Thursday 5 September 2019

Loch Ness eDNA results released




The results are out and you can view the press conference here and the eDNA results are officially published here.

Having now watched the whole feed, the gist of it to me was that they did not find any unusual DNA, certainly no reptilian DNA. He did say all the expected fish DNA were found including lots of eel DNA, in fact a surprising amount of such data, which led him to suggest that Loch Ness could harbour a giant eel.

This was not concluded from the eel DNA as the experiment (he said) could not distinguish between large and small eels. Also, no seal or otter DNA was found. Again, I do not find that surprising as the seal is an itinerant visitor to the loch and otters may have specific locations not visited by the samplers. Adherents of the itinerant Nessie theory will not be surprised by this. Neil Gemmell did say that about 20% of the DNA they found could not be identified, though the main issue there may be that such fragments were not amenable to analysis. To that end, he related the story of how 40% of DNA samples taken from an American subway station (?) were not identifiable. Is there a loophole there for some believers as any sequence not matching the species database would be set aside?

You may wonder about any catfish or sturgeon DNA results. No such DNA was found, but again for sturgeon, the itinerant theory can be invoked. For catfish, the only hope for such adherents is that the population is so small, perhaps even one individual, that it was missed in the sampling (a limitation of the sampling that Neil readily admitted to).

Personally, my own view from some years back that we have an exotic fish of some sort remains viable. Neil Gemmell implied that the degree of accuracy of the analysis was not species level but some level above. I would like to know more about that. The related giant eel theory has received a boost, though that theory needs further work to explain features not usually associated with eels (e.g. raised humps).

My second favoured theory of itinerant/trapped visitors was never going to be touched in this regard and Loch Ness will continue to receive visitors of all sorts, usual and unusual now and from centuries past.The fact that the experiment failed to identify any visitor species was a bit of a surprise and made me wonder if migratory salmon or trout were missed.

May I also say I was particularly interested in one DNA find and that was "a bacteria most commonly associated with salty waters in the freshwater loch". How did such a specimen get there? Once again, that reopens the discussion as to whether there is a subterranean path to the sea from the loch. Also of interest to me was whether these results can help towards estimating the total biomass of the loch or relative abundances of species - a item of data important in predator foodstocks.

In the end, the professor was not suggesting this disproves the Loch Ness Monster and the "legend" will continue and people will continue to report strange things. Indeed, there was perhaps a bit of the old spin in the conference because not only are scientists and cryptozoologists interested in these results, but local and national tourism interests. The experiment did not prove giant eels but it also did not disprove them. I am sure VisitScotland will be happy with that!

The Otago team will put a searchable species database online soon and there will a documentary on the UK Discovery Channel on the 15th September while Neil Gemmell hopes to publish a peer reviewed article for a scientific journal by the end of the year. The BBC has published a summary with reactions at this link.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com




130 comments:

  1. It's almost like Gemmell was never at the loch doing the tests and we were all still believing what we do. I am massively disappointed in this but it was an honest go at it. Roland was right on the money as to the link between the conference's results and the Ness Fishery video. He never even brought up salamanders as a theory unless I missed it. I remain unconvinced! Thank you for letting me rant a little.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3 species of amphibian identified. Frog, toad, ?

      Delete
    2. But not specifically salamanders as one of the four identity theories.

      Delete
  2. I joined the stream as he mentioned no frogs or toads were found. Is that to do with the make up of the Loch, or more to do with they weren't in that area at that time? I find that really interesting (Nessie food perhaps :-) )

    Like he was at pains to say and had said in the past, this doesnt disprove or prove anything as its temporal and location based.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought he did mention them being found? Better listen again ...

      Delete
    2. To be fair, I did join the stream during adebate on frogs/toads, I thought he said they hadnt been found but the audio was a little choppy. I probably misheard. No hard feelings meant!

      Delete
  3. I've been following this for 45 years. I thought that by at least year 2000, the loch would have given up it's secret. I had a feeling back in 1973 it may have been a large eal. I even drew it and showed it to my classmates.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Looks like folks were right about the giant eel theory being promoted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thought police
      Full spectrum dominance
      Official agendaS ONLY.
      carrot($$) and the stick( ostracization).

      Delete
    2. Oh good grief, john the misinformation agent is back. LOL

      Delete
    3. I received 8 comments from john saying much the same thing. I let two through which summarize his dubious theory that the eDNA tests were a disinformation exercise.

