mireia querol, mireia querol rovira, nessie, loch ness monster, monstruo del lago ness

The Loch Ness Monster and Yeti: Do they exist?

The Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, Chupacabras, Bigfoot, Kraken… we’ve all heard about them once and we even doubted their (in)existence. What is the truth about these creatures? Are they real? If not, what answers gives science to refute it? Find out in this article.

CRYPTOZOOLOGY

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, uses scientific terms but is based on beliefs rather than evidence and does not use the scientific method. It tries to find animals that have not been confirmed by science, called cryptids. Usually are beings appeared in myths and legends, but also extinct species that it ensures they have been seen at present, as the thylacine or dinosaurs (non-avian ones). You just have to do a search in internet to find fake photos that won’t mislead the most gullible person, but when the stories are installed in the collective memory, supporters of cryptozoology increase.

sirena, juan cabana, sirena real, mermaid, real
The siren of Maracaibo, an internet viral cryptid. Despite being a sculpture of Juan Cabana, some people still believe in these fake beings. Photo: unknown

Cryptozoology usually tries to add features of real animals to cryptids to make them more credible, and even appropriates of the species discovered by biology (zoology), like when they say the Kraken is actually a giant squid.

THE LOCH NESS MONSTER

Nessie it is the most famous cryptid, a gigantic aquatic animal which is supposed to live in Loch Ness in Inverness, Scotland. As with all cryptozoological beings, evidence of their existence are fuzzy pictures and testimonies of sightings. Surely you’ve ever seen the most famous photo of the Monster:

 nessi, 1934, photo of the surgeon, the loch Ness monster, loch ness, monster
The first photo of Nessie, shot in 1934, was considered (and is considered) an evidence of their existence. 60 years after, Chris Spurling confessed that it was a fraud. Photo: Marmaduke Wheterell

This one, like all photos of the monster, have been proved to have been farces and frauds. However, they continue to fuel the myth: the annual profit in this part of Scotland are of several million euros. It is  not surprising that many lakes around the world have their own monster like Nahuelito, Caddy, Champ, Manipogo, Ponik …

WHY THE LOCH NESS MONSTER CAN’T EXIST ?

  • Its age: the first reference of a being in this lake dates back to 565. So today it would be… 1451 years old, much more than the oldest known animal: Ming the clam (507 years old). Or even more, as some cryptozoologists argue that it could be a plesiosaur or a similar animal (extinct over 65 million years ago) about 20 meters long and 10-20 tons.

     Loch Ness, otter, elephant
    Or maybe it was just an otter… Photo: Jonathan Wills
  • Origins: if it was an animal from the Age of Dinosaurs, or their descendants, it is impossible to have always lived in the lake, which was frozen since the last Ice Age until about 12,000 years ago. There are no ways of connection within the lake and the sea, there are no sightings of the montser outside the lake, so ti could never go out to the sea to feed, for example.  Assuming also Nessie was an aquatic reptile, his preference would be subtropical waters, not the cold waters of Inverness (6 ° C on average).
  • Family of Nessies: the only possible explanation for the continued existence for thousands or millions of years, is that there are no one, but at least 100 individuals like Nessie to keep a viable population, according to population ecology. The minimum viable population is the smallest isolated population having 99% chance to stay alive for 1000 years (Shaffer, 1981). In addition, the Loch Ness is 56.4 km long and 226 m deep, there is an obvious lack of space for all of them (in addition to that sightings would constant).
  • Lack of corpses: in the case that there was a group of plesiosaurs, sooner or later their bodies should appear in the bank and no one single corpse has been found.

    Elephant swimming. In 1933, the year with more sighntinghs, a circus toured the area. Its elephant apparently bathed in the lake several times. Photo: Jeremy Tucker
  • Insufficient food: the lake is deep, long and narrow (32 km x 1.6 km). As the base of the food chain on Earth are plants, in aquatic areas are phytoplankton, algae and plants that can sustain herbivores and carnivores. Loch Ness has a little surface area exposed to the sun, so do not get enough sunlight to do a massive photosynthesis. In addition, the water is dark because has turf in suspension, preventing the existence of light from a few meters depth. It is so unproductive that it could not survive a predator of more than 300 kilos. Obviously, there are few animals that are totally insufficient  for feeding one or more animals of 20 tonnes.

    cadena trofica, red alimenticia, xarxa tròfica,
    Food chain of a freshwater environment. The arrows indicate the direction of energy from one link to another. Picture: unknown
  • Lack of evidence with the latest technologies: BBC has tracked the lake several times with sonar and satellite navigation technology with negative results. Neither mini-submarines or 24 hours webcams have found no sign of the monster.

