Cryptozoologicon: Volume I

by Darren Naish

  Time: supposedly long-known, but first reported by Europeans in 1945-46

  What is the Buru?

  The Buru is an enigmatic aquatic or amphibious reptile-like or fish-like Asian animal. In several respects, it is an especially unusual cryptid in that it does not fit tidily in any of the categories usually associated with mystery beasts. Virtually all accounts of this animal repeat the features listed by anthropologist James Mills and explorer Charles Stonor after their 1945-46 expedition to document information on the creature, and latterly by Daily Mail journalist Ralph Izzard after he accompanied Mills and Stonor in 1948. Some local people explained that the animal had died out after the local swamps had been drained while others claimed that it was still in existence.

  According to collected accounts, the Buru is a swamp-dwelling creature that - paradoxically - is said not to eat fish yet to represent a significant danger to people. It supposedly has an elongate body, a distinct neck region that can be "stretched out or drawn in", armour plates on the upper surface of its head, and a forked tongue. It is also said to have a flattened snout and both massive, fang-like teeth at the fronts of its jaws as well as flatter teeth (likened to human molars) further back. Accounts are inconsistent on other aspects of its anatomy. Paired side-fins are mentioned in some and clawed legs are discussed in others; a rounded tail with some sort of fringe at the base is also alluded to. Three rows of short, blunt spines are said to extend across its back and sides and it is also reported to be "dark blue blotched with white", with "a broad band of white" across its belly.

  Especially curious details sometimes provided for it are viviparity (the ability to produce live babies rather than eggs), a possible burrowing and aestivation habit (whereby the creature digs into mud at the bottom of a drying pool and goes into an extended period of torpor until the water returns), and the production of a loud, hoarse bellow, emitted as the creature raises its head above the water surface. Some sources explain the name 'Buru' as an onomatopoeic reference to this noise.

  Previous attempts to explain the Buru

  Based on this conflicting and confusing mass of details, writers have variously identified the buru as a surviving dinosaur of some sort, a large, aquatic monitor lizard, or a crocodile. However, the tail fin and aquatic habits have led others to suggest that it is a large freshwater fish. Karl Shuker proposed that the best identification for the Buru is that it is either a giant lungfish or a bonytongued fish related to the Arapaima or Pirarucu Arapaima gigas of South America, with the lungfish identification being his favoured suggestion (Shuker 1991). A lungfish identification doesn't seem unreasonable.

  However, in the absence of any evidence that might support its existence we consider it more plausible that the varied features attributed to the Buru are muddled references to the features of diverse aquatic animals. In other words, we conclude that it's an imaginary entity based on features seen in different fish, swimming reptiles and other animals, all superimposed onto a 'big fish' template likely inspired by fleeting glimpses of unusually large specimens of locally occurring species.

  Our own take on the Buru

  Accounts of the Buru are vague and contradictory but we ended up agreeing with those previous authors who interpret this Asian enigma as a new kind of aquatic monitor lizard. Swimming, amphibious monitors are already known from both Asia and Australasia, their aquatic adaptations including a laterally flattened tail, smooth scales, streamlined body and dorsally positioned nostrils (Christian 2004). The Buru is another aquatic varanid, but it's the most specialised known and by far the most cryptic. Its deep, laterally compressed tail, fully webbed feet and serrated dorsal fringe are novel features for a varanid: they have so confused local people that it's no wonder that the Buru has been described as fish-like.

  The Buru is also especially large (3.5-4m long), and also unusually coloured for a varanid. Its heterodonty (it combines fang-like teeth with rounded, posterior ones) is not unprecedented within the group, however, and enable it to be an ecological generalist, able to exploit a broad diversity of prey. Its long, flexible neck sometimes enables it to reach the surface when submerged in shallow water (only its nostrils and snout tip break the surface) and it has evolved a suction-feeding habit not seen in any other lizard: by rapidly opening the jaws and expanding the throat, it can engulf and capture aquatic crustaceans and other submerged prey. Several reported features are accurate references to its natural history, this one included. It is also an expert digger, capable of excavating long burrows to escape drought, and it is further unique in being viviparous, its babies being born alive beneath the water.

