Nessie Not Found in Antarctic
Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 11th, 2006
The Associated Press is reporting that the fossil bones of a baby plesiosaur have been found on an Antarctic island. That is a good find, but the papers won’t be stopping there. Be prepared.
Of course, although there is no known relationship at all, except in the culture of the media, the following reference point is being thrown into the stories:
In life, 70 million years ago, the five-foot-long animal would have resembled Nessie, the long-necked creature reported to inhabit Scotland’s Loch Ness.
Hate to mention it but (1) we don’t know if any Nessies exist at all, so how could such a statement be made, and (2) the eyewitnesses to the cryptid Nessies generally describe animate objects looking more like overturned boats, small whales, or walruses than long-necked plesiosaurs. Ah, details. 
For the rest of the article, see Baby Plesiosaur Bones Found in Antarctic.
say “plesiosaur” to most people and they go “huh?”, but say “loch ness monster” and they know what you mean. it’s unfortunate that cultural perception has overshadowed the real details (or lack thereof) about some cryptids.
Frankly, I think we are stuck with this, and likely will still be seeing this sort of reference a hundred years from now.
Matt Bille
I think it’s our responsibility as cryptozoologists to inform people and the press about these inaccurate facts and inform them about unknown animals, and what these unknown animals are supposed to look like, sound like, smell like, and act like. So, that people can have a better understanding of the mysterious world they live in.
Ooh, you’re such a fusspot, Loren! I understand the technical sticklerness in some circumstances, but temporarily adopting the role of technical stickler myself, since when has it been wrong to use popular cultural imagery as shorthand when trying to communicate somewhat abstruse information to a more broad-based audience? In fact, it’s probably true to say, everyone who frequents this site probably first became intrigued in its subject matter precisely because they initially encountered it in the form of such convenient, easily-digested bite-sized chunks of pop cultural reference; if however they’d initially been confronted with reams of technically accurate reportage, they’d've probably lost all interest in the subject before they’d even had a chance to grasp the implications of the first sentence.
Why do you think I put a smile with this blog?
I think the main image that the media has with Nessie is the infamous Surgeon Photo, with its long, serpentine neck. Even though this photo has generally been debunked as a hoax, it is interesting how it has remained the image of Nessie most seen in the public eye. It is funny how Nessie is always explained as a plesiosaur even though, if it exists, the evidence increasingly does not point to that particular creature. Still an interesting find!
I think its a bit sad that most people know what ‘Nessie’ (aka Surgeons photo) is than know what a plesiosaur is. Many citizens are fairly ignorant of current animals, let alone extinct ones. The only reason anyone seems to know about raptors is due to the Jurassic Park movies.
This is a pet peeve of mine. I hate when they do that - it’s a scientific disservice. But the worst part about this particular episode in the continuing “saga” is that the press release came from the National Science Foundation - a group that ought to know better than to resort to such name-calling.
I think the main problem is that when most people think dinos they think of T-rex, triceratops or even (still) brontosaurus. There are so many different types of dinos we never hear about. Jurrasic Park: Lost World I think did the best out of all dino movies to get as many differing types together. They say now that there were more small dinos than the huge ones made famous.
No one really knows what Nessie looks like as a species, but, for now, I am leaning towards plesiosaur (see the Liopleurodon or Plesiosaurus Ask.com image searches) or a really cool seal. Either way, I have to agree about the press-mistakes, as when I hear dinosaur, I think of an incredibly bird-like Deinonychus (try the Deinonychus image search).
Ignoring the “Surgeons Photograph” as I think we now must a Pleisosaur shaped creature with a slightly bulkier body would explain most of the Loch Ness sightings. Notice I said Pleisosaur shaped, not necessarily the animal itself. Personally I lean towards a large seal-like mammal with a somewhat elongated neck. Years ago I had a share in a sea fishing boat and, before I got used to the sight, when I saw a seal fishing near the surface every time it made me think I had seen something really unusual. How many people reporting things in the Loch have got used to seeing seals?