      Delete
  5. Indeed . It's certainly plausible for some sightings. The itinerary Nessie remains plausible .
    Overall We're at an "as you were " position.
    I wonder why scientists shy away from discussing ,for example,the Johnston photos or the Finlays 1952 encounter,or the 2006 photo taken through a car window by an American visitor.
    Given the professors undoubted knowledge and forensic equipment surely he can state that this is a large object, photographed mid loch,travelling at speed from the distance stated.
    We're not asking anyone to say it's a prehistoric creature.
    A "don't know " would suffice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, what it boils down to is, no one still knows.
    There might be a giant eel, there could be something which left some DNA that is not recognised, or the DNA is somewhere else outside the search pattern.
    I visited the Loch this May for the first time and can understand how people can see something they believe in.
    I will remain hopeful that one day we will know the truth about it all, until then I remain a "There is something or other in there".
    Great blog btw

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is there more on the edna they could not identify?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for commenting on this so promptly Roland. Your blog has responded while the results (predictably inconclusive in my view) are still hot off the press.

    A few thoughts/comments:

    - the next time you have a chat with Harry Finlay, ask him if what he witnessed that day in 1952 might have been an eel (I suspect his response will be 'piffle')

    - bacteria normally found in salt water. Brought into the Loch via the hulls and anchors etc of shipping? I think this is more likely than any underwater passages.

    - no eDNA from otters suggests that the survey didn't cover the shallows. There was an otter frequenting the water off the Tor Point end of Dores beach just a few years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harry's monster looks very un-eel like. I did think of boats bringing in bacteria, but why was Neil Gemmell surprised? Do these bacteria survive in freshwater? If not, is he implying a regular top up from somewhere to maintain a fresh DNA supply?

      Delete
    2. I saw an otter near the castle two years ago.

      Delete
    3. I had some correspondence with Prof Gemmell earlier this year, so I'll ask him directly about the bacteria thing and let you know what he says.

      The lack of otter Edna really puzzles me. If the survey was sensitive enough to pick up things like pheasant DNA, then you'd expect them to find the otters. After all, we KNOW that they exist. If they missed the things we know are there, then what does that suggest about the reliability of this technique for finding things that may or may not be there.... or may just have been an itinerant visitor.

      Delete
  9. 11 species of fish identified but not yet named. I have eel, pike, stickleback, lamprey, minnow, char, perch, roach and the visitors - salmon, brown trout, sea trout. Though I thought the experiment had not detected visitors?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Very good comment and overview Roland. An itinerant visitor(s) to explain land/neck/body sightings makes more sense especially in the early days. In addition no one in the UK in its history appears to have caught a 20-30ft freshwater eel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will be reviewing your book soon

      Delete
    2. Hmmm...The Seal Serpent book. Same Rob Cornes? Interesting take on an old theory. And no one has caught or photographed a 15 to 20 foot long necked seal either. What Arthur Grant described sure could pass as a seal, based on it's movement. Some big seal! 'Mr. Big Seal, meet Mr. Big Eel. You two mingle. I believe you two are acquainted with the other guests, Mr. Big Catfish, Mr. Big Sturgeon and Mr. Big Salamander. We regret Mr. Plesiosaur couldn't make it and paranormal Nessie is nowhere to be found'

      https://sealserpents.blogspot.com/

      https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1909488550/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0

      Delete
  11. Interesting that one of the main skeptic arguments "there's not enough food in the loch" could fall apart like a house of cards, IF the abundant eel dna correlates to a large biomass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dinsdale spoke of millions of eels. Not sure what it is now.

      Delete
  12. Hi Roland.On a positive note, least now when witnesses like myself come forward, we wont have to listen to the experts explanations of sturgeon and catfish anymore, or our imagination for that matter, we can say we saw a Giant Eel. What the study shows us there is abundance of life in Loch Ness.Eoin O Faodhagain.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is anyone familiar with the legends of "Horse eels" I looked into it the legends of them. I'm pretty sure they are real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am now!

      https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/06/the-hunt-for-the-giant-horse-headed-eel-begins-soon-in-ireland/

      https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/monster-hunters-coming-ireland-search-16491305

      Delete
  14. Catfish and sturgeon never really fitted the bill anyway.I dont know why people even thought this in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bingo! Eels! Eels everywhere... Not the answer of course, even for the largest eel, for the fantastical sightings throughout the years, but I expected as much. No plesiosaur, no catfish. Why would they even consider a shark in their graphic? Now, on to the Storm Loch Ness idiocy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'd like to say this. No one has asked this, but I will:

    a)--the eDNA is based on skin detritus and poo remnants, is that correct that were in the water?

