ON THE ROAD FOR GIANT TOADS

 

Artistic representation of a giant toad (© Richard Svensson)

Today is the 14^th anniversary of my ShukerNature blog's official launch (20 January 2009), so now, almost 800 ShukerNature articles later, here is my latest one, to mark this auspicious occasion, and inspired by a fascinating news report that I read just a few hours ago.

The news report in question (which can be accessed directly here) reveals the recent discovery and capture in Queensland, Australia, of a truly gigantic specimen of cane toad Bufo marinus (=Rhinella marina). Weighing a colossal 2.7 kg/6 lb (six times that of normal specimens), and dubbed Toadzilla, it may be the biggest toad of any kind ever officially recorded (but keep my use of the word 'officially' in mind, for reasons to be revealed here shortly).

Native to South America and recognized to be the world's largest toad species, the cane toad was introduced into Australia during the 1930s in a bid to control sugar cane-devouring beetles here. Alarmingly, however, it ultimately proved itself as serious an ecological blight as its intended prey. This is due not only to its skin being toxic but also to various toxin-secreting glands on its back and especially to the pair of very sizeable parotoid glands sited on its warty skin's shoulders, which secrete a potent cardiac toxin called bufotoxin  - this highly deleterious suite of secretions collectively causing anything attempting to eat one of these toads to die a swift and usually certain death, including Australia's various native (and mostly endangered) marsupial carnivores, and even creatures as large as goannas (monitor lizards). To make matters worse, this toad also actively preys upon the smaller marsupial carnivore species, such as the shrew-like marsupial mice.

Moreover, because of its very effective deterrent against potential attackers, the cane toad has no predators here, causing its numbers to swell out of all proportion and thereby posing an increasingly severe threat to this island continent's unique indigenous fauna.

 

A cane toad, with its lethal pair of shoulder-sited toxin-secreting parotoid glands clearly visible (© Froggydarb/Wikipedia – CC BY-SA 3.0 licence)

Having said that, in recent times one native Australian species, the black-necked ibis Threskiornis molucca, has seemingly conceived a remarkable means of side-stepping the cane toad's hitherto unassailable defence mechanism – these ibises have been seen throwing toads in the air, which distresses them, thus inducing them to release their skin glands' toxic secretions, after which the ibises wipe the toads on wet grass or rinse them in a water source, washing off the poison from the toads' skin, and then repeat the entire process, until the toads' glands and skin are eventually drained of toxin, after which the ibises swallow the toads whole, with no resulting ill effects.

Certain other canny avians, such as crows and hawks, have learned to flip the toads onto their back and then devour their internal organs, leaving their lethal shoulder and back glands untouched. Who said that birds are bird-brained?! More information on toad-tackling birds here.

Anyway, as noted above, the cane toad is officially the world's largest species of toad. Unofficially, however, there may be reason to question this assumption, judging at least from certain intriguing reports contained in the cryptozoological archives.

The native Indian peoples inhabiting various tropical valleys in the Chilean and Peruvian Andes frequently report the existence there of a greatly-feared, giant form of toad called the sapo de loma ('toad of the hills'). It is said to be deadly poisonous and capable of preying upon creatures as large as medium-sized birds and rodents.

 

Taxiderm specimen of Blomberg's giant toad Bufo blombergi (© Markus Bühler)

Science has yet to examine a sapo de loma, but as I have pointed out in my book The Encyclopaedia of New and Rediscovered Animals (2012) and its two predecessors (The New Zoo, 2002, and The Lost Ark, 1993), there is a major precedent for discovering batrachian behemoths in South America. Rolf Blomberg (1912-1996) was a Swedish explorer, photographer, and writer, and in 1950 he was instrumental in bringing to scientific attention a hitherto-undescribed species of giant toad native to southwestern Colombia. He achieved this significant feat by capturing a huge specimen there that he brought back with him to his home in neighbouring Ecuador, and which became the type specimen of this spectacular new species – duly dubbed Bufo blombergi in his honour a year later. Blomberg's giant toad (aka the Colombian giant toad) can attain a total snout-to-vent length of up to 10 in, which is greater even than that of the heavier, more massively-built cane toad.

