In Part 1 of this
ShukerNature blog article (click here), I
surveyed a wide range of globsters, including the celebrated Trunko, and I also
chronicled a selection of reports featuring alleged giant octopuses –
traditionally, the most popular identity for globsters. As now revealed,
however, modern-day studies of these latter anomalous entities have unveiled a
very different explanation for them.
UNMASKING THE GLOBSTERS,
AND UNVEILING THE QUASI-OCTOPUS
Thanks to the advances
in DNA technology during the past two decades, science now has a reliable tool
with which to investigate and expose the hitherto-cryptic identity of
globsters, and in the past few years this is precisely what has happened, with
eye-opening results.
The first notable
globster to be unmasked by DNA analyses was the Fortune Bay specimen from
Newfoundland. In February 2002, a team of researchers led
by Newfoundland molecular systematics expert Dr Steven M. Carr published their
findings in the Biological Bulletin scientific journal, summarising them
as follows:
"DNA
was extracted from the carcass and enzymatically amplified by the
polymerase chain reaction (PCR): the mitochondrial NADH2 DNA
sequence was identified as that of a sperm whale (Physeter
catodon). Amplification and sequencing of cryptozoological DNA
with "universal" PCR primers with broad specificity to
vertebrate taxa and comparison with species in the GenBank taxonomic
database is an effective means of discriminating otherwise
unidentifiable large marine creatures."
Effective it has
certainly been. One South Florida scientist with a longstanding interest in
globsters is Dr Sidney K. Pierce, and in recent years he has led several
studies of preserved globster remains, culminating in a detailed Biological
Bulletin paper of June 2004 co-authored by Carr and several other
researchers, which concentrated upon the Chilean globster but also examined
samples from various additional specimens.
The team announced:
"Electron microscopy revealed that the remains [of the
Chilean globster] are largely composed of an acellular, fibrous network
reminiscent of the collagen fiber network in whale blubber. Amino acid analyses
of an acid hydrolysate indicated that the fibers are composed of 31% glycine
residues and also contain hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine, all diagnostic of
collagen. Using primers designed to the mitochondrial gene nad2, an 800-bp
product of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was amplified from DNA that had
been purified from the carcass. The DNA sequence of the PCR product was 100%
identical to nad2 of sperm whale (Physeter catodon). These results
unequivocally demonstrate that the Chilean Blob is the almost completely
decomposed remains of the blubber layer of a sperm whale. This identification
is the same as those we have obtained before from other relics such as the
so-called giant octopus of St. Augustine (Florida), the Tasmanian West Coast
Monster, two Bermuda Blobs, and the Nantucket Blob. It is clear now that all of
these blobs of popular and cryptozoological interest are, in fact, the
decomposed remains of large cetaceans."
Yet how can a decomposed sperm whale transform in shape and texture so
dramatically that it becomes a globster, sometimes even equipped with apparent
tentacles? As I revealed in my book, Extraordinary Animals Revisited (2007), the answer is fascinating, and
also has a notable precedent:
"There is a notable
precedent for such dramatic misidentification when dealing with beached
remains, which is known as the pseudo-plesiosaur effect. When a basking shark Cetorhinus
maximus dies and its body decomposes, it undergoes a remarkable
transformation. The gill apparatus falls away, taking with it the shark's jaws,
leaving only its small cranium and exposed backbone, thus resembling a small
head and long neck. The end of the shark's backbone only runs into the upper
fluke of its tail, so during decomposition the lower fluke falls off, leaving
what looks like a long slender tail. And to complete the plesiosaur deception,
the shark's pectoral fins, and sometimes its pelvic fins too, remain attached,
resembling two pairs of flippers. Little wonder, therefore, why a number of
amazingly plesiosaurian carcases have been reported over the years, only for
anatomical and biochemical analyses to expose them as sharks.
"Now,
moreover,
we
have confirmation that an analogous transformation is responsible for at least
some of the hitherto perplexing globsters that have come to light - a
transformation that I propose should hereafter be referred to as the
quasi-octopus effect. As detailed by Drs Pierce, Carr, and Letelier, after a
whale dies its body can float for months, decomposing, until eventually its
heavy backbone and skull dissociate from their encompassing skin-sac of rotting
blubber, and sink to the sea bottom, leaving behind a thick gelatinous matrix
of collagen - the tough protein found in skin and connective tissue. It is this
mass of collagen, still encased in its skin-sac, that washes ashore, as a
globster. Furthermore, if a few of the whale's ribs remain within the collagen
matrix, and any 'fingers' of fibrous flesh are attached to them, these resemble
tentacles [or even a trunk, in the case of Trunko]. And if the whale is a sperm
whale, the spermaceti organ gives the resulting globster a bulky shape
reminiscent of an octopus."
So does that mean that
globsters are a dead-end as far as providing evidence for the reality of giant
octopuses is concerned? Not quite, perhaps...
VERRILLY A GIANT
OCTOPUS?
The grand-daddy of all
globsters was washed ashore near St Augustine, Florida, on 30 November 1896.
Its prodigious remains, pinkish-grey and pear-shaped, were over 6
m long, 1.6 m wide, and 1.3
m high, and were estimated to weigh 5 tons. What appeared to be the
stumps of five massive tentacles were clearly visible in photographs taken of
this monstrous carcase by local physician DeWitt Webb, as was what seemed to be
a severed tentacle, measuring 8.7 m long and 20
cm thick. Webb sent a sample of its tough flesh to Yale University
cephalopod (squid and octopus) expert Prof. Addison E. Verrill, who announced
that the carcase had been a giant octopus, which he formally christened Octopus
giganteus. Later, however, Verrill recanted, claiming that it was merely
the spermaceti organ of a sperm whale.
A second sample, sent to
the Smithsonian Institution, has been tested on numerous occasions via several
different techniques, and has yielded differing results. Whereas Pierce’s
studies indicated that it was indeed of sperm whale origin, analyses by eminent
Chicago University biochemist and longstanding cryptozoological investigator Prof.
Roy P. Mackal strongly supported an octopus identity. However, the sample has
been preserved for so long that it has probably been contaminated and rendered
useless for detailed study - which would explain the greatly diverging results
- unless future advances in technology can overcome this obstacle. If they can,
then interested researchers should apply to the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) in El Cajon,
California, for it is here that the only surviving sample of tissue from
the St Augustine globster can be found, donated by Prof. Mackal in 2003 to the ICR’s
Professor of Biology, Dr Kenneth Cummings.
How ironic it would be
if the existence or otherwise of what would be (if real) one of the largest
marine creatures alive today – the elusive giant octopus – is ultimately determined
by this tiniest sliver of substance, the last remnant from one of
cryptozoology’s most enduring enigmas. For a further picture and details concerning this globster, click here to access my ShukerNature-reprinted interview conducted back in the 1990s with Prof. Mackal.
THE MULTI-LIMBED MONSTER
OF ANTIBES
In addition: A truly
bizarre sea monster was allegedly sighted between Antibes and Nice in 1562.
Oval in shape, with a pig’s head at one end and a trunked elephant-like head at
the other, it boasted no less than eleven claw-bearing limbs.
Is it possible that this
weird entity, depicted in the Paralipomena (supplement) to the second edition
of Conrad Gesner’s Historiae Animalium Liber IV: Piscium et Aquatilium
Animantium Natura (1604), was a distorted description of a giant octopus?
GIANT OCTOPUS, OR MYSTERY
JELLYFISH?
Finally: In 1953, while
testing a new type of deep-sea diving suit in the South Pacific, an Australian
diver named Christopher Loeb encountered a Lovecraftian horror from the ocean’s unpenetrated depths,
which I documented as follows within my book From Flying Toads To Snakes With Wings (1997):
"The
diver had been following a shark, and was resting on the edge of a chasm
leading down to much deeper depths, still watching the shark, when an immense,
dull-brown, shapeless mass rose up out of the chasm, pulsating sluggishly, and
flat in general outline with ragged edges.
"Despite
appearing devoid of eyes or other instantly-recognizable sensory organs, this
malign presence evidently discerned the shark's presence somehow, because it
floated upwards until its upper surface made direct contact. The shark
instantly gave a convulsive shudder, and was then drawn without resistance into
the hideous monster's body. After that, the creature sank back down into the
chasm, leaving behind a very frightened diver to ponder what might have happened
if that nightmarish, nameless entity had not been
attracted towards the shark!"
In the past, a deepsea
octopus has been offered as a possible identity for this disturbing creature,
but as I discussed in detail within my book, a far more satisfactory candidate
is a deepsea jellyfish.
Whereas all octopuses
have tentacles, some deepsea jellyfishes do not. What they do have, however,
are potent stinging cells called nematocysts on their bodies (and tentacles if
they possess any), armed with venom that swiftly paralyses their prey. This
would readily explain the immediate paralysis of the shark. Moreover,
jellyfishes do not possess true eyes but they are equipped with sensory structures
responsive to water movements. Consequently, the creature would have learnt of
the shark’s presence by detecting its movements in the water. How lucky, then,
that the diver had remained stationary!
Interestingly, Chilean
legends tell of a very similar beast called el cuero or the hide, as it is likened
in shape and size to a cowhide stretched out flat, with countless eyes around
its perimeter, and four larger ones in the centre. As it happens, jellyfishes
possess peripheral sensory organs called rhopalia that incorporate simple
light-sensitive eyespots or ocelli.
Moreover, some jellyfishes
also have four larger, deceptively eye-like organs visible at the centre of
their bell, though in reality these organs are not eyes at all. Instead, they are
actually portions of the jellyfishes' gut, known as gastric pouches, with the
jellyfishes' horseshoe-shaped gonads sited directly underneath these pouches and
also very visible (as in the familiar moon jellyfish Aurelia aurita).
Exquisite illustration of various
jellyfish species revealing their four centrally-sited gastric pouches,
depicted by Ernst Haeckel (public domain)
So perhaps the deadly
hide is more than a myth after all, lurking like so many other maritime horrors
reported down through the ages in the deep oceans' impenetrable black abyss, but
only very rarely encountered by humankind – which in view of the dreadful fate
that befell the hapless South Pacific shark in 1953 may be just as well!
For further details
concerning globsters and Trunko, check out my books Extraordinary Animals Revisited and Mirabilis.
The 1953 experience of the Australian diver rang a bell. I first read about it in a short story by R. L. Fanthorpe, writing as Bron Fane, and published in 1960. The full story can be found at http://peltorro.com/SN038_The_Loch_Ness_Terror.htm . Mr (now Rev) Fanthorpe was a brilliant amateur polymath who churned out a science fiction or fantasy book every two weeks while holding down a day job, and he had a very wide general knowledge. You will note in the story, a professor lists a number of sea monster sightings. I was able to confirm all of them from Heuvelmans' book except the 1953 one. I therefore e-mailed Rev Fanthorpe and asked about it. He replied that he was sure it was a genuine sighting, but he could not remember what his source was.
ReplyDeleteI don't suppose you can provide us with the source. Also, exactly where in the Pacific did this take place.
My source was the sea monsters chapter in Eric Frank Russell's book Great World Mysteries (Dennis Dobson: London, 1957). Unfortunately, he gives no details of the diver's specific location in the South Pacific, nor does he provide any source for this report. There is a bibliography at the back of his book that contains a number of potential sources for it, but I don't own all of them, so I can't check through all of them to discover whether any contain this report, sadly.
Delete