    b)--How long do such signatures exist in the water after being put there? A day? A week? 3 weeks? A month? A few months? Six months? A year? That needs to be nailed down by eDNA experts: how long do the signatures last in the water. If it is a month or less, then many of the absolutist claims cannot be made.

    c)--What was the total percentage of eDNA that was identified out of the whole sample? By that I mean, how much of the eDNA that was identified to some extent,what quantification of (what percentage from the overall) of the entire amount of eDNA compared to the whole data set detected? If this amount of identifiable eDNA is less than 95-96% of the total amount, then claims of what wasn't in the loch cannot survive the scrutiny.

    d)--I find the identification of birds most interesting. How many birds did they identify, and how much of the eDNA that was pointing to "bird" were they not able to identify to a specific species? (Birds are dinosaurs.)

    e)--Before Gemmell and his colleagues make the absolutist claim that they found no eDNA for plesiosaurids they have to speak to how much eDNA of the overall set remained unidentified. And to be honest, have DNA specialists ever attempted to do a full genome marker set for a dinosaur? Or for an extinct water saurian? If the answer is no (for a variety of very good reasons), then how can anyone claim that there was no eDNA for a plesiosaurid? How would they even know what they were looking at?

    f)--I found it most interesting that they claim they did not find any pinniped eDNA. That is very interesting.

    g)--When was this eDNA sampling done at Loch Ness? Over a space time swath of what? A week? 2 weeks? 3 weeks?
    What month?

    Then go and see how many LNM sightings there were (over time) that overlap for that month that the eDNA samplings were taken in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great questions. My main question is where is the control sample of Plesiosaur DNA they're using to test against? Also I'm fairly sure Plesiosaurs aren't saurian.

      Delete
    2. What is this flap about dinosaurs for? Plesiosaurs weren't dinosaurs. *Crocodiles* are more closely related to birds than plesiosaurs were.

      Complaining that 'plesiosaur DNA is unknown' is daft, too. They were still reptiles. Their genome wouldn't have warped into something completely unidentifiable. If there's no reptilian DNA, there's no plesiosaur DNA.

      Delete
    3. a) Anything the creature sheds/excretes/loses to the water.

      b) No more than a month, but are constantly replenished by new DNA being shed.

      c) 80%

      d) I suggest you wait for the list Neil Gemmell says he will publish online.

      e) No reptile DNA was found. By "reptile" I presume they mean any animal under the taxonomy class Reptilia. Were plesiosaurs a member of this class?

      f) No pinniped DNA was expected as seals are not resident in the loch. But it does exclude a *resident* long necked pinniped.

      g) I think it was late May/early June 2018 for a couple of weeks. There were two claimed sightings for that period Morag Connor (28th May) and Natalie Hodgson (1st June).

      Delete
  17. Dunno about this. Seems to have missed a ton of creatures (otters) which are known to frequent the loch. Also where are they getting Plesiosaur dna as a control sample? The whole project seems deeply flawed though I respect the ambition.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Part of me is happy to go along with Gemmell's statement about the giant eel theory. The problem for me however, going on the eyewitness evidence, is how does this reconcile with sightings of a horse-like head and in particular the bizarre photo taken by Jonathan Bright in 2011?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I would also like to add this to my question set. If the amount of the eDNA was say, 40% unidentified (or not workable to identify something) then the statistical analysis of claiming what was not in the loch falls apart. Anything larger than a 2 to 4 percent unknown is too big of a percentage of data that could not be nailed down to say with high confidence what the LNM is, or is not.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Roland can you elaborate more on this unknown dna? Or have i got my wires crossed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A proportion of DNA was too small to use. The smaller the sequence of amino acids, the more chance it will match more and more different species. So they need a long enough strand to get a unique hit against the database. I can't tell from the press conference if they had long sequences they could not match from the database - worth checking.

      Delete
    2. But what if its an unknown animal not on the database? Surely this is what we are looking for?

      Delete
    3. If the strands are too short, there will be too many false matches, so it would be useless as data. Did Prof Gemmell find longer strands that matched nothing on the database? If he did, I am sure that would be news? As I said, needs clarification.