Incidentally, German cryptozoological correspondent Markus Bühler has informed me that while browsing through a series of yearbooks from the 1970s for Stuttgart's Wilhelma Zoo, he noticed that the 1971 volume mentioned the chance birth at the zoo some years earlier of hybrids between a female B. blombergi and a male B. marinus. They were apparently indistinguishable from the paternal species, but exhibited unusually strong growth – no doubt a result of hybrid vigour. Bearing in mind that they were crossbreeds of the world's longest toad species and the world's largest toad species, it is a great pity that the book did not contain any additional information concerning them, because they must surely have had the potential to become veritable mega-toads!

In any event, mindful of the relatively belated scientific discovery of Blomberg's giant toad, it would be rash to rule out entirely the possibility that a comparable species still awaits discovery in remote, rarely-visited Andean valleys not too far to the south of the latter species' distribution range.

Moreover, there are also claims among the Mapuche people relating to a supposedly immense species of toad indigenous to various lakes, lagoons, and irrigation channels in southern Chile and southwestern Argentina. Known as the arumco ('big water frog') in Argentina and the vilú in Chile, it is said to measure up to 3 ft long. One such creature, dwelling in a lake, reputedly devoured a horse that was attempting to wade across, but whether this story is true or merely native folklore or hyperbole remains unresolved.

 

Unidentified newspaper article published on 11 August 1987, p. 11, regarding the mystery Wuhan giant toads (or frogs?) – please click picture to enlarge for reading purposes (source unknown to me despite many searches for information concerning this article – reproduced here on a strictly non-commercial Fair Use basis for educational/review purposes only)

However, it does remind me of a comparable report that emerged from China. A team of nine scientists from Peking (now Beijing) University, led by 58-year-old biologist Prof. Chen Mok Chun, travelled to some very large, deep mountain pools (one of which is named Bao Fung Lake) near Wuhan in China's Hubei Province during August 1987 in order to film the area and its wildlife. While setting up their television cameras, however, they were allegedly treated to an exhibition of local wildlife far beyond anything that even their wildest imaginations – or worst nightmares – could have conceived.

In full view of the scientists, three huge creatures supposedly rose up out of one of these pools and moved towards the pool's edge nearest to them. Their stunned eyewitnesses likened these grotesque monsters to giant toads or frogs, with greyish-white skins, mouths that were said to be about 6 ft wide, and eyes "bigger than rice bowls".

According to Prof. Chen, they silently watched the scientists for a short time. Then one of them opened its huge mouth and swiftly extended an enormous tongue, estimated at 20 ft long, which it wrapped around the cameras on tripods. As it promptly engulfed the tripods, its two companions let forth some eldritch screams, and then all three monsters submerged, disappearing from view. The delayed-shock reaction experienced by the scientists was so great that one of them dropped to his knees and was physically sick, according to Chinese reports, summarised in various overseas media accounts, including an unidentified American newspaper report included here (if anyone can identify its source, please let me know, thanks!)

This incident seems so utterly incredible that one would surely feel justified in dismissing it entirely as a hoax of the sensationalist supermarket tabloid kind – were it not for the fact that the eyewitnesses in question were all trained scientists, including a major name in Chinese biological research, and all from the country's leading university. Moreover, reports of such creatures being sighted in this same locality by local fishermen date back at least as far as 1962.

 

Finally: included here for no reason whatsoever other than I happen to like it is a bizarre sculpture from the late 1800s of a hook-beaked, warty-skinned, rabbit-eared frog – or toad! (© Markus Bühler)

For more information concerning mega-toads, not to mention mega-frogs too (and click here for one such example of the latter category of amphibian cryptid as documented by me on ShukerNature), be sure to check out my book A Manifestation of Monsters.

A FROG AS BIG AS A GOAT - THE MOST MYSTIFYING LOCH NESS MONSTER SIGHTING EVER?

