by Darren Naish
Truly, a remarkable beast - yet again, a unique and 'hyper-evolved' member of its group, representing the sort of creature long taken seriously by cryptozoologists but ignored by hidebound, sit-at-home, lily-livered mainstream scientists.
Amorim, A. F., Arfelli, C. A. & Castro, J. I. 2000. Description of a juvenile Megamouth shark, Megachasma pelagios, caught off Brazil. Environmental Biology of Fishes 59, 117-123.
Bright, M. 1989. There are Giants in the Sea. Robson Books Ltd, London.
Dash, M. 2009. Baron Von Forstner and the U28 sea serpent of July 1915. CFI Blogs http://blogs.forteana.org/node/93
Magin, U. 1996. St George without a dragon: Bernard Heuvelmans and the sea serpent. In Moore, S. (ed) Fortean Studies Volume 3. John Brown Publishing (London), pp. 223-234.
Séret, B. & Orstom, A. 1995. First record of a megamouth shark (Chondrichthyes, Megachasmidae) in the Atlantic Ocean, off Senegal. Cybium 19, 425-427.
Shuker, K. P. N. 1986a. The Gambian sea-serpent. The Unknown Sept 1986, 49-53.
Shuker, K. P. N. 1986b. The Gambian sea-serpent. The Unknown Oct 1986, 31-36.
Shuker, K. P. N. 1995. In Search of Prehistoric Survivors. Blandford, London.
Con Rit
Remarkable armour-plated sea giant
Location: most famously Hongay, Vietnam, but with alleged sightings across the South China Sea, also across Indian Ocean and around Australian coasts
Time: classic account from 1883, but other sightings from across history
How to make a multi-finned, armour-plated sea-serpent, Heuvelmans-style
The Con Rit is one of the most confusing and perplexing of sea monsters, not necessarily because the accounts themselves are confusing (though they partially are), but mostly because the concept of this creature is a messy composite, seemingly incorporating accounts of very distinct things. As most typically used by cryptozoologists, the name Con Rit applies to a long-bodied, armour-plated sea beast that has been suggested to be a late-surviving archaic whale related to the famous Basilosaurus of the Eocene age. We owe this idea to Bernard Heuvelmans, who took several accounts of long-bodied, multi-finned, round-headed sea monsters (mostly from the South China Sea) and combined them with a remarkable 'mystery carcass' from Vietnam to create what he termed Aelian's cetacean centipede Cetioscolopendra aeliani (Heuvelmans1968). Heuvelmans seriously proposed that Basilosaurus -type whales have survived to the modern day, and evolved both lateral fringes of triangular fins as well as a dorsal carapace of big, sheet-like plates (Heuvelmans stuck with the 19th Century idea that ancient whales had armour, even though this had been dismissed during the 1930s).
Heuvelmans advocated the existence of a gigantic, multi-finned, armour-plated descendant of Basilosaurus-type whales that he termed Cetioscolopendra.
The Vietnamese carcass integral to this interpretation was reported by Dr A. Krempf in 1921, but described an encounter passed to him by a coxswain, Tran Van Con. The encounter had occurred 38 years prior (that is, in 1883). Van Con described the discovery of a giant carcass, 18m long and 90cm wide, covered on its upper surface by dark brown segments (each 60cm long and 90cm wide), each of which supported a pair of laterally projecting spines 70cm long. The sheets "rang like sheet-metal" when struck! (Heuvelmans 1968, Roesch 1998).
The armour plates, suggestion of segmentation, and presence of spines projecting from the sides of the body make it sound as if the carcass was that of an arthropod, maybe something like an enormously big, sea-going millipede. This is exactly what has been suggested by some cryptozoologists (Shuker 1995). Needless to say, the concept of such a creature is hard to take seriously. Due to the way their respiratory system works, and the way their bodies are supported internally, arthropods are generally constrained to small size and even truly exceptional giant ones are no more than a couple of metres long.
