The Loch Ness Monster

[maximus otter]

Can "Super" Eels Explain Loch Ness Monster Sightings?

It’s possible to love both scientific validity and the idea of hypothetical beasts, which is exactly why our eyes went out on stalks when we spotted a new preprint that explores the theory that Loch Ness Monster sightings might actually have been European eels. The “eel hypothesis” suggests that particularly large Anguilla anguilla might be enough to trick the eye into thinking you’d seen a mythical, loch-dwelling animal, but do the stats on eels back up the theory?

The Loch Ness Monster’s size estimations range from around 1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet), based on the Surgeon’s Photograph, and 15 to 20 meters (49 to 66 feet), based on the Flipper Photograph. The preprint authors note that estimations about Loch Ness’s biomass don’t really tie in with the larger of the two proposed sizes, and Carl Sagan’s work into collision physics could be translated to imply that if Nessie was on the smaller side, there might be several contained within the body of water.

To find out, the researchers looked at catch data from Loch Ness to ascertain the number of eels and their average body sizes when they were pulled from the enormous body of water. It revealed that the distribution is skewed towards the smaller A. anguilla sizes, leading them to conclude that your chances of finding not just an eel, but a large one (minimum 1 meter) in the loch are about 1 in 50,000.

In the 1970s, a scientific slip up led biologist Roy Mackal to conclude that massive eels might well exist in the loch after collecting a skewed sample from baited traps. It’s not a completely ridiculous leap when you consider the defining features of Nessie: a head sat atop a long, slender neck, extreme flexibility, a sect of pectoral fins, and dark coloration.

Mackal was also far from alone, as other naturalists suggested that mega-eels may migrate transiently to the loch from the River Ness. Meanwhile, a 2018 eDNA study found bucketloads of A. anguilla material, possibly pointing towards big, girthy eels.

But alas, if the preprint’s findings endure, it seems this particular mystery can’t be pinned on “super” eels.

https://www.iflscience.com/can-super-eels-explain-loch-ness-monster-sightings-67185

maximus otter

 

[Kondoru]

Ive seen these wakes on Loch Ness.

 

[Paul_Exeter]

Can "Super" Eels Explain Loch Ness Monster Sightings?

It’s possible to love both scientific validity and the idea of hypothetical beasts, which is exactly why our eyes went out on stalks when we spotted a new preprint that explores the theory that Loch Ness Monster sightings might actually have been European eels. The “eel hypothesis” suggests that particularly large Anguilla anguilla might be enough to trick the eye into thinking you’d seen a mythical, loch-dwelling animal, but do the stats on eels back up the theory?

The Loch Ness Monster’s size estimations range from around 1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet), based on the Surgeon’s Photograph, and 15 to 20 meters (49 to 66 feet), based on the Flipper Photograph. The preprint authors note that estimations about Loch Ness’s biomass don’t really tie in with the larger of the two proposed sizes, and Carl Sagan’s work into collision physics could be translated to imply that if Nessie was on the smaller side, there might be several contained within the body of water.

To find out, the researchers looked at catch data from Loch Ness to ascertain the number of eels and their average body sizes when they were pulled from the enormous body of water. It revealed that the distribution is skewed towards the smaller A. anguilla sizes, leading them to conclude that your chances of finding not just an eel, but a large one (minimum 1 meter) in the loch are about 1 in 50,000.

In the 1970s, a scientific slip up led biologist Roy Mackal to conclude that massive eels might well exist in the loch after collecting a skewed sample from baited traps. It’s not a completely ridiculous leap when you consider the defining features of Nessie: a head sat atop a long, slender neck, extreme flexibility, a sect of pectoral fins, and dark coloration.

Mackal was also far from alone, as other naturalists suggested that mega-eels may migrate transiently to the loch from the River Ness. Meanwhile, a 2018 eDNA study found bucketloads of A. anguilla material, possibly pointing towards big, girthy eels.

But alas, if the preprint’s findings endure, it seems this particular mystery can’t be pinned on “super” eels.

https://www.iflscience.com/can-super-eels-explain-loch-ness-monster-sightings-67185

maximus otter

It is a good argument but worth noting this paper -

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.07.523085v1.full

- has not being peer-reviewed

 

[Sharon Hill]

It is a good argument but worth noting this paper -

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.07.523085v1.full

- has not being peer-reviewed

This is the same writer who has put out a similar "Bigfoot=bears" paper this past week. I am not at all impressed. It tells us nothing we don't already know.

