Sunday 24 January 2021

The Nessie Turtle Theory



My fellow Nessie believer, Henry Bauer, has been in the news recently as his latest views on what the Loch Ness Monster could be has gained some attention. Henry has moved away from the popular plesiosaur theory to consider whether the monster could be an ancient, unknown species of the giant turtle. Henry actually published this theory as a paper back in March 2020 for the Journal of Scientific Exploration and you can read his original paper here

Now as to the actual theory, the idea that Nessie could be some large form of sea-going turtle has been going around since the very first year of 1933 (see link). When Hugh Gray's famous photograph was published in the Scottish Daily Record, a Major Meikle wrote to the 8th December 1933 edition of the paper commenting on how much the hump and the head to the right of the picture looked like a "leathery or green turtle". He differed from Henry in that he thought a known species of turtle was sufficient to explain the new story from Loch Ness.



Now one could imagine that the head in the Gray picture (below) could resemble a turtle's head, though my own preference is fish like. However, the tail to the left is much longer than any known species of turtles swimming the seas just now. Nevertheless, it is an unknown species of turtle with some adaptions over the vast ages that Henry has more in mind.



Back in 2013, I also wrote on a TV documentary entitled "The Loch Ness Monster Revealed" from the Discovery Channel which speculated upon a possible variant of turtle that was dubbed the plesio-turtle which sounded more like Henry's speculated beast. They produced the theoretical image below with the outstretched neck which did not look that different from some known species such as the snake necked turtle (below). One has to be reminded that though such species have Nessie like features, they are significantly smaller than our denizen of the loch.




Other factors in this hypothetical turtle's favour are the long times they can spend underwater, even absorbing oxygen from the surrounding water and controlling their metabolism to even hibernating underwater. The high oxygen content of the loch also favour creatures who employ such biological devices. The fact that we do have very large turtles in the fossil record also confirms that no unrealistic gigantism is required as we see applied to other theories. This is demonstrated in the photograph at the top of the page which shows a fossil skeleton of the extinct species Archelon which grew to at least fifteen feet long.

However, like all theories (including sceptical ones), there are drawbacks. Turtles lay eggs and go ashore to lay them in often large numbers. No such activity has ever been witnessed of the Loch Ness Monster. Indeed, it is doubtful that any that could be construed as reproductive has ever been observed with any certainty.

Obviously, no eggs have been found or the mystery would have been solved by now. It could be counter proposed that such a cryptid turtle gives birth to live young but since all known turtles lay eggs, this would seem a drastic departure. It may be suggested, like our snake necked turtle above, that it could lay eggs in the waters of the loch. The problem here is that the snake necked turtle lives in the warm waters of Australia. It is unlikely a developing egg could survive in the cold waters of Loch Ness.

The other issue is that the recent eDNA study by Professor Neil Gemmell revealed no reptile DNA, let alone turtle DNA. Henry takes hope in the 25% of DNA samples that were not readily identified with any species from the genome database. That may be true, though the fact that less samples were taken at the lowest depths of 200 metres may be a better explanation.

One could go on further about shape changing humps, long necks with non-turtle heads and three toed limbs but the truth of the matter is that no theory fully explains all the features described. The turtle theory is at no disadvantage there compared to other theories and doubtless is ahead of others. But we have a eyewitness database which will contain misidentifications and hoaxes which only muddy the waters. To that we can add those genuine eyewitnesses to a genuine monster which imperfectly describe what they see. How that is handled is entirely down to each investigator and their own combination of skill and bias.

I certainly prefer the giant turtle theory to the giant eel theory but still have my doubts when I compare it to the AAA sightings. For example, our last article on the John MacLean sighting, would a giant turtle fit all that went on there? My thinking is that it would not.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com




51 comments:

  1. Roland, you've said that barring a hoax, the MacLean sighting is that of the LNM. So would you consider it the "gold standard," against which all other reports and descriptions must be compared? To be clear, do you believe the creature is an unknown species?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The main problem would be that we have so far as I know no real documented big turtle sightings, but many that seemed to be like giant eels!

      Delete
    2. This is why I favor more then one species for nessie in the Loch!

      Delete
    3. To be clear, there are no "documented" sightings of giant eels, turtles, catfish, sturgeons or anything else. What we have are eyewitness accounts and recorded images of unknown animals.

      Delete
    4. Having two different megafauna apex predators in a area of 26 square miles is not going to work out well. Basically, they would destroy each other.

      Delete
    5. Ron, going from low grade to AAA sightings is a gradual increase of clarity and less probability of mis-describing what is seen. However, that does not render what people such as John MacLean, Harry Finlay, Richard Jenkyns and other close up witnesses have seen as perfect. But such accounts as these should be contrasted and compared to any theory presented.

      As to what the creature is, I either fancy a water-breathing fish of unusual morphology that rarely breaks the surface or venture onto land ... or a long necked seal which is itinerant and/or semi-indigenous.