Might the bizarre-sounding cryptid allegedly encountered by diver Duncan Macdonald while underwater in Loch Ness during the late 19^th Century have looked something like this? (© Richard Svensson)

Of all of the many Nessie-related subjects documented by me down through the years (and now collected together in my forthcoming book Here's Nessie: A Monstrous Compendium From Loch Ness), few have attracted so many enquiries from readers and correspondents as the extraordinary 'frog as big as a goat' supposedly sighted one day by diver Duncan Macdonald while underwater in Loch Ness during the late 1800s (click here for an earlier mention of this cryptid by me on ShukerNature). The incident was first reported almost half a century later, in Inverness's Northern Chronicle newspaper (by an unnamed writer) on 31 January 1934, and this report has in turn been referred to by a number of subsequent publications, but (as far as I am aware) it has never been republished anywhere in full – until now!

Courtesy of the indefatigable research skills of fellow cryptozoological investigator Richard Muirhead (thanks Richard!), earlier today I was delighted to receive a copy of the original Northern Chronicle article, which actually consisted of several different Nessie-themed items linked together. Here is the quite short but very intriguing one concerning Macdonald's alleged encounter:

A DIVER'S EXPERIENCE

Many stories have been circulated by those who go down to the depths inside a diving-bell. Some of them are, doubtless, true; others, of course, must be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. But the truth of any story can very often be guaranteed by a little careful investigation.

Here is such a story, and, as it concerns Loch Ness, and the experience which befell a well-known diver, it might, by reason of its uniqueness, act as a spur to those whose training has fitted them to probe the mysteries of marine zoology, for, in the opinion of the writer, it is but another aspect of the case of the Loch Ness "monster."

Some forty-five to fifty years ago a small sailing vessel carrying a cargo of guano, when making the passage through Loch Ness, struck a submerged reef known as "Johnnie's Point," and sank, fortunately without loss of life.

The mishap occurred during the night, and when dawn broke it was seen that the tops of the masts were still above water.

Realising that the vessel might be raised, a squad of men was quickly on the scene, and chains were passed underneath the hulk.

But ere the job was completed the action of the water suddenly dislodged the craft, and she vanished into the depths.

Still hoping to salve the wreck, the owner secured the services of Mr Duncan Macdonald, a noted diving expert, who was at the time employed at the Crinan Canal.

Mr Macdonald duly arrived, and it was from the Caledonian Canal Company's diving-barge that he carried out operations.

A STRANGE CREATURE

After having made a descent of thirty feet, Mr Macdonald signalled that he wished to come up, and, on being questioned as to whether there was any sign of the ship, he said there was none.

From this it was obvious that further attempts would be useless, so he was undressed, and the party prepared to make for Fort-Augustus, their headquarters.

Now one man in the party, having heard stories of a strange creature which was said to live in the loch, began to question the diver. The latter, however, was at first rather diffident about taking any part in the conversation.

Yet, since the others knew that anything he might tell them would be perfectly true, they persisted, and finally the diver said that he saw a strange creature that day.

It lay, he said, on a ledge of rock, on the self-same ledge, apparently, on which the keel of the wrecked vessel had rested, about thirty feet down.

There, he continued, lay a queer-looking beast, which he described as something in the nature of a huge frog.

It stared at him, but, as it showed neither ferocity nor fear, he did not disturb it. In his own words he "saw that the beast made no effort to interfere with me, and I did not interfere with it." As to size, the diver said the creature was "as big as a goat, or a good wedder [Scots dialect word for a castrated male sheep]."

The story, exactly as given, was told by Mr Donald Fraser, lock-keeper, Fort Augustus, who often heard the diver (his own grand-uncle) tell it many years ago.

STRANGE CREATURES

Naturally, this incident raises some very important questions, and the first is – Is the frog-like creature related in any way to the "monster" or "monsters" which inhabit Loch Ness?

Or does the diver's story show that such creatures are entirely different from the present "monster"?