 

[Paul_Exeter]

This is the same writer who has put out a similar "Bigfoot=bears" paper this past week. I am not at all impressed. It tells us nothing we don't already know.

I was always told at Uni to never trust research articles that have not been peer reviewed:

"Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles."

https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/index.html

 

[Sharon Hill]

I was always told at Uni to never trust research articles that have not been peer reviewed:

"Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles."

https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/index.html

Well, there are SERIOUS problems with the peer review process. It doesn't work great for many reasons. But it's better than nothing. And it's better than this Floe Foxon stuff that seems designed solely for links on terrible "sciencey sounding" web aggregator sites (which is basically all of them - they take the clickbait every time).

 

[Coal]

Well, there are SERIOUS problems with the peer review process. It doesn't work great for many reasons. But it's better than nothing. And it's better than this Floe Foxon stuff that seems designed solely for links on terrible "sciencey sounding" web aggregator sites (which is basically all of them - they take the clickbait every time).

Far better to read papers critically - even a skim: what does the abstract say/claim? Does the experiment have a decent sample size and/or sound methodology or is the data being analyzed have sound provenance, and lastly, does the analysis of the data agree with the abstract (you'd be surprised how often it doesn't). Even for psychology papers it can pay to skip straight to the data and check the maths...tbh if N<100 I assume it's probably not going to replicate...

It's also worth asking yourself if the abstract's claim is really very likely at all...

 

[Frideswide]

Far better to read papers critically

it's not an alternative is it? I mean, this is the first thing any of us should do.

the academic peer review process is in addition to this

 

[Coal]

it's not an alternative is it? I mean, this is the first thing any of us should do.

the academic peer review process is in addition to this

Well, one always should! But it's quite possible for a paper to withstand critical analysis when it's not been peer reviewed and vice-versa.

 

[Mikefule]

Well, one always should! But it's quite possible for a paper to withstand critical analysis when it's not been peer reviewed and vice-versa.

Absolutely. The formal peer review process is a fairly modern invention and limited to academic research papers and the like. Other methods of assessing the credibility of a study exist.

Peer review is a generally good process, assuming it is done properly. However, there's a lot of politicking that goes on in academe. It is possible to get a good paper rejected for publication, and possible to get a bad paper published.

None of Plato's work was peer reviewed in the modern sense. It stood or fell on its own quality, as assessed by readers.

In industry, there are various process analogous to peer review, but they are not the same, because industry is mainly about bringing a successful product to market, rather than pure research.

In daily life, we read news reports, text books, non-fiction of various kinds, watch documentaries. We have a responsibility to ourselves to do so critically.

In a minority interest area such as the Loch Ness Monster, peer reviewed material is few and far between. However, that is not the same as taking everything at face value uncritically.

For example, a post above refers, in part, to estimations of the LNM's size based on the surgeon's photograph. What possible benefit comes from estimating the size (or any other aspect) of a monster based on what is known to be a hoax photograph?

 

[Coal]

Peer review is a generally good process, assuming it is done properly. However, there's a lot of politicking that goes on in academe. It is possible to get a good paper rejected for publication, and possible to get a bad paper published.

At the start of my MSc we were literally told in a lecture on the subject, that backscratching and politicking was the only way to get a paper peer reviewed! Disappointing on so many levels.

In industry, there are various process analogous to peer review, but they are not the same, because industry is mainly about bringing a successful product to market, rather than pure research.

In electronics design engineering, continual peer review is (if sensible process is employed) how you get from research/idea to a successful project. It's literally: specification -- review (loop a/r) ---design to specification --- review (loop a/r) --- make prototype --- verify against specification --- (loop a/r) --- make NPI product --- verify --- pass regulatory testing (loop a/r) --- validate with end requirements (loop a/r)...

...if a design has 300 components, well, you've got a chance if you wing it. In the 1980's/90s you could also modify and rework PCB's as well.

Right now designs often have 3000+components, 12 layers of copper, run at blistering speeds where the copper becomes another strangely variable components (or not) and often have micro-processors that are ten times more complex than that and/or a gate-array with a billion transistors. PCB re-work and modification is barely possible. Wing that and you're out of business. People still try and wing it...

..like I used to advise; if you don't have a specification, you don't know when it's finished, so it never will be...

Sadly most companies don't do this very well if at all, and many seem to skip stage one and hope that everyone else can guess good...

 

[Paul_Exeter]

Author and researcher Nick Redfern on Nessie:

"For Ted Holiday, the plesiosaur, giant eel, and salamander theories were flawed and lacking in substance. He came to the somewhat unusual, and certainly unique, scenario that the Nessies were gigantic versions of everyday slugs. The biggest problem with Holiday’s theory was that it was beset by issues that made it most unlikely to have merit"

Read on...

