[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Stephen Carville wrote:
> However, something like a plesiosaur in Loch Ness is very unlikely. For
> a species to survive it needs a breeding population. It is very hard to
> imagine a body like Loch Ness hiding a population of large saurians with
> no more than I-saw-it-walking-home-from-the-pub type evidence. Humans
> have inhabited that area for thousands of years. Bodies should have
> washed ashore, Monasteries should have relics but all we have are
> legends and travelers' tales. There are just too many ways that an
> animal that size would leave behind evidences of its existence for me to
> accept that it didn't happen once in all these years.
Just to add my 0.02 to this point:
Loch Ness has a very sparse fish population. It's unlike it could
maintain even the smallest population of fast aquatic predators - it
only rarely gets visted by otters, even.
It's speculated that such "modern pleiosaurs" being trapped when an
arm of the sea was closed off to form a loch. Modern geological
thought now holds that Loch Ness has always been fresh water.
It's also been speculated that some kind of tunnel or cave system
connects Loch Ness to the sea. However, since its water level is some
16m above sea level, such a tunnnel would have drained the loch
Just for fun: Sir Peter Scott was greatly taken by the 'fish-lizard'
idea, and even coined a latin name for nessie. Sadly, the name he
chose is an anagram of "monster hoax by Sir Peter S." (no, I can't
remember the Latin version! Sorry)
Mark O'Leary, | Voice: +44 (0161) 2756110
Network Support Officer, | Email: Mark.O'Leary@mcc.ac.uk
Manchester Computing, UK | or: email@example.com