Do a google image search for this term Rhinochimaeridae the first few pictures look remarkably like several reported lake monsters. This creature normally grows to about 4.5 feet (approx 2m) in size however a larger version of this species, or perhaps a few outliers within the known species may be causing a lot of sightings. I haven’t looked into it too deeply but I know quite a few related species can exists out of the water for anything from several minutes to several days.

I also speculate, that they could remain partially buried in silt, at the bottom of the loch, with only their long neck sticking out. Then, when a fish or an eel swims by, the jaws clamp down on it, and it eats it. If they spend most of their time at the bottom & sides, and only come up rarely, then, I guess that could help explain why there are frequent sightings in some years, but not in other years.

For example, in 1933, they were building a new road, the A82, along the North shore, of the loch. Several factors contributed to the immense amount of sightings, during this year. Because there were many construction workers, next to the loch, there were simply more people around, to have sightings. Also, they cut down the trees, which provided a clearer view of the loch, which contributed to the sightings. Plus, lots of rocks and trees and boulders were dumped into the loch, and the noise from the construction must surely have disrupted the mainly bottom-and-side-dwelling animals. Therefore, they left their habitats, and swam into more open water, near the surface. Some of them also must have came onto land, because this would help to explain the land sightings, as well.

Apparently, This new surge in sightings continued to 1934. By then, however, more vegetation had grown back, and the animals returned back home, to the deeper waters.

I feel that this theory really helps to explain why there were so many sightings, in the 1930′s.

Now, what do I think? Personally, I think that we are definitely looking at an animal which looks very similar to a plesiosaur, due to the phenomenon known as convergent evolution. However, unlike plesiosaurs, these creatures have gills, and can breathe, underwater. However, what about the land sightings? Well, the land sightings can easily be explained. You see, very few people are aware of the fact that some species of fish can spend a considerable amount of time, out of the water, even though they have gills. For example, as Mackal noted in his book, eels have been observed moving 20 miles, overland! So, even if we are dealing with some kind of fish, it is still entirely possible, that it is capable of some short excursions, onto dry land.

In my opinion, after examining all of the available evidence, the Nessies are, I think, most likely to be a very uniquely-evolved species of fish, that is completely unlike any other one, presently known, to science. It has a long neck, a bulky body, and 4 flippers, just like a plesiosaur. It is also capable of walking on land, for short periods, of time. And, I am also guessing that it most likely feeds on other, smaller fish. My theory is that they mainly inhabit the bottom and sides, of the loch, and therefore remain hidden, from most sonar scans.

My problem with that theory is the fact that many of the lakes (including Ness) are glacial lakes. This means that they were created by the movements and pressure of the huge Ice Age glaciers that covered the land. There could not be relic aquatic animals (or evolved descendants) if the lake wasn’t there for them to survive in. During the latter part of the Cretaceous Period the average temperature of the Earth was the highest on record, much of the land was underwater and the continents weren’t exactly where they are now. During the Cretaceous there were literally forests extending almost to both Poles. Now while the Plesiosaur did survive during the cooler Jurrasic I believe that was due to the stability of water temperatures at different depth levels. (although current theories have them pegged as shallow water feeders, while I tend to agree with bottom feeder theories).

So unless the Plesiosaur actually survived being trapped in a frozen tomb and reanimated as the ice melted and filled in the lakes (unlikely, but several species of fish and frog can do this) I don’t think the Plesiosaur as Nessie is a likely bet. I would think either a mammal of some sort (seal, monster otter-sorry had to say it) or eel would be a more likely choice going by what we know at this time.

Critics of the plesiosaur hypothesis often claim that plesiosaurs could not raise their head and neck up out of the water, in a swan-like fashion, like Nessie is often depicted as doing. Well, that doesn’t matter. The thing is, that those skeptics are forgetting about something very important. You see, I believe that Nessie is not really a prehistoric plesiosaur, but, instead, a descendant of the plesiosaur, that is highly modified, from the prehistoric ones.

Maybe plesiosaurs evolved echolocation. As someone else previously stated, echolocation would almost be a necessity, if the creature were to track down its prey, in the peat-stained, murky waters of the Loch Ness. In 1970, an expedition led by Dr. Roy P. Mackal recorded sounds in Urquhart Bay that were very similar to echolocation.

Over time, the plesiosaurs could have evolved a different neck structure. Also, critics often assert that plesiosaurs could not survive in the frigid-cold waters of the Loch, because they were cold-blooded reptiles. However, the thing is, we have no evidence that they were cold-blooded, at all, in the first place! In fact, I think that they were more probably warm-blooded, just like we now know most dinosaurs to have been.

And, so, this is my defense of the plesiosaur theory, which I subscribe to. I still keep an open mind. However, as of now, the plesiosaur seems to me to be the most likely theory, and, so, for now, at least, my opinion is that the Loch Ness Monster is most likely to be a surviving Plesiosaur. Cheers!

I think because Loch Ness was not unique in reports of water cryptids doesn’t take anything away from Nessie–if anything, from what I’ve read, there are several lochs that have histories of critters–now whether this is because maybe there was a population that spread to other bodies of water, or perhaps there just have always been similar critters in the area or whether other lochs got confused with Ness and the stories just brimmed over to other places, again, who knows. But, Loch Ness definitely has something going on, and I’m convinced it’s a physical critter.

The air breathing thing doesn’t bother me–I’ve said multiple times throughout my life at Cryptomundo that it’s a huge body of water and there are not eyes on the surface everywhere. It would literally take a large number of people stationed at dozens of vantage points 24/7 seven days a week to be able to competently say they’ve seen everything happening on the loch’s surface. And since we don’t know the physiology of whatever’s in there, it is highly probable that the critter doesn’t have to completely surface to breathe, which in turns means it might only have to stick its snout out of the water. And with the loch a mile across, you’d have to be able to see a small point where a creature brought its snout to the surface to breathe–Nessie has proven shy of noises and such over the years.

In the end, there are lots of possibilities…and probably more that we haven’t explored yet…while I’m willing to put money on the long necked pinniped right now doesn’t mean I’ve completely negated the others. I will keep an open mind as evidence continues to roll in and shift my theories the more info I get…until we figure out what and which it is…

thank you and good night.

I disagree because I have conducted my own studies too. The Loch Ness Kelpie is the most mentioned creature in the pre-1933 literature. It’s not just a matter of whether it gets a solitary mention in one dusty book, but how many.

How many times did you find in comparison that the Loch Morar Water Horse was mentioned in pre-1933 literature or the ones in Loch Treig, Loch Awe, Loch Rannoch, Loch Fadda, etc, etc, etc?

What do you make of the phrase from 1890 that Loch Ness was full of Water Bulls?

Of course, legends do not prove whether a strange animal is irrevocably there (let alone its identity) but it does weaken significantly the argument that Loch Ness didn’t rise above its fellow lochs in Highland story telling.

I think there is a book out that challenges that theory.Silverity

No, it doesn’t really. Many lochs in Scotland had water kelpie legends. Loch Ness wasn’t unique.

There really isn’t a consistent catalogue of sightings that go back century before century to St Columba’s time. I’ve looked into this closely. There really isn’t anything persuasive before the 20th century. And even the St Columba fairy tale was centered on the River Ness and not the Loch.

The Loch Ness Monster was really a 20th century mystery, which would actually correlate well to a freak sized eel or fish because they can live a long time and still be with us today.