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2023/02/The-Loch-Ness-Monsters-We-Know-They-Live-But-What-Are-They-/

 

[Frideswide]

that backscratching and politicking was the only way to get a paper peer reviewed!

I don't understand - peer review is organised by the publishers. A paper has to be almost unreadable and totally lacking in anything to say (judging by what comes to me to be reviewed) for it not to get a peer review. Note that is lacking in anything to say and not saying something against the orthodox position.

Is it different in the sciences @Coal?

 

[Coal]

I don't understand - peer review is organised by the publishers. A paper has to be almost unreadable and totally lacking in anything to say (judging by what comes to me to be reviewed) for it not to get a peer review. Note that is lacking in anything to say and not saying something against the orthodox position.

Is it different in the sciences @Coal?

It was explained to my psychology intake by one of the senior lecturers in one of the 'introductory' lectures - typically a request for a peer review is returned with a gentle hint that a refence to the reviewer's own work would improve the paper no end. And that this was normal.

 

[Kondoru]

Now, Frides, as I am coming to Scotland...is belief in the LNM compulsory?

I am busy eating Haggis and Irn-bru.

I know how to celebrate Burns Night properly.

 

[CharmerKamelion]

Now, Frides, as I am coming to Scotland...is belief in the LNM compulsory?

When I visited Loch Ness back in 1995, I went out on the Loch for about 40 minutes on a tourist boat proudly named 'Nessie Hunter 2'. Me and my fellow thrill seekers were regaled for the whole jaunt by the guy who operated the tour, speaking into a microphone all the time telling us about various reported sightings then insisting all the time that the whole thing was total rubbish and a complete myth made up by deluded people and drunkards but good for the local tourist trade. Talk about giving out mixed messages.

Nevertheless I had my camera and camcorder poised and ready throughout - in vain, needless to say.

 

[Frideswide]

It was explained to my psychology intake by one of the senior lecturers in one of the 'introductory' lectures - typically a request for a peer review is returned with a gentle hint that a refence to the reviewer's own work would improve the paper no end. And that this was normal.

who is doing the requesting? Shame on the journals for passing it on if that's how it happens.

Why hasn't an enterprising whistleblower taken this to the press and the funding councils?

 

[Frideswide]

Now, Frides, as I am coming to Scotland...is belief in the LNM compulsory?

I am busy eating Haggis and Irn-bru.

I know how to celebrate Burns Night properly.

We are having ours tomorrow for himself's birthday. NOMNOMNOM.

Not compulsory to believe in the LNM. But if we ever implement a questionnaire for aspiring incomers then I suspect the correct answer will be YES!

 

[gordonrutter]

who is doing the requesting? Shame on the journals for passing it on if that's how it happens.

Why hasn't an enterprising whistleblower taken this to the press and the funding councils?

This is not how it happens in my experience as both reviewer and reviewed.

 

[Sid]

Author and researcher Nick Redfern on Nessie:

"For Ted Holiday, the plesiosaur, giant eel, and salamander theories were flawed and lacking in substance. He came to the somewhat unusual, and certainly unique, scenario that the Nessies were gigantic versions of everyday slugs. The biggest problem with Holiday’s theory was that it was beset by issues that made it most unlikely to have merit"

Read on...

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2023/02/The-Loch-Ness-Monsters-We-Know-They-Live-But-What-Are-They-/

I believe I'm right in saying, that Slugs, even giant ones would not be able to breath under water.

 

[Frideswide]

This is not how it happens in my experience as both reviewer and reviewed.

so it's just pure arts subjects that don't do this? This makes me very sad.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

This is not how it happens in my experience as both reviewer and reviewed.

Also not mine, back when I did both of these. However, there were certain professors who did, and it was an open secret. Social sciences. I like to think it is better now, but human nature does not change much.

 

[gordonrutter]

so it's just pure arts subjects that don't do this? This makes me very sad.

Just to clarify, I have never come across a situation occurring as described by Coal. The reviews are generally anonymous and the only communication is via the journal editor.
Biology.

 

[Coal]

who is doing the requesting? Shame on the journals for passing it on if that's how it happens.

Why hasn't an enterprising whistleblower taken this to the press and the funding councils?

