[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Plesiosaur/shark carcass article & questions
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I meant to send the attached message to the dinosaur list but
evidently used the wrong address, so I am resending it. If
you have any trouble reading the attachment please let me
know. Thank you very much.
Glen Kuban paleo@ix.netcom.com
From: paleo@ix.netcom.com (Glen J. Kuban)
Subject: Plesiosaur & shark questions
To: dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu
To: vrtpaleo@usc.edu
Ladies and gentlemen,
During the course of my work on the Paluxy dinosaur tracks and
associated man track controversy (see web address below if interested)
I often ran across many creationist claims about a supposed
"sea-monster" or plesiosaur carcass acidentally netted off New Zealand
by a Japanese trawler in 1977. The rotting, smelly corpse, which was
about 10 meters (33 feet) long was thrown overboard to avoid spoiling
the fish catch, but first photos and tissue samples were taken. It
made all the Japanese papers and several popular publications in the
west, and many of you probably heard of it. Creationists and monster
advocates still often claim it was a likely "modern plesiosaur," which
it does superficially resemble. Subsequent lab work on the tissue
samples and considerations of the anatomical features visible in the
photos led to an entirely different conclusion, namely that it was a
badly decayed baskign shark. But these results received far less media
attention than the original sensational stories. So, the claims keep
coming up. All of this prompted me to further research and write a
detailed review of the case. I've posted a draft of the manuscript at
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/plesios.htm
and would be grateful for any comments or corrections from anyone who
wishes to review it before I submit it for publication. I'd especially
be interested in any comments from people familiar with sharks and/or
plesiosaurs. I plan to add more illustrations in the final version.
I also have a couple specific questions I'm hoping someone can answer.
Among the supposed inconsistencies with the shark ID that some have
raised is that the ribs were "long and cylindrical." Actually, the
ribs were only 40 cm long, which seems about right for a basking shark
of that size, but not a plesiosaur, no? Does anyone have any data on
the relative length of plesiosaur ribs for a given body length?
Supposedly the crewman who photographed the carcass saw openings he
described as "nares" on top the remains of the cranium, rather than on
the underside as in most sharks. My impression is that the rostrum
on the skull was rotted away, and that what he took as nares were
other fenestral openings in the skull. Anyone have any thoughts on
that. I'd also appreciate any comments on other aspects of shark and
plesiosaur anatomy made in the Japanese reports, which I discuss in the
paper. Also, if anyone knows of any pertinent references not included
in the draft, please let me know.
Thanks very much.
Glen J. Kuban
paleo@ix.netcom.com
Phone 216-237-4508 Fax 216-749-7386
Draft on "sea monster" carcass:
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/plesios.htm
Paluxy controversy articles:
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm