Photograph
allegedly depicting a shot mini-rex or 'river lizard' held by an unidentified
figure - emailed by 'Derick' to Chad Arment in April 2000 (copyright owner
unknown/identity and current location of 'Derick' unknown so could not be
contacted; thus reproduced here for educational/review purposes only, on a strictly
Fair Use basis)
In January 2000,
veteran American cryptozoologist Ron Schaffner was emailed by someone using
only a generic, non-specific email and who identified himself simply as
'Derick', but whose information was anything but generic. Derick attracted Ron's
interest straight away, thanks to his emailed report containing the following intriguing
introductory statement:
I live in Pueblo,
Colorado.
I moved out here when I was six and since then I've heard stories of the
prairie devil, the pig man and the mini-rex; there's even old Indian legends of
evil river demons. You get older and you try not to believe in monsters,
however not even the high school kids will have a kegger [outdoor keg
beer-drinking teenage parties] down by the river without a raging fire and a
lot of people [presumably to ensure that 'monsters' keep well away]. It's not
like people don't see things, people see them they just don't make a big deal
of it. If you live by the river like me you just get used to it.
Following that
enticing preamble, Derick duly cut to the chase, describing his encounter with what
appears to have been one of this region's mysterious 'mini-rexes'. He claimed
that while he and a friend were riding the latter's dirt-bike close to the Fountain River near Pueblo one day in July
1998, they suddenly saw a truly extraordinary bipedal creature run across the
clearing in front of them:
It was three to four feet long, greenish with black markings on
its back, and a yellowish-orange under belly. It walked on its hind legs, never
dragging its tail, its front limbs (I call them limbs because they were more
like arms than anything) were smaller in comparison to the back ones and it had
four or three claws/fingers. I'm not sure for it was seen at a great distance.
It also had some kind of lump or horn over each eye. When it noticed our
presence it let out a high pitched screech or some sort of bird chirping, that
pierced my ears, and then took off.
Derick and his
friend returned at once to Derick's house to fetch a camera, then returned to
the location of their encounter and photographed the creature's three-toed,
2-in-diameter tracks (with a Marlboro Red cigarette placed alongside them in
some photos for scale purposes). Derick also stated that he subsequently heard
of other sightings, and discovered that a friend had actually photographed one
such creature. Following some persuasion, the latter friend allowed Derick to
send scans of those photos, together with his own track photos and July 1998
sighting account, to Ron, who in turn showed them to fellow American
cryptozoologist Chad Arment, who has a particular interest in American mystery
reptiles. However, as the photos showed little detail, even when magnified, Ron
and Chad agreed that
their subjects could easily be dinosaur models.
Nevertheless, Chad remained
sufficiently intrigued to email Derick and state that if such beasts were
indeed real, better evidence would be needed in order to confirm this. He
didn't expect to receive a reply, but in April 2000 he did, in the form of an
email enclosing two scans of the truly remarkable photograph opening this
present ShukerNature blog article and also reproduced below:
Photograph
allegedly depicting a shot mini-rex or 'river lizard' held by an unidentified
figure - emailed by 'Derick' to Chad Arment in April 2000 (copyright owner
unknown/identity and current location of 'Derick' unknown so could not be
contacted; thus reproduced here for educational/review purposes only, on a strictly
Fair Use basis)
Referring to the
creature in this photo as a 'river lizard' (but which is presumably the same
type as the mini-rex that he saw), Derick stated that it had taken him some
time to obtain scans of it, and that he didn't know when or specifically where it
had been snapped, only "somewhere" in Colorado. As this creature does
not resemble any species currently recognised by science, Chad later attempted
to email Derick for further details, but received an automated reply that
Derick's email address was no longer in operation, and has never heard from him
again.
However, Chad
has learnt from another source that the term 'river dinosaur' has apparently
been used in relation to such creatures, and even that an individual who had
previously collected Colorado reptiles for some of Chad's friends working in
the pet trade had also offered to capture for them some 'river dinosaurs'
(whose description compared closely to the appearance of the 'river lizard' in
the above photo supplied by Derick). Unfortunately, Chad's friends had
been forced to decline this exciting offer due to lack of funds.
The 'river
lizard' photograph supplied by Derick has been floating around online for many
years now, and has attracted much attention and numerous comments on the many
websites where it has appeared, with the consensus seeming to be that it is a
hoax, although this has never been confirmed. (I have conducted several
Google-image searches, concentrating variously upon the whole image, the
section featuring the person, the section featuring the creature, etc, but all
to no avail.) However, it certainly contains some anomalous features,
especially in relation to the creature's appearance, as commented upon by Chad
in an account of this and other bipedal 'dinosaur' sightings reported from the U.S.A. (North
American Biofortean Review, vol. 2, #2, 2000).
For example: if
the 'river lizard' had only recently been shot when this photograph was
snapped, and bearing in mind that recently-dead reptiles are normally very
limp, and also bearing in mind that it was being held vertically, why is its
tail curving inward rather than simply hanging straight down? And why is its
mouth gaping open rather than being held closed, or at least nearly so, as one
would expect under the above-listed conditions? As Chad also pointed out, very
convincing life-like rubber models of dinosaurs can be readily obtained
nowadays, so we cannot be sure that the 'river lizard' in the photo was ever a
living entity anyway.
And even if it
was once alive, thanks to the photo-manipulation software that was already
available back in 2000 there is no certainty that this creature's appearance
hasn't been profoundly modified digitally from whatever it was originally.
Moreover, the entire photograph might conceivably be a cleverly-constructed
melange, i.e. an original photo of a person holding a gun into which a second,
digitally-manipulated photo of some animal has been deftly incorporated.
Certainly, whenever I've looked at it, I've been struck by just how very odd, how
very unnatural its image seems to be, and I don't just mean the bizarre
appearance of the 'river lizard' itself but the whole image. Even the person's
face is so obscured by the shadow of their hat that I'm not exactly certain
whether they are male or female. But returning to the 'river lizard': having
spent a lifetime observing animals in photos and in the living state, at the
risk of being accused of sounding unscientific and overly reliant upon gut
instinct it just doesn't look 'right' to me.
In particular,
the incongruous hind limbs sported by this creature seem entirely out of place
on its body, their curiously flat, disproportionately large, and flared, oddly
triangular (rather than oval) haunches looking not only unrealistic but also as
if they have been crudely glued (or photo-applied) there rather than being a
natural feature of its anatomy. And when viewed in magnified form, the lower
portion of each of these hind limbs seems to be segmented, rather like that of
an arthropod invertebrate. Very strange indeed. Also worrying is the artificial
appearance of the creature's open mouth, almost as if the lower jaw has been manually
added...
Thus I consider
it plausible that this 'river lizard' photo is indeed a hoax, my line of
thought being that its mystifying creature constitutes some form of manufactured
composite (either physical or photo-manipulated), perhaps a much-modified dead
monitor lizard, sub-adult crocodile, or even dinosaur model, for instance. Moreover,
if my reasoning so far is correct, then I further suggest that the creature's bizarre-looking
hind limbs as seen in the photo are fake, that they have been seemingly less
than skilfully attached to (or superimposed upon) its body, and that they presumably
replaced whatever hind limbs it may have originally possessed, this
substitution having been done to enhance even further the contrived exotic,
unfamiliar appearance of this creature for this photo.
Having said all
of that, however, this is nothing more than speculation on my part, and I am
well aware that I could be entirely wrong, with the 'river lizard' potentially being
a bona fide cryptid carcase after all (if so, I would be only too happy to be wrong!).
So I'd be most interested to receive any comments, views, or additional
information concerning it from other investigators and readers.
Speaking of
which: one American cryptozoologist who has investigated this and other such
cryptids with particular zeal, and success, since 2001 is Nick Sucik, who duly
published his very thought-provoking findings in a chapter devoted to this subject
in a most interesting compendium edited by Chad Arment and entitled Cryptozoology
and the Investigation of Lesser-Known Mystery Animals (2006). As will soon
be discovered when reading Nick's chapter, a fair number of roughly consistent
cases have been documented from a range of U.S. localities over
the years, but with particular frequency across Colorado. The size of
such beasts may differ, as may eyewitness recollections of colouration, but by
and large the same image of a miniature bipedal dinosaurian creature with
sturdy hind legs, much smaller, delicate forelegs, a long study tail, small but
very sharp teeth, and bare skin crops up time and again, with eyewitnesses comparing
what they have seen to certain fossil theropods (at least in basic outline),
including T. rex and Compsognathus (the latter small theropod
being very comparable size to most of the mini-rex specimens reported).
Life-sized
models of Compsognathus (© Dr Karl Shuker)
Nick's chapter
contains far too many cases and far too much information to review
comprehensively here, but I found the following cases to be especially
interesting. His chapter opens with a detailed account of a mini-rex sighting that
occurred one warm July evening in 2000 as three women of successive generations
were driving along a country road near the rural community of Yellow Jacket, 15 miles north of Cortez, Colorado. The creature
entered their headlights from the side, and the driver braked, thinking that it
was a fawn, but when the headlights lit it up, its two astonished eyewitnesses
in the front of the vehicle realised that it was something very different
indeed. As described by Nick in his account of their description of it:
Its body appeared smooth, devoid of fur or feathers. Its height perhaps
was three feet and the small head was bent downward on a slender neck. The
creature ran on two skinny legs with its tiny forelimbs held out in front of
its body as it ran. Its body tapered down into a lengthy tail that, combined
with the head and neck, made it about 5 feet
long. The movement of the animal was noted as graceful, the head not bouncing
as it ran.
The animal quickly passed in front of them and disappeared into
the darkness.
Its eyewitnesses
were shocked by what they had seen, but after they had regained their composure
one of them joked that it must have escaped from some local Jurassic Park. Although a
light-hearted remark, it is nonetheless telling, as it serves well in underlining
just how very dinosaurian the creature must have appeared to them – as opposed
to rather more mundane alternatives, such as an exotic escapee from captivity (like
a wallaby, but which is furry and jumps, not runs; or a rhea or emu, which do run,
but are feathered).
Certain lizards
as known to adopt a bipedal running gait on occasion. Perhaps the most famous of
these is the Australian frilled lizard Chlamydosaurus kingii, up to 2.75
ft long and which has often been likened to a raptor when sprinting
bipedally. So have North America's collared
lizards (genus Crotaphytus), which measure around 1
ft long. In South America, the basilisks (genus Basiliscus),
up to 2.5 ft long, can do
the same too, even sprinting bipedally across stretches of water, and these are
also commonly kept as pets in the U.S.A., so specimens may escape into the wild
here on occasion. Indeed, the description of one bright green, crested,
2-ft-long, lengthy-tailed bipedal "baby dinosaur" allegedly caught then
released by an 11-year-old boy in 1981 alongside some railway tracks in New
Kensington, Pennsylvania, sounds just like one of these lizards, which by then
were becoming quite popular as exotic pets in the States.
However, there
are some notably behavioural and morphological differences between such lizards
as these and the more typical, much more mysterious mini-rex. For instance, none
of these lizards are habitually bipedal, whereas the mini-rex apparently is.
Moreover, their forelimbs are held laterally when they run bipedally, whereas
those of the mini-rex are held in front of its body when it runs bipedally.
Also, these lizards are smaller than all but the smallest mini-rexes on record,
whereas some of the bigger examples of the latter cryptid are at least the
height of an adult human. True, certain of the large monitor lizards are
popular pets that often escape, can grow several feet long, and can run
bipedally, but only for very short periods, not in the habitual and very rapid manner
described by eyewitnesses for all mini-rexes, even the biggest ones.
One 'not-so-mini'
mini-rex was reported by a lady called Myrtle Snow, who seems blessed with an
extraordinary ability to encounter these mystery reptiles, judging at least
from the fact that she claims to have done so on several occasions throughout
her life in and around Pagosa Springs, Colorado, as documented
by Nick. Perhaps the most dramatic incident described by her allegedly took
place during or around the late 1930s when, following the loss of several lambs
to an unknown predator, a Pagosa Springs rancher armed a shepherd and asked him
to guard the remaining flock. This he did, very successfully – by shooting dead
a large, mysterious creature deemed to be the predator, whose carcase was then
placed on a sled and hauled back to the ranch by one of its Apache ranch hands,
using a team of mules.
After being deposited
inside a barn there, this specimen was viewed by many local farmers, including
Snow's grandfather, who took Snow (then still a girl) with him, so that she
could see it too. In 1982, following its publishing an article on the subject
of whether prehistoric dinosaurs had been cold-blooded, Snow wrote to the Rocky
Mountain Empire Magazine (the Sunday supplement of the Denver Post
newspaper), describing all of her alleged encounters with supposed modern-day
dinosaurs, including her close-up viewing of the deceased mystery beast shot by
the shepherd. She described it as:
...about 7
feet tall, gray in color, had a head
like a snake, short front legs with claws that resembled chicken feet, large
stout back legs and a long tail.
Curiously, when
interviewed more recently by Nick, Snow also claimed that its body had been
covered in fine grey hairs.
If so, then parsimoniously
this tends towards a mammalian rather than a reptilian identity for the
creature, though I am aware that certain fossil pterosaurs were hairy (but
these 'hairs' were quite different structurally from true mammalian hairs and
are called pycnofibers) and that the plumes of certain feathered fossil dinosaurs,
e.g. Sinosauropteryx, were filamentous and therefore quite hair-like. Snow
stated that the only observer who was apparently familiar with this
extraordinary creature was the Apache ranch hand, who claimed that it was what
elders on his reservation referred to as a moon cow, and which they said had
been seen periodically in the past but were nowadays rare.
Restoration
of Sinosauropteryx with hair-like plumes, depicted upon a Kyrgyzstan
postage stamp issued in 2001 (public domain)
Worth noting
here is that although the name 'moon cow' seems strange, it just so happens
that a very similar name, 'moon calf', is a rural term used widely across
Europe for an aborted, teratological foetus of a cow (and sometimes that of
other farm animals too), deriving from the once-popular folk belief that these
malformed creatures resulted from a sinister effect of the moon. It has also
been used more generally to refer to anything monstrous or grotesque in form.
Could this distinctive term have reached North America with the original
Western settlers and subsequently become incorporated into Amerindian parlance
too, or might the notion of lunar influence upon the occurrence of malformed
creatures have simply arisen independently on both sides of the Atlantic? In view of the
creature's alleged hairiness, I cannot help but wonder whether this was its
true identity, i.e. a malformed mammal of some kind.
Ironically,
there may have been a chance of finding out for sure, because according to Snow
the creature's carcase was packed in ice and sent by train to the Denver Museum for examination
and identification. When this claim was pursued on Nick's behalf by an
archivist at the museum, however, no record of any such specimen ever even
being received there could be found. Conversely, what had definitely been sent
to this museum and formally examined there, as Nick discovered, was a box
containing two alleged 'baby dinosaur' skeletons, one having been found inside
a mineshaft and the other in a cave near to it, in Cortez, Colorado. Such
creatures were apparently familiar to the local Navajo people, and during the
early 1960s one of the skeletons was displayed at Cortez Museum. It was
following the museum's eventual closure that the box was sent to Denver Museum, but when the
skeletons were examined there they were found to be composites, constructed
from the bones of various different species of mammal – in other words, they
were hoaxes.
Perhaps the most
remarkable mini-rex claims of all, however, are a couple attesting to the
alleged capture of living specimens, one of which was even supposedly kept as a
pet for a while by its captors. This latter case featured testimony given to
one of Nick's correspondents by his aunts. They claimed that some time between
the end of the Great Depression in America (late 1930s) and the early 1940s, while
following the crop harvests from state to state as they travelled out west, what
they called a 'baby dinosaur' and which seemed to them to resemble a tiny T.
rex would come to their camp when their mother was cooking outside. One
day, they succeeded in catching it, and afterwards kept it inside an old bird
cage for a time, feeding it on leftovers, and finding that it would eat both
meat and vegetables. According to Nick's account of this fascinating little
animal:
It was described as having sharp little hooks on its hands and
very sharp teeth, like that of a kitten. Its skin was like a lizard's but felt
warm. It never tried to bite or scratch but it did not like being held. The
animal behaved "like a tame squirrel." During the time they kept
their pet, it grew from the size of a kitten to roughly the size of a cat, by
which time it was far too big for the cage.
Eventually their
family had to move elsewhere in order to follow the crops, so their father told
them to leave their pet behind. Of especial interest here is that when the
aunts first told their nephew about their most unusual former pet, back in the
1970s, they remembered that when it ran it "flattened out, stretched its
head out front, tail out back and was really fast". As pointed out by Nick,
whereas this running posture is widely accepted nowadays by palaeontologists for
bipedal fossil dinosaurs, it wasn't back in the 1970s. So if the aunts had been
making up their story, they were remarkably prescient concerning this
particular facet of dinosaur behaviour. Just a coincidence?
The other case
of reputed mini-rex capture came to light when a lady wrote to Nick to inform
him that her three boys had once caught such a creature in New Mexico. The specimen
in question was unusually large but slow-moving, and when they caught it they
could see that it was old, with fainter body colouration than other, faster
specimens that they had previously seen (but had never succeeded in capturing).
Its body alone measured 20-24 in, i.e. not
including its lengthy tail, but after admiring this impressive creature for a
while, the boys released it. Interestingly, they referred to it as a mountain
boomer, a colloquial name normally applied to collared lizards.
A common
collared lizard Crotaphytus collaris (© Ejohnsonboulder/Wikipedia CCBY-SA 3.0 licence)
What could the
mini-rex be? As with so many cryptids, it may well be a non-existent composite,
i.e. it has been 'created' by the erroneous amalgamation of reports featuring
various totally different species. The smaller individuals may indeed be
nothing more than lizards sprinting bipedally, yet species like the collared
lizards are so common and familiar that it seems difficult to believe that
people living in locations where they occur would not recognise them for what
they were. Perhaps, however, some mini-rex reports involve less familiar lizard
species that are currently not known by scientists to be capable of bipedal
locomotion. Yet the posture and habitual bipedalism reported for these cryptids
do not accord well with lizards anyway, regardless of species.
So is it
possible that somewhere in the more rural regions of Colorado and elsewhere in
the United States there really are bona fide 21st-Century bipedal
dinosaurs (albeit of quite modest dimensions), sprinting along in blissful
ignorance of their official demise 66 million years ago? It seems highly unlikely.
Yet there is surely little doubt that something that corresponds at least
ostensibly with such an identity is indeed out there.
The last word on
this most tantalising of topics should go to its foremost investigator, the
indefatigable Nick Sucik, whom I have known for many years and greatly admire
for his diligent, meticulous, and, above all else, tenacious pursuit of answers
to cryptozoological riddles from all around the globe:
...such tales, whether they be true or not, add to the folklore
of what our world would be like if dinosaurs lurked in secret and only stepped
out into the clearing momentarily to be seen. If there were or are such things,
they perhaps would possess the safety of being too unbelievable.
An excellent
point – for there can be no doubt that it is this precise quality of
unbelievability which serves so many cryptids so effectively in keeping them
out of the clutches of scientific recognition. After all, who is going to admit
to having seen creatures that sound too unlikely to be real, and who is going
to seek them even if their eyewitnesses do admit to having seen them? Thank Heavens,
therefore, for the Nick Suciks of this world, who choose dispassion over
disbelief. May their zeal be rewarded one day with the discovery of those
cryptids that they seek.