      Delete
  21. Plesiosaurs were marine reptiles (not dinosaurs). It's possible they're claiming they did not find significant amounts of reptile DNA, which then would (in their view) disprove the plesiosaur hypothesis. Not saying they'e correct, just trying to guess how they drew that conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they prototyped plesiosaur DNA in some way, perhaps its closest living relations (turtles?).

      Delete
  22. Steve Feltham is very quiet on this, looks like his catfish theory is wrong. Where now for him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not quiet at all Gezza,very vocal indeed all day. Over half the questions asked in the q&a at the press conference were asked by me.
      And since then I have been repeating my defence of Nessie to literally dozens of media outlets worldwide all day.
      Pretty much everyone else in that room was 'media' and therefore had no particular vested interest in which way the professors mop flopped. I was almost the only civilian. It was press invitation only, but I slipped through the net.
      I'm sad that my favoured guess over the last few years was one of the three horses in the race that professor gemmell shot,but I am happy that the door has been left ajar for a new explanation to come into the lead.
      The bit that I found most telling was how reluctant he was to even mention the 20% unidentified DNA, that was drawn out of him in the q&a, if the right question hadn't been asked (not by me that one) then he would not have mentioned that one fifth of all the DNA remains unidentified at all.
      Overall it was a good day for the mystery, ..... we still have a mystery.
      The race for the answer is still running.

      Delete
    2. LOL Our intrepid, Nessie Hunter gives them the slip. Way to go Steve.

      Delete
    3. Good shout, Steve and well done on asking your questions- I thought I'd recognised your voice in the Q and A session and then we got a fleeting glimpse of you when the camera panned the audience at the end.

      I also thought Prof Gemmell seemed a bit reluctant to mention the unidentified stuff and as I've commented already, the lack of otter eDNA highlights some pretty big holes in their sampling, so I wouldn't categorically rule out a giant wels just yet. As ever though, the only problem with the Wels theory is that it doesn't fully account for what people say they've seen. A back like an upturned boat, maybe (if it was big enough), but it's harder to reconcile catfish with horse-like heads and necks like giraffes. The same goes for our friend, the eel. Speaking of which, if he were still alive, I wonder what Denys Tucker would have made of these latest findings... Being both an eel expert and a LNM witness, his views would have been worth hearing.

      Anyway, as you say, the mystery remains. And to be fair to Prof Gemmell, he was also very clear in stating that questions still need to be answered.

      Delete
    4. Professor Tucker said he saw an E.L.A.S.M.O.S.A.U.R.O.U.S.

      Delete
    5. D.I.S.I.N.F.O.R.M.A.T.I.O.N.S.A.U.R.O.U.S.

      Delete
    6. So you are calling Professor Tucker,a PhD biologist,a liar?
      He saw the lochness monster up close and said it was an elasmosaurus.
      Why do you dispute this?
      Have YOU seen the lochness monster?

      Delete
    7. Let's clear something up here, "john". According to Tucker's letter to the New Scientist in 1960 (a year and a half after his sighting), he said he saw a hump moving between Inchnacardoch and Glendoe. He did not see a neck, flippers or tail, so species identification was not possible, let alone an elasmosaur. However, that sighting prompted Tucker to declare in the letter that the loch contained an "unknown animal".

      Subsequently, based on further research and talking to eyewitnesses, he cocnluded an elasmosaur was the best candidate. In that he was no different from most monster advocates of the time.

      However, you give the impression that he identified it as such based on his own sighting which is not true, he only concluded "unknown animal" based on that experience.

      I suspect your interest in the monster is not for the monsters sake. but rather is only a useful tool in a larger agenda which has nothing to do with cryptozoology.

      Delete
    8. What was Professor Tucker's final analysis Roland?
      Elasmosaurus.as for agenda,I'm of the opinion of plesiosaurus,giant salamander ( grey photo),and horse eels.
      That's my agenda,and if Alvarado calls me a " disinformation agent" I expect you to give him the same moderation as you give me!

      Delete
    9. Well I hope you finally set him straight. LOL

      Delete
    10. He does and he has. Same with everybody else. Your're no different john. You want an elasmosaurous, a plesiosaur,or whatever, okay you got it!

