly two decades. Perfect recollection after such a time period (or any time period, really) is probably impossible. Even if it turns out that poachers can fit the described behavior or there's some better fitting fish out there, the point will stand: LeBlond and Bousfield's identification of this creature as a cryptid is one of the least likely solutions available. Besides, if the account were to be taken literally, it would be some sort of weird, tiny, armored pinniped.
But wait, there's more! I'll quickly review the other weird candidates we dredged up and then it's time for an executive summary.
References:
Bayer, R. D. (1980). Size, Seasonality, and Sex Ratios of the Bay Pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus) in Oregon. Northwest Science 54 (3), 161-167. Available.
Dawson, C. E. and Fritzsche, R. A. (1975). Odontoid processes in pipefish jaws. Nature 257, 390. doi:10.1038/257390a0
Hagelund, W. A. (1987). Whalers No More. Vancouver: Harbour Publishing.
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.
Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. Journal of Scientific Exploration 25(3), 495-512.
This should quell any doubts that pipefish are unambiguously eel-shaped, can swim in an undulatory fashion and near the surface to boot. Many thanks to Scott Mardis for bringing this to my attention.
I'm thoroughly sick of the 'reptilian hypothesis', so I'll condense my aborted article into this: the Hagelund specimen is obviously not a plesiosaur or thalattosuchian.
It is time to move on to better candidates... I want to finish this series at some point. There are several species of long-bodied poachers (Agonidae) which are compellingly similar to the Hagelund specimen. Notable shared traits include proportions, large eyes, plate-like scales, and barbels (= "whiskers"):
The poacher identification is not without its problems. There isn't any morphology which can confused for "fuzz" on the underbelly as the anal fin is rarely used in steady locomotion (Nowroozi et al. 2009) and is generally quite short anyways. Poachers are regarded as "elongated" rather than "eel-like" in the literature, with the difference apparently being that the former are tapering and the latter are thickest around the mid-point. Thus, Hagelund's drawing is at odds with his own description and poachers had to be given partial credit due to the confusion.
Hagelund's description of his specimen undulating at the surface would be highly unusual for a poacher, to say the least. The pectoral fins are the sole source of thrust, with the exception of the caudal fin being used in the C-start escape response (Nowroozi et al. 2009). Pirates Cove seems to be rather shallow and poachers can inhabit intertidal waters, but getting a poacher to the surface may also be something of a challenge; they are strongly negatively buoyant - having heavy armor and no swim bladder - and typically use ground effect (due to being within 1 cm of the bottom) in addition to the pectoral fins for lift (Nowroozi et al. 2009). Poachers are capable of swimming in the water column, and when doing so their bodies pitch upwards significantly (5-20 degrees), apparently due to their considerable density (Nowroozi et al. 2009). So unless poachers behave oddly at the surface or behavior varies substantially between species, which is always possible, this is a major problem for this candidate.
The strongest candidate is the Sturgeon Poacher (Podothecus accipenserinus) which is reasonably similar in size and coloration, but are somewhat thick-bodied and large-headed comparatively. Other possible candidates included Pallasina barbata (intertidal, similar color, however very small) and Sarritor frenatus - it should be noted that there are many other poachers in the area, but they are either far too small or deep-bodied.
Pipefish next, then everybody else.
.
References:
LeBlond, P. H. & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus, Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, British Columbia: Horsdal & Schubart.
Nowroozi, B. N, Strother, J. A., Horton, J. M., Summers, A. P., & Brainerd, E. L. (2009). Whole-body lift and ground effect during pectoral fin locomotion in the northern spearnose poacher (Agonopsis vulsa). Zoology 112, 393-402. Available.
Woodley, M. A., Naish, D. & McCormick, C. A. (2011). A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund's Juvenile "Cadborosaur" Report. Journal of Scientific Exploration 25(3), 495-512.
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.
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.
_31.jpg){kind=link}