The death of Cetioscolopendra
Bernard Heuvelmans is regarded by many cryptozoologists as an authoritative scholar, a great chronicler of accounts, and a brilliant thinker and theoriser. In fact, his published work shows that he was all too keen to interpret eyewitness accounts too literally, to combine descriptions and accounts when there was no good reason to do so (Magin 1996), to rely on ideas and data that were out-of-date even in the 1950s (Naish 2000, 2001), and to engage in bizarre speculative exercises that cannot be considered reasonable or cautious interpretations of the evidence. He also failed to check original sources, relying instead on popular re-tellings of key accounts (Dash 2009).
Whatever the 'Con Rit' carcass was (and assuming that it really existed), we need to remember the different filters the 1883 account passed through before reaching the cryptozoological literature. Not only was it translated from Vietnamese by Krempf, it was also a near-40-year old memory by the time he heard it. As Roesch (1998) concluded in his review of the case, we're never really going to be able to say what the carcass was. Its shape, presence of armour plates and long spines perhaps suggest that it was the decomposing body of a giant fish (a partial whale carcass with hard-dried skin is also a possibility), but it's going too far to pretend that we can ever come to any confident conclusion.
Furthermore, even if we assume that the carcass existed and that the account was accurate, there's no reason at all to associate it with sea monster accounts that describe multiple fins and rounded heads. Indeed, Heuvelmans's idea of an armour-plated 'cetacean centipede' is bogus on every level.
Cetioscolopendra: mega-prawn
The amazing Vietnamese carcass accurately described by Tran Van Con in 1921 was clearly not that of an anachronistic armoured whale, but instead that of a gigantic armour-plated pelagic crustacean, the largest known by far. The good scientific name that Heuvelmans published for this monstrous prawn, Cetioscolopendra aeliani, is thus transferred from the vertebrates to the arthropods.
The incredibly long body of Cetioscolopendra has led to occasional suggestions that it might be a remipede, a group of poorly known, tiny, long-bodied crustaceans that inhabit aquifers. However, the large carapace that covers its head and thorax, the form of its numerous jointed limbs and other features show that it is a gargantuan, pelagic, long-bodied member of Dendrobranchiata, the prawns.
While, previously, the largest known prawn (Panaeus monodon) reaches about 35cm, Cetioscolopendra belongs to a poorly known panaeid lineage that evolved in isolation in the South China Sea. It is assumed that a low amount of competition from marine vertebrates in this region encouraged the evolution of this enormous arthropod. Lateral spines that project from the animal's dorsal plates help protect it from predators but it is an also extremely cryptic vertical migrator, spending the days in deep-water channels like the Palawan Trench. Extremely little is known about the ecology and behaviour of this animal and there are concerns that the substantial degradation currently occurring in its environments could well result in imminent extinction.
Cetioscolopendra breaks all the rules as goes the hypothesised maximum size for arthropods. As shown here, it dwarfs other giant crustaceans and is on par with big cetaceans in term of length and mass.
Dash, M. 2009. Baron Von Forstner and the U28 sea serpent of July 1915. CFI Blogs http://blogs.forteana.org/node/93
Heuvelmans, B. 1968. In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents. Hill and Wang, New York.
Magin, U. 1996. St George without a dragon: Bernard Heuvelmans and the sea serpent. In Moore, S. (ed) Fortean Studies Volume 3. John Brown Publishing (London), pp. 223-234.
Naish, D. 2000. Where be monsters? (sea serpents). Fortean Times 132, 40-44.
Naish, D. 2001. Sea serpents, seals and coelacanths: an attempt at a holistic approach to the identity of large aquatic cryptids. In Simmons, I. & Quin, M. (eds) Fortean Studies Volume 7. John Brown Publishing (London), pp. 75-94.
Roesch, B. S. 1998. A review of alleged sea serpent carcasses worldwide (part two - 1881-1896). The Cryptozoology Review 2 (3), 25-35.
Shuker, K. P. N. 1995. In Search of Prehistoric Survivors. Blandford, London.
&
nbsp; Flying Rods
Surreal, ethereal, super-fast 'skyfish' of the atmosphere
Location: sightings alleged worldwide, but mostly from the USA and Mexico
Time: predominantly 1994 to present, but with alleged sightings from 1910 and even earlier
The remarkable world of Rods!
