[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Cadborosaurus willsi



And one more note which may or may not interest anyone, and I apologize
if it doesn't.

> First, they conclude, like Darren said, that because of Caddy's
> morphology, it would be impractical for it to be warm-blooded, because of
> it's high surface area to body volume. To maintain homeothermy, they say,
> Caddy would have to engage in near continous feeding and enormous
> conversion of food energy to make up for the lost heat to the cold B.C.
> waters (which is never higher than 20 centigrade, and that temperature is
> only possible under perfect conditions during the summer of long periods
> of sun and light winds - usually the temperature is more like below 15
> centigrades and during the winter drops below 10 centigrade). They figure
> that Caddy would still be capable of high bursts of speed to catch food
> and escape danger.

I don't think this computes, for the simple reason that there are some
cold- and/or temperate-water fish that _are_ at least something close to
homeothermic.  There are also homeothermic birds and mammals that live
part- or full-time in the coldest salt water on the planet: seals,
sea-lions, whales, polar bears, and penguins.

> The main thing that made LeBlond and Bousfield to conclude on a reptilian
> identity was a chart comparing it to other large marine animals looking at
> primitive and advanced traits. The categories included Caddy, bony fishes,
> amphibians, modern reptiles, plesiosaurs, primitve mammals, pinnipeds, and
> cetaceans. I won't go into the other details of the chart (the traits
> included body size, body shape, thermal physiol.,head and neck etc.), but
> just say that the following were the "scores"(the higher, the more
> advanced according to the chart):
> 
> Caddy ~9
> Bony fishes 3
> Amphibians 4
> Modern reptiles 5
> Plesiosaurs ~8
> Primitive mammals 7
> Pinnipeds 11
> Cetacea 13

Strikes me as kinda nuts, I'm afraid.  If Caddy exists at all, then it's
something quite unlike any known animal, and quite likely to have a
hitherto unknown combination of traits.

> Maybe someone who's taken some animal physiology in uiniversity could add
> some more knowledgeable comments...?

I don't have none o' that, but I own one and have read another book on
these beasties.  The one I have is IN SEARCH OF LAKE MONSTERS, Peter
Costello, 1975.  The one I've read but don't have (and would give a lot
to change that) is Bernard Heuvelmans' book IN THE WAKE OF THE
SEA-SERPENTS.  Heuvelmans looked at several reports of stranded
carcases, and decided that all of them could be explained as badly
decomposed sharks, almost certainly a basking shark or something closely
related.  

Between them, Heuvelmans and Costello examined dozens of reports form
all around the world, both marine and freshwater, and arrived at
basically the same conclusion concerning the long-neck animals that are
often alleged to be plesiosaurs.  It's not a plesiosaur or any other
reptile; it's a mammal, probably a long-necked seal or sea-lion, so
specialized for a purely marine existence that it spends most of its
life in the water and even gives birth there, something no known seal or
sea-lion does.  

To bring this back to something vaguely related to this list <G>,
Heuvelmans also concluded, based on two sightings he accepted as
genuine, that one of his nine types of "sea-serpents" was a
Brobdignagian marine crocodile, up to twice as large as the modern
saltwater croc.

-- JSW