[Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Friends, (Attachment should follow):
From: paleo@ix.netcom.com (Glen J. Kuban) Subject: Plesiosaur & shark questions To: dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu To: vrtpaleo@usc.edu Ladies and gentlemen, During the course of my work on the Paluxy dinosaur tracks and associated man track controversy (see web address below if interested) I often ran across many creationist claims about a supposed "sea-monster" or plesiosaur carcass acidentally netted off New Zealand by a Japanese trawler in 1977. The rotting, smelly corpse, which was about 10 meters (33 feet) long was thrown overboard to avoid spoiling the fish catch, but first photos and tissue samples were taken. It made all the Japanese papers and several popular publications in the west, and many of you probably heard of it. Creationists and monster advocates still often claim it was a likely "modern plesiosaur," which it does superficially resemble. Subsequent lab work on the tissue samples and considerations of the anatomical features visible in the photos led to an entirely different conclusion, namely that it was a badly decayed baskign shark. But these results received far less media attention than the original sensational stories. So, the claims keep coming up. All of this prompted me to further research and write a detailed review of the case. I've posted a draft of the manuscript at http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/plesios.htm and would be grateful for any comments or corrections from anyone who wishes to review it before I submit it for publication. I'd especially be interested in any comments from people familiar with sharks and/or plesiosaurs. I plan to add more illustrations in the final version. I also have a couple specific questions I'm hoping someone can answer. Among the supposed inconsistencies with the shark ID that some have raised is that the ribs were "long and cylindrical." Actually, the ribs were only 40 cm long, which seems about right for a basking shark of that size, but not a plesiosaur, no? Does anyone have any data on the relative length of plesiosaur ribs for a given body length? Supposedly the crewman who photographed the carcass saw openings he described as "nares" on top the remains of the cranium, rather than on the underside as in most sharks. My impression is that the rostrum on the skull was rotted away, and that what he took as nares were other fenestral openings in the skull. Anyone have any thoughts on that. I'd also appreciate any comments on other aspects of shark and plesiosaur anatomy made in the Japanese reports, which I discuss in the paper. Also, if anyone knows of any pertinent references not included in the draft, please let me know. Thanks very much. Glen J. Kuban paleo@ix.netcom.com Phone 216-237-4508 Fax 216-749-7386 Draft on "sea monster" carcass: http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/plesios.htm Paluxy controversy articles: http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm
Partial index: