|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 340
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 6:45 pm: | 
|
Hi all,
No one quite knows what it was but a huge mass of flesh washed onto a St. Augustine beach in 1896. Was it a whale, a giant squid or some unknown species of colossal octopus weighing several dozen tons and a couple of hundred feet across? Surprisingly, the latter as per most who've studied the remaims and the pictures.
I still wonder if it might have been part of a whale, myself. There were descriptions of tentacle stubs at the time but were they seeing what they wanted to see? If it was really an octopus, HOLY CRAP!!!!
Best wishes,
Stan |
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
Stan,
As you probably know in 1897 tissue samples of the "mass of flesh" were sent to the Smithsonian Institution’s Hall of Mollusks. In 1971 Natural History Magazine sponsored an analysis of the patterns of connective tissue in the Smithsonian samples. The results were reported in an article by F.G. Wood in the March issue. "The evidence appears unmistakable that the St. Augustine sea monster was in fact an octopus... the idea of a gigantic octopus, with arms 75 to 100 feet in length and about 18 inches in diameter at the base—a total spread of some 200 feet—is difficult to comprehend."
However, Sidney Pierce a marine biologist at the University of South Florida in 1995 through electron microscopy and analysis of amino acids determined that the creature was a deboned and decayed whale.
I live about twenty minutes away from where this thing washed ashore. Locals think the jury is still out on this one. I lean towards the whale.
Take care,
Kevin
(Message edited by kbraun on September 12, 2005) |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 341
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Hi Kevin,
The whale assertion certainly makes the most sense. I'd think the scientists ought to be able to tell Molluskan tissue from Mammalian though. Maybe they don't want to spoil a good story.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 893
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 4:18 am: |
|
Hi Stan,
Well, you'd like to think that scientists could tell mollusks from mammals, but a similar controversy happened rather more recently.
In summer of 2003 a mass of flesh washed up on the shore in Chile. (See Giant blob baffles marine scientists.) A number of scientists weighed in on it (unfortunately most of the coverage was from Reuters, which doesn't give free archives for its news content online, so I can't link to them).
•"We don't know if it might be a giant squid that is missing some of its parts or maybe it's a new species," Elsa Cabrera, a marine biologist and director of the Centre for Cetacean Conservation in Santiago, told Reuters news agency. The mass is too big to be a whale skin and does not have the right texture or smell, she said. (Note that she worked for an organization focused on whales.)
•James Mead, a zoologist with the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC thinks the huge mass of slimy flesh is whale blubber. "I don't have enough data to say it's an octopus or it's a whale, but I would hazard a bet that when it gets firmly identified, it'll be a whale."
•Richard Sabin, a marine biologist, cetacean specialist and curator at the Natural History Museum in London said he would be surprised if it was whale blubber after studying photographs of the find. "Whale blubber has a very recognisable collagen matrix which gives it shape," he said. (Note also that this was an expert on whales.)
The definitive answer came about a week later:
Scientists Sergio Letelier and Jose Yanez at the Museum of Natural History in Santiago were the first to reach a conclusion after analysing samples of the decaying specimen and finding glands of a sperm whale.
So, yeah... some scientists can get confused.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
