A dispute over Cadborosaurus: Scientists provide evidence that it is not a cryptid

A baby sea-serpent no more: reinterpreting Hagelund’s juvenile Cadborosaurus | Tetrapod Zoology, Scientific American Blog Network.

Dr. Darren Naish reports on a paper published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (Vol 25 No 3) entitled ‘A Baby Sea-Serpent No More: Reinterpreting Hagelund’s Juvenile “Cadborosaur” Report’. In the paper, Naish, along with M. A. Woodley and C.A. McCormick undertake a quantitative analysis of the most well known report of an unknown sea creature by Captain Hagelund, later labeled as a juvenile “cadborosaurus”, a controversial “cryptid”. The results reveal that there is a more reasonable explanation for the animal that does not involve a new species but is more likely a pipefish, a weird looking creature but one that is known to science and native to the area.

Credit: Darren Naish

I am, without apologies, a HUGE fan of Dr. Naish’s work and blog and overall professional attitude towards crytpozoology. Caddy was in the news back in July when a supposed sighting was aired as part of the Alaskan Monster Hunt show on Discovery. This sighting was picked up by the media but not all that impressive to scientists. Is Caddy a real unknown species (Cadborosaurus willsi)? Or can its various sightings be explained in terms of known animals. Naish comments in the above post for Scientific American that he is not of the opinion that all “Caddy” sightings are the same animal.

Naish’s piece also touches on the stigma of cryptozoological publishing and putting bold ideas out there.

Go to The Lord Geekington blog for a 5 part story on Caddy. Great stuff.

  1 comment for “A dispute over Cadborosaurus: Scientists provide evidence that it is not a cryptid

  1. scott mardis
    December 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM

    I would just point out that the debunking of the baby Cadborosaurus reported by William Hagelund does not effect the status of the carcass retrieved from the stomach of a sperm whale in 1937, photos of which were used as a type specimen for the species Cadborosaurus willsi.New evidence concerning that case could potentially arise in the future, however .

Comments are closed.