Rods - also known as Skyfish - might be among the most unbelievable and ridiculous of mystery creatures, and indeed they're so unbelievable and ridiculous that belief in them is certainly a minority, or 'niche', movement (their inclusion in this book - supposedly focusing on cryptids - will be frowned upon by some). According to those who have championed their existence, Rods are elongate, cylindrical (err, rod-shaped) creatures, approximately 60cm long, fringed on both sides by undulating fins something like those on the bodies of flatfish. Oh, and… they fly. Really quickly, as in, at speeds exceeding 200 mph, thus making them typically invisible to the human eye. Rod mythology goes even further than this, with some believers saying that Rods have been filmed in Earth's upper atmosphere and even in space. It's also been said that they can be seen in photos dating back to 1910 at least. Other believers say that gigantic Rods - "as big as zeppelins" - have been captured on film. Apparently one of these 'Megarods' is seen in some of the 9/11 footage. An ancient Argentinean stone carving that reveals an object something like an oak leaf is also said by Rod enthusiasts to be an early depiction of a Rod.
This view of Rods as genuine biological entities has been semi-popular in the conspiracy and ufology community more so than the cryptozoological one. The fact (we use that term for convenience) that some Rods have been filmed flying over airports and at military installations has led to suggestions that Rods might be experimental military technology of some sort. Because Rods have a translucent quality and often seem only partially visible, leading Rod proponent Jose Escamilla has suggested that they somehow phase in and out of our dimension, perhaps being fourth dimensional creatures of some sort. A 2007 TV documentary on Rods (arguably one of the best single sources of information on Rods and the ideas associated with them) included the inferred speculation that Rods could be direct descendants of a hypothetical 'protopterygote' creature suggested by some researchers to be the ancient ancestor of winged insects. Such creatures are suggested to have been long-bodied arthropods with numerous, paired fins projecting from the sides of their bodies.
Rationality and restraint
What are Rods, really? For as long as the 'creatures' have been around, the majority of commenters have noticed that they've almost certainly flying insects (most typically moths) captured on film, their beating wings and rapid flight trajectory creating the impression of a rapidly moving, elongate flying thing with whirring fins. Specifically, the idea that people are filming long-bodied creatures with undulating 'fins' is an artefact of slow shutter speeds, since faster shutter speeds capture the animals without the blurring and without making them look like 'Rods'. The insect hypothesis is regarded as self-evident by many sceptics, and was definitively confirmed in 2005 when Rods - identical to those identified by Escamilla and others as the real deal - captured on film at Tongchua City, China, were trapped in nets. They were moths and other insects.
Experiments show that slow shutter speeds can in fact make just about any fast-moving flying (or even swimming) object with fluttering structures look like a 'Rod', and some of the blurry streaks said to represent Rods in photos and on film are almost certainly birds or bats. The ones filmed in space are almost certainly fast-moving bits of space debris. This explanation doesn't go for all objects claimed to be Rods: some are photographical artefacts.
A modest speculative scenario
Turning once again to our speculative alternative universe, let's pretend that Rods are real, and really are the (typically) 60-cm-long, flying, rod-shaped creatures suggested by some. Rods are clearly geographically widespread, occurring throughout the atmospheres of the world. Pale, translucent tissues camouflage them against clouds and the general colour of the sky, meaning that (combined with their hyper-rapid flight) they are rarely seen, except by people who go to special trouble to find them in filmed footage.
Rods are flying invertebrates that never land or touch the ground (except when dead). They belong to a unique animal lineage that evolved directly from the mysterious dinocarididans of the Cambrian seas. Dinocarididans as known from the fossil record are bulky predators with large eyes and segmented arms on their heads, used to grab bottom-dwelling prey (the best known member of the group is the metre-long Anomalocaris, originally described from Canada but later discovered in China, Australia, the USA and elsewhere). One dinocarididan lineage took to living in surface waters and evolved a substantially lightened, less keratinised body, eventually dispensing with body armour altogether while at the same time taking to the exploitation of ocean breezes and the absorption of nutritious chemical froth found on the ocean surface. Thereafter, these post-Cambrian dinocarididans - we name them volicarididans - became dedicated to an aerial lifestyle, dispensing with mouths and guts and able to obtain moisture and nutrients by absorbing dust, aerosols and organic particles from the atmosphere.