      Delete
  23. The giant eel theory may well be plausible for some of the reported sightings. If the theory is correct then would it be accurate to assume that an eel (or maybe a whole family of eels) have migrated into the loch from the sea? If this is the case then how would this explain similar monster sightings from lakes such as Okanagan in British Columbia and Storsjon in Sweden, which are many miles away from the sea? Should not DNA samples be taken from those freshwater bodies as well before we can reach any definite conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, regardless whether this comes closer to solving one of the greatest mysteries is doubtful. The mystique and legend of The Loch Ness Monster will remain. Maybe even deepening the mystery and casting more doubts about exactly what is going on at the loch. Nothings changed. It can't be something as simple as eels! Even prof Gemmell seemed to hint at leaving the matter open. I wish I had seen Adrian's face when Gemmell announced no sturgeon dna detected. Should have put a sturgeon symbol rather than a shark on their graphic. The hunt continues!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I am interested in what Adrian thinks of the giant eel theory but I presume he rejected it in favour of the sturgeon theory a long time ago.

      Delete
    3. As I understand it, the Eel Theory has been around since the beginning of the modern LNM era, nothing new. Everybody just got fixated on the dinosaur/plesiosaur. explanation. Even then, it didn't explain what was going on, still doesn't explain a whole lot of what's been seen.

      Delete
  25. So 20% (thanks Steve F. for that datum) of the gathered eDNA was not identified at all. That's too big of hole in the data universe set for them to conclusively say anything about what is, or is not, in habitation in the loch.

    Mother Science is a harsh mistress. The use of statistics proves that out.

    I do think the eDNA testing should have been done. But a 95 or 96% accuracy/verification of identification of the total number of elements in their data universe set would have been more helpful to any of Gemmell's statements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 20% unidentified dna is discussed elsewhere in the comment section.

      Delete
  26. Turtles are a reptile, are there no turtles in Loch Ness? Turtle eDNA was not specified. What if the creature is a large, long-necked soft-shell turtle, a pseudo-Plesiosaur if you will?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've done some research and apparently you have no native freshwater turtles in the UK, just introduced pet turtles and terrapins, likely of which Loch Ness has none...

      Delete
  27. I wasnt having a dig there Steve i genuinely thought you were quiet because your catfish theory was ruled out and what next for you.Im pleased you got into the conference and got to ask a few questions.
    So 20% of the edna that was found was unidentified? Surely more should be made of this and more questions asked? Was it close to any species ie fish, amphibians etc? They ruled out reptiles didnt they? I agree, the door is still open for nessie.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Is something like this hiding in those 20%? ;) Here's an artist's reconstruction of an extinct Triassic marine reptile, one of the bizarre body plans Mother Nature can come up with:
    https://www.twipu.com/studio252mya/tweet/1100716841335308288

    ReplyDelete
  29. How did the salty specimen get into the loch? Perhaps from the sea.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Its very strange how otter edna was not picked up while they found cows,rabbits and foxes etc. How does a rabbit's edna get into the water?

    ReplyDelete
  31. It made our American papers. :)

    https://beta.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/09/06/loch-ness-monster-is-still-mystery-scientists-have-some-new-evidence-theory/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

    ReplyDelete
  32. I get the impression that Neil Gemmell was set out to proove no plesiosaurs lived in loch ness.I think not obtaining reptile edna made it an open and closed case 4 him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think all of us were expecting no plesiosaurs would be found.

      Delete
    2. Yet,the prominent hi level PhD biologist Professor Tucker said he saw an Elasmosaurus!

      Delete
  33. Bin working away with not much signal so only briefly saw the headline 'disappointing nessie results' !!..now I've had a good read I don't find it that disappointing!!! Everyone has their own opinion on what's in Loch Ness and mine favours an unknown creature.. As I've said, Mr holidays tullimonster proved things we don't know about match the sightings reports( though not in size) so it's not just a plesiosur!! So to read 20% of Mr gemmills dna was unknown is great news for me! Great reading bout Mr Feltham slippin thru the door haha brilliant...nice to see he thinks the door is open for summit else ..though I wudnt take anything for granted bout no catfish or owt else.. The volume of water in Loch Ness is too huge for 200 odd litre of samples and a small number of creatures could defo avoid detection..didnt the otters?? Great stuff all round.. Long live the mystery x.... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yes im suprised they missed otters out yet they found dog, rabbit, human and other edna.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There might well be a greater mass of humans, dogs and rabbits than of otters in the relevant catchment areas.

