Comments on: Pondering the Coelacanth Curse

By: norman-uk

norman-uk — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 23:41:34 +0000

I enjoyed reading the well written essay in the mail and am convinced more of this sort of thing should be in a newspaper and would increase interest and sales! No curse though or any reason for it, just bad luck and maybe because it is extra special, more risks being taken.

Wonderful and perfect thing this coelacanth and its discovery. I hope it is not really a ”thoroughly modern fish” wouldn’t that rather defeat the object? Think dragon fly!

Looks if the argument in favour of homo floresiensies is being won. Doesn’t this equal the discovery of the coelecanth and shouldn’t we all be getting excited and reveling in our luck to see it happen?

By: Sordes

Sordes — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:55:01 +0000

Ceroill, there was once a very differse radiation of coelacanths, some very small ones, some medium sized, some as big as modern coelacanths, but some also much bigger, like the huge Mawsonia. There are of course much more ecological niches for small fish, what´s most probably one of the main reasons, why many of the ancient coelacanths were not very big.

By: squatchwatcher

squatchwatcher — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:46:42 +0000

Deep sea diving is very dangerous. No there is no curse, just risks.

By: Kitsos

Kitsos — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:19:14 +0000

I picked up A Fish Caught In Time by chance in London during one of my “must-find-book-to-read-on-plane-trip” purchases, roughly at the time it was published. I thoroughly enjoyed it and still read the odd chapter once in a while.

I have always loved the Coelacanth’s story. Back then I was hoping to study Marine Biology (ended up doing Environmental Biology due to grades) and it was hard to ignore such a find.

And yes, I too do not believe this is a cursed subject. Diving to such depths involves enormous amounts of danger to even the most highly skilled Nitro divers so it is not peculiar that there have been so many unfortunate losses. People make mistakes, technology falters no mater how well one checks it. Something goes wrong at that depth…the chances of saving the situation are slim at best. If people did not take chances we would not know half the things we do today.

By: Ceroill

Ceroill — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:50:06 +0000

Like you, Loren, I have long been fascinated by the Coelecanth. If I remember correctly (hardly a sure thing), aren’t most of the fossil specimens much smaller than the living species?

By: Bast

Bast — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:17:44 +0000

I have to say, the Coelacanth was what got me really excited about cryptozoology. I always get a little happy when I see articles about that very special fish.

Do I think there’s a curse? No, I think it’s rubbish.

Happy Holidays to you, too!

By: coelacanth1938

coelacanth1938 — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:03:02 +0000

Myself, I don’t belive in a curse…

By: MattBille

MattBille — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:11:48 +0000

A hundred fifteen meters is really pushing the limit for divers using scuba-type systems. It’s hardly surprising there were deaths resulting from those efforts. (While very dedicated experts with modified equipment have pushed deeper, thescubaguide.com says “The safety limit for a trained expert diver should be around 200 feet.”)
So it’s the depth and not the fish that get the blame: it would have been the same if they were trying to film “a misshapen rock cod” (which might have been the inspiration for Weinberg’s cover artist) or whatever.