If this be so, it is not unreasonable to presume that they might prove to be the form, or perhaps one of the forms[,] of life with which – who can tell? – Loch Ness abounds, and on which the "monster" sustains itself.

In any case[,] past reports of strange creatures having been seen in the loch show conclusively that they and their kind have had their homes there for centuries, and, this being so, it would seem that were they living on fish life, i.e., salmon and trout, to the extent that some people think they do, the whole or at least most of the salmon kind – still fairly plentiful – would long since have been decimated.

Thus, there being no reason at all why the above statements should be doubted, it will surely be granted that the time is ripe for some competent body to conduct an investigation into the under-water life of Loch Ness.

This remarkable report does indeed raise some very important questions, though not necessarily the ones posed in it by its anonymous author.

First and foremost: as Loch Ness is famous for the blackness of its waters due to their high concentration of peat, how could Macdonald have perceived this goat-sized 'frog' – or indeed anything else, for that matter – while diving at a depth of 30 ft? Having said that, the very fact that he went down there at all, in search of the sunken guano vessel, suggests that some degree of underwater vision must be possible at such depths in this loch. Perhaps, however, the viewing conditions were not sufficient for him to obtain a clear picture of the creature's form, so, who knows, maybe it wasn't genuinely frog-like after all, but actually was simply a typical Nessie longneck viewed at an angle at which its neck was not visible to him.

Alternatively, there is even the possibility that in reality it was some very large form of vaguely frog-like fish – an extremely big wels catfish Siluris glanis, perhaps, whose wide mouth would certainly call to mind that of a frog if encountered face-on in poor visibility. The wels is not native to Britain, it was introduced to various lakes here from Germany during the 1870s and 1880s, but Loch Ness is not one of the lakes featured in documented introductions. Of course, as so many illegal introductions/releases of non-native species across Britain during the past two centuries readily testify, however, just because no documented introductions of wels specimens into Loch Ness are on record, this doesn't necessarily mean that none has taken place...

Is this what Macdonald really saw? (© William M. Rebsamen)

Moving on, it is well worth noting that the Northern Chronicle's telling of this incident is very matter-of-fact, in stark contrast to modern-day retellings, which generally claim that Macdonald was terror-stricken, refused to speak about his sighting for days afterwards, etc, etc. Consequently, these would appear to be melodramatic embellishments added subsequently by person(s) unknown.

The notion aired by the above report's author that perhaps this creature was not itself Nessie but was instead some second, entirely different species of monster – and one, moreover, that may actually constitute the prey of the 'real' Nessie – offers a fascinating if implausible prospect to say the least, doubling the quandary of whether any type of large cryptid inhabits this vast expanse of freshwater.

Loch Ness is BIG!! (public domain)

Equally thought-provoking is the author's claim that "...past reports of strange creatures having been seen in the loch show conclusively that they and their kind have had their homes there for centuries". On the contrary, because cryptozoological sceptics in particular habitually discount traditional stories of water-horses and water-bulls existing here, for instance, as nothing more than folk-tales, with no factual basis.

Moreover, in a very extensive Fortean Studies paper published in 2001 that surveyed no fewer than 87 cases of mysterious beasts allegedly spied in or on the shores of Loch Ness prior to 1933 (the year that marked the beginning the modern age of Nessie sightings), German cryptozoological investigator Ulrich Magin dismissed all of them as featuring mere legends, unsubstantiated rumours, or creatures that were unrelated to the long-necked Nessie-type cryptids reported from this loch from 1933 onwards. He concluded that there was no pre-1930s tradition of monsters inhabiting Loch Ness, only the possibility that some marine creature had somehow entered it during the early 1930s and that this is what had given rise to subsequent sightings of monsters there. This prospect is one that had been contemplated by the likes of early LNM chroniclers Lieutenant Commander Rupert T. Gould and Dr Anthonie C. Oudemans too.