      Delete
  35. I wish they'd found Plesiosaur eDNA and just came out and said: "Yup. It's an apex predator from the Mesozoic period. Case closed. See you in the bar, drinks are on the skeptics, mine's a triple single malt" and that was that and we could all get drunk.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Now scientists are being found who say that the results do not indicate a giant eel, but just the presence of many ordinary eels which are found almost everywhere. Perhaps not a conspiracy or disinformation campaign per se against the LNM and other controversial unknowns, but a distinct media bias towards favouring the conservative current scientific paradigm of "logical" explanations...

    https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/mass-expert-theres-something-slippery-about-loch-ness-monster-eel-theory/ar-AAGUKm4

    ReplyDelete
  37. I was surprised at that but the humans and dogs enter the Loch at the shallow end so any samples taken close in wud pick the dna up.. The Loch water moves in and out too so maybe rabbit and other mammals dna left close to the shore wud be washed in with the Loch movement! Wud be intrestin to see just how many samples were taken in the deepest parts of the Loch and towards the side walls...as nessie sightings are quite rare and if there is a nessie then I'm sure this is wer they will be!! I'm surprised no otter dna though.. I've seen a few in my time and last time I was there there was a family of them living on the cabin Park in Fort Augustus.. Talking of the cabin park I will be back there next week for a few days holiday...roll on... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  38. On the Loch Ness Centre's Facebook page it basically says that Adrian still has hope in sturgeons and now catfish as possible answers to our girl's identity.

    ReplyDelete
  39. It seems Steve and Roy feel quite hopeful over this 20% unidentified edna but i get the impression Roland is not, i could be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'm perplexed as to how Dr. Gemmell can make a declarative statement that there are no plesiosaurs in Loch Ness, yet 20% of the dna is unknown. Seems contradictory.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I am going to add some further things. Dr. Gemmell's pronouncements about what is not in the loch don't hold up. I decided to find on Google more about eDNA, and how long does it last before it disintegrates. I quickly found this (here's the URL link: https://freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/projects/edna/edna/):

    "...

    How long does environmental DNA persists in the water?

    In aquatic environments, eDNA is diluted and distributed in the water where it persists for 7–21 days, depending on the conditions. However, the DNA of organisms once trapped in sediments can be preserved for thousands of years.

    ..."

    This means this is only a snapshot, and a very temporary one at that, about skin detritus and poo remnants. Seven to 21 days. Not even a freakin' month. And get this: If the targeted creatures (LNM types I mean) didn't happen to either be in the sector where the water samples were taken, or happened to not have been in the loch (I subscribe to visiting animals, not ones who live year round) when the samples were taken, then you would get a null result.

    To have Dr. Gemmell make the declarative statements that he has, he would have to take eDNA samplings for each month on roughly the same day of the month for at least a straight year. If he did that, THEN he could say, there are no plesiosaurs, no catfish, no Tullymonstrums, no strange unknown member of the cephalopod family, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Salamander edna lasts even less, it can vanish within hours and it does not travel far.The sheer size of loch ness would make it difficult to pick it up from every creature that is in there.

      Delete
    2. Plus, does the acidity of the loch degrade the DNA quicker or is that not a factor?

      Delete
  42. The samples from the top layers of the loch would find the fish, mammals, and birds i should imagine. Does anyone know how many samples were taken from the deepest parts of the loch?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Acidity is a factor. See this:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-017-0005-3.

    They took 300 samples. (http://mentalfloss.com/article/545501/dna-analysis-loch-ness-could-reveal-lakes-hidden-creatures.) Haven't found an article to tell us as to how deep.


    Also, I would also say is it is equally important to know when sampling takes place (at least if there was an effort to find out if an LNM actually existed, is to have overlap when the most sightings occur). In the case of Dr. Gemmell, this eDNA gathering was conducted in April and May (National Geographic article: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/05/loch-ness-monster-scotland-environmental-dna-science/).

    Of course, the month that has the most diurnal LNM sightings is August. (This is via Roland's own data mining, which he put in one of his articles in the recent past.)

    So there was no overlap.

    It is important to know all the details. Most journalists want to be spoon fed everything.

    Some "scientists" like Darren Naish take what is put before them on their plate, and makes near-dogmatic declarations (as per his recent BBC science article:https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/loch-ness-monster-how-edna-helps-us-discover-what-lurks-beneath/), without further effort put into the matter. Naish did not bother to ask the questions that were posed earlier on in this thread, nor did he make the effort to parse out that eDNA sampling directly from liquid effluent is only a snapshot in time, and a very abbreviated (short time frame) one at that. So it is up to amateur naturalists to do the heavy lifting, the spade work to figure out what the significance of Dr. Gemmell's claims are, and what he did say happened to be accurate, and what he said was strictly hand-waving, and what segment of his presentation was chock full of inaccurately claims (or claims that could not be supported by the evidence that was found).