  The Buru is deeply nested within Varanus, specifically being a close relative of the Asian water monitor V. salvator and its relatives. However, a combination of features that make it uniquely well adapted for aquatic life, including a paddle-like tail, aquatic suction-feeding habit and viviparity, suggest that it could well represent the early stages in a new and important radiation of big-bodied, aquatic monitor lizards, poised to invade freshwater ecosystems across the continent… if only there weren't so many goddam humans in the way.

  Christian, K. 2004. Varanus mertensi. In Pianka, E. R., King, D. R. & King, R. A. (eds) Varanid Lizards of the World. Indiana University Press, Bloomington & Indianapolis, pp. 410-415.

  Shuker, K. P. N. 1991. Extraordinary Animals Worldwide. Robert Hale, London.

  Hoop Snake

  Dangerous, fast-moving reptile with novel method of transit

  Location: mostly south-eastern states of the USA but also elsewhere in the country, and in Canada and Australia

  Time: 1600s to present, with the best accounts being from the late 1700s

  Lore of the Hoop Snake

  The fear, dislike and respect that people worldwide have for snakes explains, in part, the large number of myths we have about these amazing creatures. When you combine this with the fact that people frequently only have fleeting glimpses of snakes and typically know next to nothing about snake diversity (snakes are an enormous, diverse group, containing over 3000 species), a rich lore of 'crypto-snakes' is the unsurprising result. Various reported snakes large and small don't match known species and might well represent undiscovered species. But other 'mystery' snakes are so outlandish that the very probably are not based on unknown species.

  The Hoop Snake is a semi-legendary snake said to travel rapidly by grabbing its tail in its mouth to form a hoop and to then travel, as a living wheel, across the countryside in pursuit of prey. The form of the snake is not well described and in fact snakes of several different sorts feature in historic Hoop Snake depictions. The snake must be reasonably large, since the hoop is meant to be about 1m across, and also slender-bodied and with the small head more typical of non-venomous colubrids than vipers. When the travelling Hoop Snake sees or otherwise senses an animal it wants to attack, it releases its tail and flings itself, tail-first, at its quarry. Its tail is tipped with a deadly poisonous spike and kills whatever it impales.

  'Explaining' Hoop Snakes

  Hoop Snakes are most prominently associated with the USA, most especially with south-eastern states like Louisiana and South Carolina where they have been the stuff of lore since the late 1600s at least. However, Hoop Snake legends also come from Canada and Australia. So far as we know, nobody that matters really believes in the concept of a snake that pursues people and other animal while rolled up in a hoop shape. Herpetologists have in fact been interested enough in the legend to put down financial rewards for proof of its existence. Field Museum herpetologist Karl Schmidt (1925) found evidence from historical sources that the legend originated with known snake species (one of several referred to vernacularly as 'Horn snakes') that have a spike-like organ at the tail tip (various snakes have these, perhaps because they help in discouraging predators or in securing purchase against the ground when burrowing). People seemed to believe that the spike was deployed as a weapon, and that the only way the snake could deploy it is by forming a circle and then
launching itself " with his tail arising and pointed forward in the circle" (J. F. D. Smyth, 1784, quoted in Schmidt 1925).

  In short, the widespread folk belief that some snakes have a dangerous tail-tip weapon seems to have given rise to the equally widespread myth that these snakes - already regarded as freakish, sinister creatures - moved in hoop-like fashion. There never was a Hoop Snake, and there probably never will be.

  The Hoop Snake as something real and new

  We wanted to have some fun with the concept of the Hoop Snake and hence here we imagine a colubrid snake that really does move in the manner suggested by the legend. This idea isn't thoroughly outlandish (though it is, we happily admit, mostly outlandish) since in recent years is has been demonstrated that various real creatures will curl up into balls and roll downhill as an escape mechanism. Some pangolins do this, as do certain spiders, salamanders and toads. Admittedly, all of these animals easily convert themselves into a ball-like shape by merely folding in their limbs and (in the pangolins and salamanders) tucking their tails in beneath their bodies - they don't form hoops like the eponymous snake - but they at least show that there is a precedent for turning yourself into a round thing and rolling away at speed.