An engraving of Dr Anthonie C. Oudemans (public domain)

But what did Magin think about Macdonald's 'giant frog'? In his listing, this was Case #32, but, interestingly, he was apparently unaware of its original Northern Chronicle source, because he stated: "This is a story which appears in most books about Nessie but always without reference", and he cited one such book, Peter Costello's In Search of Lake Monsters (1974), as the source that he had consulted.

After quoting Costello's brief version of Macdonald's own description of this underwater mystery beast's appearance, Magin concluded "...the description is unlikely to refer to a long-necked animal or any other animal known in the loch". Or indeed elsewhere, in fact, as I am certainly not aware of any living species of frog-like creature the size of a goat that is currently known to science in the living state (there are of course various extremely large amphibians known from the fossil record).

At present, therefore, the goat-sized 'frog' of Loch Ness remains a major enigma in the Nessie chronicles. Nevertheless, now that its original published source has been resurrected and reproduced here, one of the most mystifying and paradoxical LNM-associated reports – ostensibly unlikely, yet supplied by a very experienced and seemingly highly-reliable eyewitness - is finally readily available for scrutiny and further investigation by future Nessie researchers.

This ShukerNature blog article is excerpted exclusively from my forthcoming book Here's Nessie: A Monstrous Compendium From Loch Ness.

You never know what you may encounter when diving underwater in Loch Ness! (© William M. Rebsamen)

DEEPLY DIPPY OVER DIPLOCAULUS

Traditional boomerang-headed restoration of Diplocaulus (public domain)

Up to 3 ft long, superficially salamander-like in basic form, but belonging to the long-extinct nectridean taxonomic order within the equally erstwhile subclass of archaic amphibians known as lepospondyls, one of my favourite creatures from pre-dinosaurian prehistory has always been Diplocaulus – famous for its huge inverted V-shaped or boomerang-shaped head, as exhibited by several species (plus a very close relative, the lesser-known but near-identical Diploceratus burkei). The reason for its head's bizarre shape is its skull's pair of enormous but dorsoventrally flat, lateral bony projections known as tabular horns. These remarkable structures may have enabled its head to serve as a hydrofoil when this amphibian was swimming, or may even have prevented it from being swallowed by predators, by increasing its head's width beyond the gape of any carnivorous creature alive at that time that shared its zoogeographical distribution range.

Restoration of Diploceraspis burkei (© Dmitry Bogdanov/Wikipedia CC BY 3.0)

Arising in North America, this extraordinary creature lived during the Permian Period (approximately 300-250 million years ago), although only D. minimus, currently the only known non-American representative (native to Morocco), occurred during the late Permian. Consequently, this makes various photographs and videos of alleged living Diplocaulus specimens that have surfaced online and elsewhere in the media during recent years nothing if not intriguing…

DIPLOCAULUS IN A DISH (DIAD)

The first of these reputed resurrectées is one that I shall refer to hereafter as DIAD (short for Diplocaulus in a dish). As I documented in my book Extraordinary Animals Revisited (2007), in September 2004 Fortean Times forwarded to me a short note from reader Stuart Pike enquiring about a photograph that had been circulating online and which depicted a bizarre-looking mystery beast labelled in accompanying internet reports as a hammerhead lizard. Here is the photograph in question:

The 'hammerhead lizard', or, as I have since dubbed it, the DIAD (© source unknown to me)

Not long afterwards, Maltese journalist Tonio Galea independently contacted me, requesting details about this same photo (still of unknown origin), whose creature, according to local Maltese rumour, had lately been discovered alive on a rocky beach at Il-Maghluq, Marsascala, in the south of the island. I subsequently received several more enquiries from other correspondents, and so too, it transpired, did various other scientists, including Malta University biologist Prof. Patrick J. Schembri, who wrote about it in a letter published on 21 November 2004 in Malta's Sunday Times newspaper (click here).