      Delete
    6. Roland, a fish with unusual morphology, like without a dorsal or "normal" caudal fin? (Perhaps akin in some way to the Kanas Lake creature of China?) I'm not clear on how that matches Loch Ness land sightings.

      I'm not disagreeing about a fish or long-necked seal, I just wasn't aware you were a proponent of such, and am only trying to understand the possibilities in my own amateur way. I use the term "unknown species" as an easy way out for me.

      Delete
    7. The one of peter Costello fame?

      Delete
    8. Among others. There's also this:
      https://sealserpents.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    9. Would that be a long necked fish and if so, would that be exotic enough for anyone here? A fish being a fish would by necessity require gills for "water- breathing" How long could one last out of water to satisfy the land sightings?

      I could go for a giant shell less turtle.

      Truly would be a big seal. But seals being seals would be seen basking on the shores more than would be a rarity.

      Delete
    10. @Ron

      http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2019/10/a-review-of-loch-ness-sea-lion.html

      Delete
  2. My take is, IF the animal is native to the lake it must be a water-breather. Some kind of amphibian or fish in that case, between feeding it probably rests in the depths, conserving energy.

    BUT if it's itinerant and visits from the sea, all bets are off and it could well be an air-breather, a weird seal or reptile (there actually was a group of marine amphibians in the Triassic, but they were an exception).

    Just my guess... Maybe the truth is none of the above!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could there be a native species in the loch and another that comes and goes at times?

      Delete
    2. Yes, lots of small eels, an itinerant Nessie, maybe and seals, the regular run of the mill kind that come and go.

      Delete
  3. Did you guys see the "In search of... The Loch Ness Monster" hosted by Zachary Quinto?

    They looked at sightings, they looked at the theory it fed of the salmon that came in. Using sonar they spotted something large around a school of Salmon, sent divers down and they spotted something big as it pushed past the divers in an escape.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JebfMhZNYtY

    Using the available evidence, they came up with a CG render of what nessie may look like.

    I cant upload it here, but if you can locate this episode (well, it was a 2 parter) you will see for yourself.

    I thought at first the encounter was staged, but on the divers facebook page they mentioned it:

    https://www.facebook.com/scubadivingscotland/posts/scuba-diving-scotland-was-hired-as-marine-safety-consultants-for-the-history-cha/2216540881977504/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. was that the one where they saw something that had a large forked tail and flippers speed by them, looked like maybe 15 feet long?

      Delete
    2. They said it was a vertical tail fin. Sounds like a fish to me. Actually, not clear what it shows. Video looks too good to be true. If genuine, it's the first underwater video of a Nessie ever recorded.

      Delete
    3. Saw the video but could only see a dark blob with no detail...might have been one of the divers...a bit promising though. :-)

      Delete
    4. I must admit to my shame I have not watched the In Search Of two parter yet ... one year on! I must watch it and review it.

      Delete
    5. @John Alverado, initially I thought it was a tad convenient that they had an encounter, however I believe it would be too much of a risk to their and the divers reputations to fake it, if it ever got out, and these things invariably get out, any credibility they or the (relatively) local dive team had. Could it have been a large fish, possibly, but you would think the divers would not have been as surprised by whatever it was, and should surely recognise a fish. Whilst all we the viewers saw was a fast moving 'blob', they did get a look at it, albeit briefly.



      They had their encounter near a school of Salmon (think it was salmon), so I guess it makes sense that a predator would be stalking prey.

      @Roland, its quite an interesting watch, it recaps a lot of the well known sightings and makes comparisons with Champ (if I remember right) with the suggestion that perhaps they're the same species. They go over different scenarios (migratory, resident etc.) and create a CG mockup of what they (whichever experts they have working on the show) think it could look like based on the available evidence of sightings, water conditions etc.

      If I remember right, and that's a stretch in of itself as I may be getting my documentaries mixed up, they may have made a suggestion that the Stronsay beast was a relative of Nessie, the sketches of said creature do bear a resemblance to the mockup they came up with.

      The only thing that was a bit irritating, was the fact that they referred to the surgeon's photo as being a hoax. Now yes, it's been supposedly confessed that it was hoaxed, but there's too much background baggage with that photo to suggest its anything definitive, other than a photo of something in Loch Ness, in my humble opinion anyway.

      It's definitely worth a watch Roland, I would be interested in your opinion of it. Actually, I think i may rewatch it myself (still on my Sky box, I think..unless the children have removed it.. :) ).

      Delete
    6. If Nessie and Champ are same creature, Champ has had vocal analysis made on some recordings, and found seems to be very similar to whale family, maybe that extinct whale of Dr Roy Mackel?

      Delete
    7. Yup, Roy Mackal once thought Nessie could be a form of prehistoric whale called a Basilosaurus. That or an unknown amphibian. My favorite theory of his was the thick-body hybrid eel.

      Delete
    8. I haven't found the CGI rendering being mentioned. Did they go with plesiosaur?

      Delete
    9. Nope more like some kind of hybrid?