  The Hoop Snake is unique in possessing a sting-like organ at the tail tip that it uses in both offence and defence. The interior of its mouth is heavily keratinised and perfectly shaped to receive the sharp end of the caudal sting: a thick keratinous flap seals the back of the mouth. Some famous historical interpretations of the Hoop Snake are inaccurate since they fail to illustrate this feature (Meurger & Gagnon 1988). The affinities of colubrid snakes are frequently determined by analysis of their highly spinose, paired male protrusible organs - the hemipenes. We tried our best to have a look at Hoop Snake genitals but the rapid wheel-like locomotion of these snakes made such an endeavour especially difficult.

  Meurger, M. & Gagnon, C. 1988. Lake Monster Traditions: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Fortean Times (London), pp. 320.

  Schmidt, K. P. 1925. The Hoop Snake story, with some theories of its origin. Natural History Jan-Feb 1925.

  Megalodon

  One of the biggest predators of all time -- alive today!

  Location: sightings from off the western coast of Australia and in the south-east Pacific

  Time: 1918, and also 1920s and 30s

  Megalodon alive

  The seas are full of monsters. Or, they are according to some of the cryptozoological literature, anyway. As if numerous giant, as-yet-undiscovered marine mammals and reptiles and absurdly super-sized cephalopods aren't enough, cryptozoologists have also advocated the possibility that Carcharocles megalodon - popularly dubbed Megalodon or the Megatooth shark - is not just known from the fossil record, but that it might also survive to the present. Megatooth sharks are, unsurprisingly, known almost entirely from their enormous teeth, the largest specimens of which are an incredible 16.8cm long. Vertebral centra of Megatooth sharks are known in addition to teeth, but that's it.

  Unsurprisingly, there has been much tendency to over-estimate the size of this giant. A total conservative length of approximately 15.9m was extrapolated by Gottfried et al. (1996) but they also calculated total lengths of as much as 20m for some individuals. These authors also suggested that C. megalodon had a deeper, blockier skull than the Great white shark Carcharodon carcharias.

  While C. megalodon is often imagined to be a giant version of the modern Great white, it may only be distantly related to it. In fact, some experts allocate these sharks to entirely different sections of the shark family tree and at least three different technical names are used for C. megalodon (Carcharocles megalodon, Carcharodon megalodon and Megaselachus megalodon). Regardless, good evidence shows that Megalodon was ecologically similar to the Great white, albeit much larger and more powerful. Bite marks preserved on bones show that Megatooth sharks fed regularly on dolphins and baleen whales, though it remains unknown whether the bite marks we know of represent scavenging or the hunting of live cetaceans. Megatooth shark teeth are frequently found in areas where the remains of baleen whales are common (Purdy 1996), and both shared the same habitat.

  Thanks to various popular books and magazine articles about mystery creatures (Shuker 1991, 1995, 1997), and also to a notorious and pretty atrocious 'faux-umentary' screened by the Discovery Channel in 2013, the idea that this gargantuan whale-eating predatory shark might have survived to the present day refuses to die. A tiny number of stories and alleged eyewitness encounters essentially make up the core of the case for Megalodon survival. In the best known and most oft-repeated, Australian naturalist David Stead described a tale related to him in 1918 by Australian crayfish fishermen in which an enormous, ghostly-white shark, perhaps 90m long, emerged from the deep to take their crayfish pots, mooring lines and whatever else was attached. This story has sometimes been taken semi-seriously, partly because Stead (a reputable and respected writer and researcher, greatly experienced in ichthyology) explained the reliable nature of his (anonymous) sources.

  Megalodon survival is also supposedly supported by the discovery of teeth that are not fossilised or are supposedly coated in such a thin layer of manganese dioxide that they must surely be young, in geological terms.