The incredible size discrepancy present between the millions of 'average' Rods that have been seen versus the small number of gigantic Megarods hints at a peculiar, complicated biology. Megarods - living concealed in the upper atmosphere for most of their long lives - are the only members of the Rod population capable of reproduction. They are parthenogenetic females, likely subsisting at very low population size. Their sole purpose is to grow vast numbers of juvenile Rods within their main body chamber, between 10 and 20 of which are born every day. Rods are short-lived and act as 'workers' for their mother, collecting more nutrition than they need to fuel their locomotion. A profoundly developed homing instinct that is not yet fully understood allows them to relocate their mother, re-enter a birthing port and die. The chemicals they have collected are then absorbed by the Megarod. Megarods can move quickly, like their offspring, but are mostly stationary. Since they are semi-translucent, cryptic and large (typically 30m long), yet with a very low tissue density that makes them hard to detect via radar, it is feared that a collision with an aircraft is only a matter of time. Indeed, some researchers think that several otherwise unexplained air traffic disasters are the result of unreported and unrealised collisions with static Megarods.
Megarods are in fact only one among numerous different skybeasts that, together, form the so-called Critterian Fauna. Other Critterians resemble giant, translucent sky-jellyfish or immense, amoeba-like carnivores (Constable 1978, Shuker 2008).
Constable, T. J. 1978. Sky Creatures. Pocket Books, New York.
Shuker, K. P. N. 2008. Dr Shuker's Casebook. CFZ Press, Woolsery, Devon.
Postscript
So, there we have it… the Cryptozoologicon, Volume I. We hope that you enjoyed our exercises in informed speculative crypto-fiction but, above all, we hope that that you liked and enjoyed the artwork we produced. As described in the Introduction, our primary motivation in producing the Cryptozoologicon is that we wanted to indulge ourselves as goes the application of speculative evolution to the subject of cryptozoology. Inspired by the rampant and often highly suspect speculations of cryptozoologists themselves, we had a ball.
Alternative histories of Hominidae, seas full of Mesozoic- and Paleogene-grade giant reptiles and mammals, hypothetical giant bats, aquatic marsupials, gigantic pinnipeds, a view of primate diversity that includes globally distributed giant monkeys and carnivorous merbeings, a cryptic lineage of gargantuan deepsea super-sharks… all these and more are explicitly discussed, alluded to, or hinted at in the cryptozoological literature, the frequent assertion accompanying these speculations being that mainstream scientists are too cynical, too blinkered, too biased, or just too stupid and lazy to appreciate the 'evidence' that cryptozoologists have amassed.
As we've alluded to here - and as other sceptical authors have stated or shown in their own investigations - the
primary evidence used as the bedrock for these speculations is too suspect or too nonsensical to stand on its own. Indeed, sloppy and wishful thinking pervades cryptozoology, bringing the topic into disrepute. If this really is our opinion why, the cryptozoological supporter might ask, are we so interested in the subject? That's a good question. The answer comes from the fact that sightings of and stories about mysterious creatures fit into a large, complex picture that involves the evolution of mythology, the cultural and individual biases that people possess, and the ability of people to observe, recall and explain their observations. None of this means that accounts of mystery animals are not, by definition, descriptions of encounters with real animals, but it does mean that cryptozoology should be seen as a mixture of sociology, psychology and ethnology as well as zoology. The naive and purely zoological approach of the cryptozoological literalists needs to die. In the end, the speculative hypotheses that characterise the cryptozoological literature are exercises in speculative fiction, making the entire field the longest-running project in speculative zoology yet devised by our species. For this reason, it is of enormous interest, and very much worthy of study and even admiration.