Comments on: Steller’s Sea Ape

By: IndyGuy99

IndyGuy99 — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:55:51 +0000

I personally think that it was an unknown species of Pinnepid. To me, Steller had discovered too many species to have seen a known seal and have misidentified it. Perhaps there is a species of undiscovered seal with monkey characteristics. It would also explain the supposed merbeings.

By: Jer7

Jer7 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:23:43 +0000

It really looks like a seal to me… but, according to my calculations I think that steller has possibly seen one or more seals than I thought… But I think it’s location is in Canada… or in any countries or places that are with snow…. In the second or third picture… There are some kimonoes.. Sounds like we need to investigate further..

By: Fwooper

Fwooper — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:00:27 +0000

Remember the ‘Fiji mermaid’? It turned out to be a complete hoax, but doesn’t it sound similar? There’s this ‘sea ape’; and then the Fiji mermaid was a dead monkey sown to a dried fish.

By: DWA

DWA — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:28:30 +0000

corrick says:

“Have to say, think this vanished species, existed once, but now extinct stuff is simply bad science. More about subliminal confirmation biases than cold facts and reality. And an easy out that can never be disproven.”

Well, so is this:

“Please name ANY marine mammal or even a terrestrial one
bigger than a breadbox in the last 1,000 years where there is evidence they went extinct without documented human knowledge. Because you can’t. ”

Know why you can’t? Because SCIENCE DOESN’T KNOW OF ANY. Catch-22! Science, essentially, IS “documented human knowledge.”

Except when somebody documented something – and science never followed up.

There is evidence for more than one species’ existence that was never formally documented or recognized by science.
The English colonial naturalist Mark Catesby painted at least one species – a snake, from a specimen he collected – that never received formal scientific recognition (nor any at all outside of the painting; the specimen didn’t get preserved). This snake was found, Catesby wrote, curled up in the underground root ball of a plant, strange indeed for a snake, don’t you think? Soil scientists say that there is no way to document how many soil-dwelling organisms existed at the time of European settlement, or have gone extinct since.

Too many skeptics have too rosy a view of the omniscience of science. Me? I’m dead certain that there are a number of
species that meet corrick’s standard that science never found out about.

Why?

Not belief or bias; just cold hard reality. The monk-seal possibility is there; that the timing indicates the possibility is something to consider. But so is Steller’s acumen as a naturalist. To suddenly discredit him because what he said kinda sits funny?

Science hasn’t been everywhere people have. And no one but Steller need ever have to have seen this animal for it to have been a real one. Given how much we know of the sea even today, that a critter like this got through the net back then is not only plausible, but given simple common sense, way likely.

By: corrick

corrick — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:18:31 +0000

Dogu4,
Thanks for the post!
Apparently you share my interest in both Steller and the sea ape, (though technically Steller called it a sea monkey.)
Have to say, think this vanished species, existed once, but now extinct stuff is simply bad science. More about subliminal confirmation biases than cold facts and reality. And an easy out that can never be disproven.
The sea mink is a bad analogy. It was known, it was well-documented. That it wasn’t scientifically described until the 1890′s is no big deal. The Russian, Lisianski first noted Hawaiian monk seals in 1804, but they weren’t “officially” described until 1896. The fact is these animals were known and existed in historical records. Please name ANY marine mammal or even a terrestrial one bigger than a breadbox in the last 1,000 years where there is evidence they went extinct without documented human knowledge. Because you can’t.
Anyway, understand dogu4, I have REALLY researched Steller’s sea monkey sighting.
And the stray male juvenile Hawaiian monk seal theory is the best one. Wasn’t that Steller just saw one, but he saw it during it’s annual “catastrophic molt” which among other things would certainly give Steller pause from calling it some seal. And yes, the timing of a male juvenile Hawaiian monk seal’s annual “catastrophic molt” fits the date of Steller’s sighting. Perfectly.
Like to hear your reply.
Chris Orrick