In reality, however, what this intriguing photo depicts is a gypsum/non-urethane foam-based model of a Diplocaulus. Investigations of mine eventually revealed via a Japanese model-making website (click here) that this DIAD had been manufactured back in 1992 by an amateur Japanese model maker in response to a magazine competition. I have still not succeeded in discovering the model maker's name, but I did manage to uncover a second photograph of the DIAD itself, which is this one:

Second photograph of the DIAD (© source unknown to me)

DIPLOCAULUS ON VIDEO

YouTube contains several videos purporting to show living specimens of Diplocaulus (with at least two totally different specimens featured – one pink, one green), but all of them have been filmed and uploaded by the same person – which means that either he/she is unaccountably successful at locating living specimens of an amphibian deemed extinct for at least 250 million years by palaeontologists; or, all is not as it seems.

The person in question has the YouTube username SouldierTVSP, and has loaded three separate videos of what is claimed to be the same specimen, which can be viewed in sequence of their filming here, here, and here; plus a much shorter video montage here; and a video of a visibly different specimen here.

The first of the three videos allegedly showing the same specimen was filmed on 22 July 2011 (according to an on-screen caption). The second video consisted of three separate segments, filmed respectively (according to on-screen captions) on 26 July 2011, 1 August 2011, and 8 August 2011. No on-screen date was given for the third video, but as all three videos were uploaded by SouldierTVSP on 8 August 2011, this third video was clearly a continuation of the second one's ending section. Each of the three videos was accompanied by the following interestingly worded request: "Someone, please teach me this strange creature's true colors", beneath which for the third video was this additional, rather more forthright statement: "Diplocaulus Still Alive!! Paranormal Creature".

As will be seen when viewed, these three videos show what looks like a pink toy Diplocaulus amidst some vegetation debris floating in a current of water, seemingly a stream or river. There is nothing in the videos that can be used as an effective up-close scale to provide an estimate of size for the object (but unless the surrounding debris is very substantial, it would seem to be small). The object is moving entirely passively, drifting and buffeted by the current, with just an occasional slight movement of its tail or head, as might be expected, for instance, of a toy with a jointed tail and head, but no sign of any independent animate movements. In contrast, palaeontologists believe that in life, Diplocaulus would have probably swum by vertical undulations of its body, as its small weak legs and relatively short tail would not have been of much locomotory assistance. Of course, the object in the videos just might be a recently dead animal as opposed to a living one, but to my eyes the object looks as if it has never lived. Also, these three videos were filmed over an 18-day period, and yet the object's appearance does not change at all (in 18 days, a dead animal, conversely, would have shown considerable signs of decomposition, assuming that it hadn't already been devoured by a predator).

Diplocaulus magnicornis, fossil skull, in Journal of Morphology, 1912 (public domain)

On 16 November 2012, SouldierTVSP uploaded a very short video montage entitled 'Diplocaulus Still Alive! Cryptid Exist [sic]'. It began with a brief clip of a still photograph depicting someone holding a large creature to the camera, its somewhat salamander-like head pointing forward as it looks directly into the camera. The head bears a pair of fleshy flap-like lateral projections, but these are nowhere near as large or boomerang-shaped as those of Diplocaulus. The rest of the creature cannot be readily seen; indeed, based upon that photo alone, I'm not entirely convinced that the creature is an amphibian (not even a deformed one), rather than some unusual wide-mouthed fish. Nevertheless, an on-screen caption states in English and Japanese that as soon as its identity as Diplocaulus is confirmed, the full footage will be released (but as far as I'm aware, no such release has occurred so far). The remainder of the video shows what seems to be the earlier pink apparent toy Diplocaulus resting on some vegetation (with a live wild duck of similar size close by, thus providing a useful size scale), then ending with a four-second clip of what looks like this same object floating in the water with its tail swishing from side to side, but very plausibly caused simply by the water current moving a jointed tail on a toy.

The final alleged Diplocaulus video by SouldierTVSP, uploaded on 11 January 2012, has the somewhat unpromising title of 'Kinky Cryptid Sightings', and showcases an iridescent green Diplocaulus with an enormous head moving across a pond (located near a waterfall) at the water surface in a seemingly active manner before its huge boomerang-shaped head becomes entangled in what looks worryingly like an item of female undergarment floating there (which presumably explains the title of the video!). For these reasons alone (not to mention the wide variety of anything-but-serious videos on other cryptozoological subjects that this person has also uploaded onto YouTube), I personally find it difficult to take this video seriously. In my view, some form of self-propelled model has been filmed here – but I would love to be proved wrong!