    In today's age of Trump-landia and outrageous claims that are reported credulously by an infotainment news media, that is a bad sign. But it also goes for understanding what scientists are telling us--most scientists who would know accurately what is going on do not get interviewed by TV journalists. Also, beware of self-promotion in science. At times, it can be too much, too soon.

    My two cents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darren Naish says he talked about eDNA at Loch Ness in 2016. I was talking about it on this blog in 2014! Of course, he couldn't possibly have picked up on that since nothing ever comes out of such blogs of scientific interest!

      Delete
  44. I find the whole thing interesting though...it was worth doing I think! I wud love to see the results and see exactly what birds and animals they got and in which part and depth of the loch! Intrestin question off anon did they take samples from the sediments also??. I'm still surprised no otter Edna was picked up though.. Im staying at the cabin Park Fort Augustus in a few days so I will ask if the otters are still there!! Roll on.. Any news and you lovely people will be first to know lol.... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  45. How does this giant eel theory align with Alex Campbells sightings and the Dinsdale film ? Rines flipper photograph? I can see how the Macnab photo would fit and the Gray photo but I'm struggling with the others ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't. Definitely the Macnab and Gray photos show a long slender body. The Macnab creature would be a behemoth. No background or foreground in the Gray pick to put it in context and guesstimate size.

      Delete
  46. All interesting stuff, I will defer a follow up article until the documentary has aired, the species database has been published and perhaps even contact Prof Gemmell.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Great stuff Roland. Well 11 different types of fish and a suprisingly huge amount of eels all over the loch, and to think some so called experts said the loch was barren. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well there you go. Whatever “other” unknown creature is there has plenty to chomp on. Eels are fish so fish is fish. Even our supposed Giant Eel could be cannibalizing the smaller ones. The so called low biomass being not enough to support an apex predator is a fallacy. IMHO

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't count on that. Looking at their data page

      https://lochness.shinyapps.io/loch_ness_byspecies/


      it appears that they have fewer counts for eels than for the salmon which we already know about.

      Delete
    3. This looks like the database I was after. How did you find it, David? Assuming it is accurate, one can make quite a few observations. For example, some fish species are missing such as charr which makes me think something is not complete.

      The salmon trace made me realise there is a salmon farm south of Dores, so salmon of a sort which are ever present. But looking at the distribution of salmon DNA, I would have thought there would be a big sample spike near the farm?

      Delete
    4. Listed: salmon, minnows, stickleback, eel, lamprey, and pike so some short.

      Delete
    5. Hmmm, some DNA was only identified to the taxonomies of "order" and "family" which lie above "genus" and "species". Suggesting the DNA was lacking enough information to classify it more accurately. Any further lack of info and they would end up "unknown".

      Delete
    6. Hmmmm it gets more confusing. So if nessie is unknown or a new species it could come under the order of a famiy depending what it is? Its certainly starting to look like Neil Gemmell has put all his eggs into one basket with his nessie the reptile.There seems no room for a fish or amphibian or anything else for him.

      Delete
    7. Roland, I found that database by following the link "The Data" on the https://www.lochnesshunters.com/ page. It's not at all obvious, it's at the end of a list of headings which include "The Results" and "The Science" where you would expect to find data!

      Delete
    8. It's from he eDNA Team's website Roland. “The Data” on the menu, upper right.

      Delete
    9. David: Well, they did say there were lots and lots of eels. I'm sure there are lots of “regular fish” too. Somethings not right then. Something smells fishy.

      Delete
  48. Here is a precis accounting: https://www.lochnesshunters.com/the-results?fbclid=

    And it states also this:

    "...

    Environmental eDNA metabarcoding approaches are powerful but limited by the genome regions they target. We know we have not identified every species present in Loch Ness, but we doubt we have missed any major groups of living things. That we identified all known fish species from Loch Ness in our eDNA data provides some reassurance our approach was sound.

    That said, any survey must accept that it may not find all species present because sampling effort is inadequate, the species is migratory (e.g. sturgeon), small, at low abundance in the system, sheds cells at low rates, or is missed by the metabarcoding.