Well, you've only my memory to go on, but that's my recollection. Probably only recall it because I was disappointed by hearing it, but maybe I heard it wrong. Nevertheless imho psychology is now a corrupt discipline. The BPs magazine degenerated from a good read full of interesting and well conducted research into a politically driven fest of poor science and virtue signaling between 2017-2022 - something painfully obvious if you have copies from 2015 - 2022.

I recall a BPS magazine competition won by an undergraduate which stated that their study proved their hypothesis. The rot was in then. I cancelled my subscription a little after that. I now read the abstract and skip right to the data, and if it looks sensible check the experimental conditions

 

[Paul_Exeter]

I believe I'm right in saying, that Slugs. even giant ones would not be able to breath under water.

That would be my opinion but then I discovered this: https://nypost.com/2016/09/01/horrifying-slug-is-the-size-of-a-house-pet/

So the world's largest slug eats seaweed and can grow up to 3 feet in length. However,not much seaweed in Loch Ness and it is still about 27 feet short of Nessie size....

 

[RaM]

Judging by the amount of dead slugs we used to get in our pond they can’t swim very well, The hedgehogs we now get seem to have got rid of 90% of them, now if we had a hedgehog the size of a elephant.

 

[Peripart]

Now, Frides, as I am coming to Scotland...is belief in the LNM compulsory?

I am busy eating Haggis and Irn-bru.

I know how to celebrate Burns Night properly.

If you believe that haggis is food, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble believing in the Loch Ness Monster.

 

[Mikefule]

I believe I'm right in saying, that Slugs, even giant ones would not be able to breath under water.

There are marine creatures called nudibranchs, often referred to colloquially as "sea slugs". They are basically slug-shaped but they have external gills and live and breathe underwater.

Nudibranchs are only found in saltwater and brackish water. However, it is not a big stretch of the imagination for there to be a similar species that can live in freshwater.

Nudibranchs are often brightly coloured, and the external gill folds can give them an interesting profile. Some look less like slugs than others.

Known species of nudibranch vary from a few mm up to about 600 mm (60 cm, 2 feet) in length. As with any species, it is not difficult to accept the idea of a similar species 10% bigger, and maybe a little more.

However, the laws of physics and geometry apply. Twice as long but the same shape would mean 8 times the body mass, and 8 times the food requirement. The bigger a creature gets, the more of its time it spends eating, and eventually a limit is reached.

The LNM as conventionally described cannot be a slug.

 

[Ogdred Weary]

Absolutely. The formal peer review process is a fairly modern invention and limited to academic research papers and the like. Other methods of assessing the credibility of a study exist.

Peer review is a generally good process, assuming it is done properly. However, there's a lot of politicking that goes on in academe. It is possible to get a good paper rejected for publication, and possible to get a bad paper published.

None of Plato's work was peer reviewed in the modern sense. It stood or fell on its own quality, as assessed by readers.

In industry, there are various process analogous to peer review, but they are not the same, because industry is mainly about bringing a successful product to market, rather than pure research.

In daily life, we read news reports, text books, non-fiction of various kinds, watch documentaries. We have a responsibility to ourselves to do so critically.

In a minority interest area such as the Loch Ness Monster, peer reviewed material is few and far between. However, that is not the same as taking everything at face value uncritically.

For example, a post above refers, in part, to estimations of the LNM's size based on the surgeon's photograph. What possible benefit comes from estimating the size (or any other aspect) of a monster based on what is known to be a hoax photograph?

Is the surgeon's photo an absolute definite fake? I mean I think it is and I think there's 99+% certainty that it is, but is not quite the same thing.

I agree estimates of a putative creature's size based on that photo are insane and pointless.

 

[Mikefule]

Is the surgeon's photo an absolute definite fake? I mean I think it is and I think there's 99+% certainty that it is, but is not quite the same thing.

I agree estimates of a putative creature's size based on that photo are insane and pointless.

It is one of those pesky 99.9:0.1 cases. 99.9% it's a hoax; 0.1% it's an unknown species of 2 – 3 foot long (60 cm – 90 cm) monster. In this size range, it is not completely inconsistent with being an unknown species of freshwater nudibranch.

I do not have the facilities or experience to do proper scientific analysis, but I've spent a lot of my time around water, having been a scuba diver, kayaker, and sailor. Everything about those waves around the "monster" tells me intuitively they are small ripples, and the "monster" is no bigger than a goose. Cormorants are smaller than geese, but often swim with their bodies almost completely submerged prior to diving. However, those who have looked into the photo, and the less well known second photo have concluded it was a hoax.


Cormorants swimming with their bodies submerged, heads extended. Imagine a badly focussed badly exposed version of these pictures in which the bill (beak) is unclear.