OH, DIPLOCAULUS, WHAT CAN THE MATAMATA BE?

On 10 October 2015, the following photograph was tweeted to me by The Anomalist @anomalistnews, stating: "Is this a better diplocaulus hoax, or a previously unknown animal?" and "Only details on this photo is it was taken in "Asia" and was posted on Facebook".

Online photograph tweeted to me of an unequivocally Diplocaulus-like creature – but was it alive? (see later in this ShukerNature article for subsequently-discovered copyright credit)

Needless to say, it certainly looked like a Diplocaulus, no question about that, and the degree of morphological detail visible in the photograph was extensive – but was it a living animal, or was it either a very realistic model or a very skilfully photo-manipulated image?

Not surprisingly, this mystery photograph attracted considerable interest and comments on Twitter, including this thought-provoking suggestion by Facebook friend Paul Willison: "IMO, a photoshop of a hellbender or giant salamander and baby mata mata turtle", who also attached some photographs of these species in support of his opinion.

A hellbender (© Brian Gratwicke/Wikipedia CC BY 2.0)

The hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis is North America's giant salamander, beaten in size only by the giant salamanders of China and Japan; and the mata mata or matamata Chelus fimbriata is a very bizarre-looking species of South American freshwater turtle.

And there is no doubt that the ostensible Diplocaulus in the mystery photo does embody features from both of these species, so could that be the answer – a photographic montage or composite created by some ingenious morphing of matamata and hellbender images by person(s) unknown?

A matamata (© Stahlkocher/Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0)

Spurred on by Paul's suggestion, I spent some time Google-imaging matamata turtles, hellbenders, and giant salamanders in general, in search of corresponding photos or portions of photos, as well as Diplocaulus, in search of matching photos of models and restorations – but nothing turned up, until…

After scrolling down to the very bottom of the umpteenth Google-image search page using the above and similar animal names as search words, suddenly the mystery photograph itself appeared!

It proved to be a photo of an exceedingly life-like Diplocaulus model created by expert Japanese model maker Goro Furuta. What's more, it was just one of several photos (all copyrighted to Goro) of this wonderful model that were present in a publicly-viewable album on Goro's Facebook page. This album can be viewed here, and includes the following close-up photo of the model resting on someone's hand and arm:

Second photograph of Goro Furuta's excellent Diplocaulus model (© Goro Furuta)

Goro has prepared many additional, equally spectacular animal models, and as I swiftly became a massive fan of his work after browsing pictures of them in his several albums on Facebook depicting his work, I am delighted that he is now a Facebook friend of mine.

Incidentally, I'd like to stress here that at no point has Goro ever claimed or sought to suggest that his Diplocaulus model was anything other than a model - the online confusion as to whether or not the photograph of it currently doing the internet rounds portrayed a living Diplocaulus is due entirely to misinformed speculation by people seeing the photo (copied from Goro's FB album and circulated online by person/s unknown) but not knowing its origin and incorrectly assuming the model to be a real animal. (Having said that, I suppose it can be viewed as a backhanded compliment to Goro's model-making expertise that his Diplocaulus model is so realistic that people have assumed that it was a living creature!)

The mystery of the most life-like non-living Diplocaulus reported online so far was a mystery no longer. In a tweet of 10 October 2015 replying to the original one by The Anomalist and to those of Paul Willison, I stated: "It's a Diplocaulus model, by Japanese model-maker Goro Furuta: [and then I included the link to Goro's relevant Facebook album]".