      Delete
    10. It was a hybrid of various different species (including Plesiosaur characteristics), based off sightings of Nessie and similar Swedish sightings.

      I've uploaded an image to Reddit. You have to bear in mind though that the CG mockup is explained throughout the 2 parter, so when you do see it without watching the show, you're not getting the full context of how they came to this image.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/lochnessmonster/comments/l6sc9m/did_you_all_see_the_in_search_of_loch_ness/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

      Delete
    11. Thanks for the link. Someday I might pay to download the episodes to find out the context of such a bizarre creation.

      Delete
    12. What the hell! Not what I was expecting. OK, now they've gone too far. Where's my Plesiosaur!

      Looks like Roy Mackal's Basilosaurus but with an extra fin/flipper and dorsal fins.

      https://www.newdinosaurs.com/basilosaurus/

      Delete
    13. The Latham the Surgeon's photo is a hoax. Credible confession, the 'Surgeon' himself never really pretended it was anything definitive and more importantly when you see the scale of the thing outwith the usual cropped image it looks tiny.

      Delete
    14. Yup, the uncropped version of the photo showing the far shore does give the impression of smallness. The crptozoologist Scott Mardis thinks it's genuine. But then again he has been a believer and a proponent of the living Plsiosaur. Oh well, to each his own.

      Delete
    15. @Kyle Titterton - there's a theory that the confession itself was a hoax though.

      I'm not saying the surgeon's photo is legit or not, I'm just saying there's murky water where its concerned.

      Delete
    16. "Surgeon's" photo is in no way a hoax; the "confession" does not match the event in any way.

      Delete
  4. Im quite sure a long necked seal would be seen all the time if it entered the loch.Its an air breather.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct sir! If there is a Loch Ness Monster, it is not a seal; long or short necked. Nor is it a pleisosaur. A weird variety of turtle is quite possible...

      Delete
  5. At the conclusion of Henry Bauer's interesting paper he recommends that the genetic markers for the recent eDNA study be extended to include turtle DNA which I think is quite reasonable. It seems to me the markers they were using for the most part were just for what the researchers thought they were likely to find given "conventional" explanations like eels and catfish...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Olrik, at the press conference professor Gemmell said that they had identified no reptilian eDNA of any description in the loch. But that does still leave the 25% unidentified. And let's face it, if we believe that the explanation is not large eels then whatever Nessie turns out to be her identity is in that 25%.
    If you believe that the 75% identified eDNA covers everything in the loch then Nessie must be an eel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sheer size of an Eel for Nessie would indeed be a wonder, as would be probably 20-30 feet long fully grown!

      Delete
    2. I guess I'm confused how the eDNA analysis works; did they use specific "markers" for turtle and reptilian DNA? My impression is that they have to specify the DNA of the animal they are looking for through such markers, and that is how they eliminated candidates such as the Wels catfish and sturgeon...

      Delete
    3. Is it not also the case that they didn't take samples from certain depths, and also that the samples are time and location limited, so, say for the sake of argument, that Nessie is migratory.

      If she hasn't been in the (areas tested within the) loch, then you are not going to get samples from her.

      Delete
  7. And of course the EDNA might have missed things, just like the missing otter EDNA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still looks like ther only way to prove Nessie will be to catch one of them, or else take a video right on top of one!

      Delete
  8. Turtles are predominantly air breathers which rules it out. It would have been found almost as soon as it surfaced to breathe (or soon after a hibernation period). It's also one of the most distinctive looking creatures in the animal kingdom and yet very few, if any, eye witness accounts corroborate this. As unlikely as the plesiosaur theory is at least eye witness accounts and some photographic evidence supports that to some degree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The creature that is Nessie would also have to be one that fits the lake monster scenario, as so many large lakes have some type of Monster being reported!

      Delete
    2. Many turtles breath just with the tip of their nose out of the water...

      Delete
    3. Kyle, the only thing that could possibly account for eyewitnesses or photographic evidence likening the appearance of a Nessie to a plesiosaur would be convergent evolution i.e. a creature that has taken on the morphology of a plesiosaur.

      Delete
    4. Have to be a small colony of Nessie, or an extremely long lived creature, don't eels live very long, as do turtles?

      Delete
    5. John Alvarado, agreed. I'm not an expert, but as far as I know cases of convergent evolution are more common than "ancient survivors".

      Delete
  9. Did the DNA study find amphibian DNA of any sort? I don't find Steve Plambeck's giant salamander theory any stranger than other theories that don't check all the boxes, especially his idea the "head and neck" sightings are those of the creature's tail sticking up in the air as the rest of it trolls for fish below water. I'm not 100% sold on this theory (or any other), but I keep returning to the idea when the others keep getting shot down to various degrees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they found toad, frog and newt if I remember right.

      Delete
    2. That would me that the Amphibian theory is now in play!

      Delete
  10. The truth is we dont know what is out there or how things can adapt or survive.I have just read an account of a THREE ft sea slug( hare) found in the ocean. Im sure there are numerous things than can suprise us all.

    ReplyDelete