  Megalodon dead

  Alleged Megalodon survival was examined by Roesch (1998) who basically concluded that there is no reason to take alleged Megalodon survival at all seriously. We agree with his conclusions. Of the few Megalodon 'sightings', the one related by Stead is hardly reliable: the account is an entertaining anecdote that we cannot regard as evidence of any sort. Two giant shark sightings claimed to be possible Megalodon sightings are clearly poor descriptions of Whale sharks Rhincodon typus. There's also a story from the 1960s (recounted in a popular 1978 book) about a giant white shark, longer than 80m, spoken of by a ship's anonymous crew. So, we're left with stories : scary stories of the sort that seafarers enjoy telling other people when back on land. The case for Megalodon's survival is so weak that it isn't really "a case".

  So far as we can tell from the fossil record, C. megalodon died out some time during the early part of the Pleistocene, presumably as cooling conditions reduced its preferred habitat (though, while writing this text, we learnt from palaeontologist colleagues that even a Pleistocene extinction date may be too recent). The supposedly young Megalodon teeth (the most famous of which were dredged up by the Challenger expedition of the 1870s) have been misinterpreted and there's no reason to think that they're geologically young, let alone modern (Roesch 1998).

  The speculative part

  What, now, of our speculative parallel universe, where all the cryptids are real and megatooth sharks still swim the oceans? Again, it would be difficult to say anything speculative about Megalodon that hasn't already been said. In order that a giant, macropredatory, whale-eating shark might remain elusive and undocumented by biologists, it would have to be absurdly secretive, spending just about all of its time away from the surface, away from vessels, and away from the coastal regions where it would surely be discovered. It must, therefore, be a deepwater animal that specialises on prey that it can reliably encounter at depth, and it must have switched to this prey base some time since the Pliocene or start of the Pleistocene.

  This evolutionary shift has occurred at breakneck speed: while a new, slower growth regime and occupation of an otherwise unexploited ecological niche have encouraged Megalodon to become substantially larger than the 20m or so achieved by its ancestors, it has not yet become fully abyssal like other deepwater sharks and still visits the surface to eat crayfish pots and small fishing vessels on occasion. It is sometimes ghostly white. We would have to imagine the new, abyssal Megalodon - arguably different enough to warrant classification as the new species Carcharocles modernicus - to haunt deepsea canyons and places where whales and elephant seals and so on are regular visitors.

  Mainstream scientists admit that they know all too little of deepsea ecology, but the many creatures reliably documented
in the cryptozoological literature demonstrate that they know even less than they admit. Bring on the day when those pompous, ivory-tower buffoons are stripped of their worthless titles and forced to admit what they've all been too blind to see! Then we will be free!

  Gottfried, M. D., Compagno, L. J. V. & Bowman, S. C. 1996. Size and skeletal anatomy of the giant "megatooth" sharkCarcharodon megalodon. In Klimley, A. P. & Ainley, D. G. (eds)Great White Sharks: The Biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Academic Press (San Diego), pp. 55-66.

  Purdy, R. W. 1996. Paleoecology of fossil white sharks. In Klimley, A. P. & Ainley, D. G. (eds) Great White Sharks: The Biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Academic Press (San Diego), pp. 67-78.

  Roesch, B. S. 1998. A critical evaluation of the supposed contemporary existence of Carcharodon megalodon. The Cryptozoology Review 3 (2), 14-24.

  Shuker, K. P. N. 1991. The search for monster sharks. Fate 44 (3): 41-49.

  Shuker, K. P. N. 1995.In Search of Prehistoric Survivors. Blandford, London.

  Shuker, K. P. N. 1997.From Flying Toads to Snakes with Wings. Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul, Minnesota.

  Ahool

  Asian bat of unusual proportions and vicious habits.

  Location: Western Java, Indonesia

  Time: 1925 or 1927, though with other accounts supposedly made in 1956 and 1957

  The Ahool: what the literature says

  Little has been written about the Ahool but it is generally supposed to belong to a type of monster familiar in folklore and creature stories worldwide: it's a giant, predatory, nocturnal winged terror, an inhabitant of remote mountainous places that is dangerous to people. According to english-language accounts that report Javanese descriptions, the Ahool is similar to a one-year-old child in body size and possesses a wingspan of 3-4 metres. It reportedly has a monkey-like face, large black eyes, and is covered with dark grey fur. Claws of some form are present on its forearms.