Skull and vertebrae of Diplocaulus magnicornis unearthed in Willbarger County, Texas; displayed at the University of Michigan's Natural History Museum (public domain)

Sadly, however, it means that this boomerang-headed amphibian remains interred within the long-vanished Permian Period, but even back there it has offered up a startling surprise. Trace fossils have been found showing a pair of flaps or membranes linking the tips of its head's tabular horns to its body – in other words, Diplocaulus may not have been outwardly boomerang-headed as traditionally assumed, but might well instead have resembled in life the restoration depicted at the end of this ShukerNature blog article, on display at the University of Michigan's Natural History Museum.

If so, then any videos or future photos of purported living Diplocaulus specimens that possess a boomerang-shaped head can swiftly be discounted (always assuming, of course, that an evolved modern-day Diplocaulus did not develop one during its 250-million-year continued evolution since the Permian?).

For now, however, all of this is academic, because Diplocaulus is still defunct, but it remains one of my favourite prehistoric creatures too – even if it has lost its boomerang!

Modern reconstruction of Diplocaulus magnicornis, exhibiting membranes enclosing its tabular horns; displayed at the University of Michigan's Natural History Museum (public domain)

A GIANT DOG-FANGED MYSTERY FROG FROM THE CONGO

Alongside a statue of a hypothetical giant frog (© Dr Karl Shuker)

The 20^th Century opened with one of the most dramatic amphibian discoveries of all time – the aptly-named goliath frog Conraua goliath. Up to 14.5 in long from snout to vent, plus a pair of enormous hind legs, and weighing up to 8 lb, it is the world's biggest known species of living frog (or toad, for that matter), as large in fact as certain antelopes with which it shares its Middle African domain (for further details regarding this remarkable amphibian's scientific unveiling, see my book The Encyclopaedia of New and Rediscovered Animals). However, another very sizeable African frog remains unidentified and unexamined by science almost 70 years after it was first documented.

On 31 December 1945, an article penned by Harvard University herpetologist Arthur Loveridge was published in the zoological journal Copeia, concerning an attack some months earlier upon an askari (native policeman) at Tapili, Niangara, in what was then the Belgian Congo (later renamed Zaire, and now called the Democratic Republic of Congo). Loveridge's source of information concerning this incident was a Mr C. Caseleyr, then Administrator of the Niangara Territory. The askari had come to Caseleyr to inform him that while walking by a pool earlier that evening, he had been bitten on one of his legs by what proved to be a very large frog – he'd lunged out at his attacker with a large club that he was carrying and had killed it outright. And as conclusive proof of his statement, the askari had brought with him the frog's body to show it to Caseleyr.

A goliath frog Conraua goliath (© Dr Jordi Sabater Pi)

What was even more surprising than the fact that he'd been attacked by such a creature, however, was the wound that it had produced. For when Caseleyr examined the askari's leg, he could see two puncture marks resembling the wounds that a dog's teeth would leave – and that was not all. When he then examined the dead frog, Caseleyr was very startled to discover that its upper jaw and lower jaw each possessed a pair of sharp teeth that actually did resemble a dog's canine teeth, and its tongue was forked like a snake's. The frog was grey-green in colour dorsally, with a large orange patch on its chest and stomach, and in general shape and size was very large, broad, and fat (though no specific measurements for it were provided by Loveridge).

Loveridge referred to this animal throughout his article as a frog, but Caseleyr personally felt that it seemed more like a toad, although he freely confessed that he had no informed knowledge on such matters. However, Loveridge stated that the creature's notched tongue eliminated a toad as its identity. Yet he also recognised that its description (and most especially the presence of two teeth-like projections in its upper jaw, not just in its lower jaw) readily differentiated this sizeable mystery frog from all known species in that region. Consequently, albeit with great hesitation, Loveridge concluded his article by speculating that "it may be that some large species remains to be discovered in the Niangara region". Yet if so, it has somehow managed to elude scientific detection for several decades since then (and continues to do so today). Impossible? Perhaps not...

This ShukerNature blog article is excerpted from a comprehensive chapter devoted exclusively to cryptic frogs and toads contained in my latest, newly-published book, A Manifestation of Monsters – so be sure to check it out!