    Loch Ness is vast and given that eDNA signals in water dissipate quickly, lasting days to weeks at most, there remains the possibility that there is something present that we did not detect because we sampled in the wrong places at the wrong time, or our metabarcoding method could not detect “Nessie” because the sequence could not be matched with anything in the sequence databases.

    ..."

    So here, they admit that previously stated, near-dogmatic declarations are invalid, as the quality and the encompassing nature of their metadata is inadequate to make such statements--that is, what actually isn't in the loch.

    At least this is now in hand.

    The documentary that Roland mentions will be shown on TV on September 15th.

    ReplyDelete
  49. What the...?! Oystercatchers (which dont enter the water, only excrete over it) but no charr.
    So no charr detected and yet we know they are here, no catfish detected so we are expected to conclude that catfish are not here? what? How does that work then?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Are you sure no charr got detected? I thought there was more charr in loch ness than any other fish?

    ReplyDelete
  51. That cant be complete.There isnt 11 fish there.I think the complete chart will confirm charr.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is possible charr is listed under "salmon" as atlantic salmon and arctic charr are both part of the salmonidae. Just a thought.

      Delete
  52. Gotta say to pick up oyster catchers dna in a Loch this size is very impressive I have to admit...plus cattle and badgers!! So I'm more baffled now how they didn't pick up otter dna when they actually spend half their time in the water!!strange one.... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm, I wonder where the Loch Morar results are?

      Delete
  53. That was exactly my first thought!
    Bright's photo so clearly shows a strange horned head with a mane, and it most certainly is not an eel!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Just like the UFO theories, I don't believe everything -
    I saw a flying vehicle (along with 3 other people) and don't talk about it because people are always telling me they just don't exist. And do eels pick their head up in a curved fashion as so many photos show, do they actually have that ability? I was thinking of Sandra Mansi's 1977 photo of Champ in Lake Champlain in the USA, which seems to mirror so many Nessie sightings.

    ReplyDelete
  55. So with Neil Gemmell saying that there is huge amounts of eels in the loch can we now put it to bed about small fish stocks in the loch due to the poor light and low plankton? If there are huge amounts of eels and 10 othere species of fish in the loch then there must be a lot of food for them.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Am I reading the data wrong? The only results in the 150 - 200m range are human?

    ReplyDelete
  57. All will be revealed Sunday night.. I will watch it just to get me in the mood for my upcoming trip! Just packing my bags and ready for a few days at the Loch...a roaring fire.. fishing.. Biking.. Supping tennents and all with one eye on the loch lol..lets hope I can snap summit unusual on my video or camera ha.. Highlands here I come!!!! Cheers ..

    ReplyDelete
  58. Have a good trip Roy,hope the weather is kind for you.Im sure the Tennents brewery will be on overtime this week :-)

    ReplyDelete
  59. Yeah, have a good trip, Roy. Enjoy... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  60. Cheers lads!! If I can dodge past the fallen trees Ill be OK lol I will be sampling a few new dramms as well!Any news if any sightings u lot will be first to know... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  61. Reminder that the Nessie eDNA documentary is on the UK Discovery channel 7pm tonight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A little late for me and haven't seen it. It was probably shown over here in the US Discovery channel. Unfortunately I don't have that channel. Maybe I can see it on their website. Maybe I'll find it sometime in my local library as a DVD.

      Delete
  62. I watched the show last nite, very informative and interesting, lots of details on the history of Loch Ness and sightings, photos, etc. However, what is to be done with all the witness statements and photographs showing humps and strange unknown things in the Loch? That is what I don't understand, and I know that scientific results should be respected but this is just baffling. I am waiting for more..........

    ReplyDelete
  63. China's monster(s):
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49719826

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That "monster" turned out to be trash, yes trash.

      https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/Watch-China-River-Monster-Revealed

      Delete
  64. To me, simply saying "it could be an eel" iskind of a cop out, though the worlds media have now jumped on that. Prof Gemmell said on a couple of occasions, the eDNA depended on whatever the creature is being in the spot they retrieved samples from recently.

    Preaching to the choir here, I know, but, all this talk of ruling anything out, is simply not viable. Given the ample food supplies in the loch, and how voluminous it is, how can anybody say there isn't a big marine animal lurking, certainly a lot of the sightings suggest that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. The majority of the people having these sightings can't be all "daft" and not know they are seeing something strange other than a seal or even a big eel.

      Delete