    THE YETI, THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN

    The second most famous cryptid is a giant bipedal ape living in the Himalayas. Or in North America (Bigfoot), Canada (Sasquatch) Almasty (Russia), Hibagon (Japan), Yowy (Australia)… Like Nessie, Bigfoot moves millions of euros/dollars and each country has its own. Also is suggested that could be some kind of extinct hominid, a Neanderthal, a  Homo erectus or a Gigantopithecus .

    yeti, huella, footprint, petjada
    Photograph which revived the legend of the Yeti (1951). Photo: Eric Shipton

    As with all cryptids, evidences are based on eyewitness sightings, blurry photos or with doubtful origin. But in this case there are hair samples ensuring that belong to the Yeti. What science says ?

    DNA ANALYSIS

    The current understanding of genetics has allowed us to establish a more precise family relationships and identify living beings through analysis of DNA. So Bryan Sykes (Oxford University) led a study that analyzed more than 30 hair samples preserved in Buddhist temples, museums and private collections. Result: horsehair, bison, human, raccoon, cow, wolf, coyote… but none of the Yeti .

    The good news for zoology is that two hair samples match the DNA of a polar bear fossil, which could belong to a bear species unknown until now or a variety of polar bear of another color (golden-brown).

    PAtterson-gimlin film, bigfoot
    The most famous photo of Bigfoot is a snapshot of a video taken by Patterson-Gimlin

    THE CHUPACABRAS

    The Chupacabras (“goat-sucker”) is supposed to be a creature that kills and sucks the blood of farm animals without spilling a drop. Definitions are multifarious, bright red eyes, scales, bipedal, spikes on the back… also alleged dead Chupacabras are reported:

    mexico chupacabras
    The alleged chupacabras carcasses are usually canines with scabies who have lost hair, raccoons, or in this case a flying fox. Photo: unknown

    The Chupacabras has the distinction of operating in latin countries: Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Argentina, Spain, Chile… The alleged habitat of chupacabras clashes with biogeography: a branch of science that studies the distribution of living beings on our planet .

    Knowing a basics of biological evolution and climate we can think like biogeographers: species are distributed according to their habitat and have adapted to the different areas and climates. No one would think of a frog living in the Sahara desert, for example. But Chupacabras seems to not care: inhabits a huge variety of landscapes between two continents and several islands, but of course, has a predilection for Spanish-speaking places. Nothing to do with biology: it is the product of a legend of oral tradition.

    ZOOLOGY VS CRYPTOZOOLOGY

    In conclusion, zoology is the branch of biology that to certify that it has discovered a new species must:

4 pensaments a “The Loch Ness Monster and Yeti: Do they exist?”

    1. I have the same idea about cryptozoology as thousands of scientists. Althought discrediting the work of someone is not the best way to start a discussion, thanks for your attachment. The important thing is to have information so people can judge for themselves.
      Do you have a link where we can read the rules for the description of a new species according to science?

      1. I’m really sorry for my rudeness in the first post. I hope that you’ll accept my apologies

        I think that to deposit a dead specimen as holotype is the more objective option, but the Code of Zoological Nomenclature is not clear about that, and allows to use even pictures and descriptions as holotype.

        Some paper on the debate can be read here:
        Dubois and Nemesio, 2007:
        http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2007f/z01409p022f.pdf

        Donegan, 2008:
        http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2008/f/zt01761p048.pdf

        Morris and Tubbs, 2002:
        http://biostor.org/reference/80681

        A recent scientific description in which they have been used photographs as holotype is Macaca leucogenys (Li et al., 2015)

Comentaris / Comentarios / Comments:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

Esteu comentant fent servir el compte WordPress.com. Log Out / Canvia )

Twitter picture

Esteu comentant fent servir el compte Twitter. Log Out / Canvia )

Facebook photo

Esteu comentant fent servir el compte Facebook. Log Out / Canvia )

Google+ photo

Esteu comentant fent servir el compte Google+. Log Out / Canvia )

Connecting to %s