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 03:38:20 +0000

Corrick, Those are very interesting perspectives.
As for the whimsy in the idea of Steller being the only witness to a species, southern phocid or otherwise, that coincidentally went extinct shortly thereafter, I don’t think it’s suggested that that is the case exactly, but historically we know that the following waves of fur hunting sailors and highly skilled and motivated eskimos left little in their wakes and they might not have thought much of a funny-looking kind of sea ape, or whatever it was, as the pelts were collected and tossed into a pile for processing so the merchants could bid on them for purchase to be sold in the finest markets of the world. It would just be an odd pelt and probably not what the buyer expected and not frequently encountered enough to raise any concerns.
Perhaps, in many ways we should consider ourselves lucky that Steller was there and and saw one of these remaining members of a now presmably vanished and possibly never numerous in-conspicuous creature. Steller’s being there at all was a bit of a fluke in certain respects given the overall story of his journeys.
Too bad nobody like Steller, with the mindset, experience and drive to scientifically describe and inventory what was in the northeast Atlantic, and along the north-east coast of North America, was along with the first commercial visitors to the grand banks in the north Atlantic. It would be a while before a naturalist with the talent and understanding of Steller would get there, and by then at least one species we know of, the sea-mink, another marine mustalid, was aleady gone. The sea mink’s fur was, like the pacific otter’s, very sought-after and its supply supported a lucrative market in Europe and yet there is no description of the animal of what it was like when it was alive by any naturalist (that I’ve ever heard of). When the population of sea-mink was too low to meet the demand, a sustitute fur-bearing animal with similar fur was targeted for harvest and marketted under the name by which the sea mink was known and by which it is known today; the fisher (a terrestrial animal preys on squirrels).
I see what you mean about Steller’s never having had seen a southern seal before, so maybe that is possible, but given his astute and objective descriptions and insight from his life’s work for which he is noted, it seem odd to me that even any seal, monk seal or fur seal (I note the long whiskers to which he alludes) would have so mislead his speculation.
Anyhow, like you, one of my favorite examples of species about which one can ponder and speculate.

By: corrick

corrick — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:42:50 +0000

Leave the country for one week and so missed this post. My favorite cryptid. Better late than never to post a resonse.

Done extensive research on this topic. If I ever write a crypid book, this sighting alone would take up 50+ pages.

I can confidently tell you what Steller did NOT see.
1. Any sea otter or any other mustelid. The sighting took place 150-160 miles from any land.
2. Any otarid (eared seal). Not any sea lion or any fur seal. Steller described the creatures locomotion. It swam like a shark.

And I take issue with the idea Steller was the sole witness to some marine mammal now extinct. That’s merely whimsical thinking. In all recorded history, the only marine mammals that go extinct, go by the hand of mankind. And all are well documented.

I can confidently tell you what Steller DID see.
1. Some species of phocid.

I happen to think that by far, the must likely explanation is that what Steller saw was a juvenile male Hawaiian monk seal. And remember, the monk seal is a southern, not a northern phocid. There are small but distinct differences in appearance between them. And Steller never ever saw a southern phocid in his life.
Thanks for the topic, Loren. Enjoyed reading everything, you included.

Chris Orrick
Does this mean I have to send another $50?

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:32:53 +0000

Mystery Man’s comment regarding the surprising number of species represented by just a single specimen, or even part of a specimen such as with the Himalayan Blue Bear and the Atlantic Sea Mink, brings to my mind the prospects of finding remains of previously unverified species as the relatively shallow areas in the Bering Sea which were until only a few thousand years ago above sea level and home to many species including ourown and maybe even affiliated hominins, become more and more explored using underwater robots to examine likely places where bones and artifacts could reasonably be found relatively intact. Already places that have been long undisturbed, that are admittedly easier to access even when remote, such as the shallow areas along the Arabian Penninsula, are coming under scrutiny using modern remote sensing devices and resulting in some interesting finds that will no doubt give us insight into the long lost coastal ecosystems and the animals that dominated the continental margins for so long during the pleistocene and earlier. I know you, Loren, enjoy Darren Naishe’s blog, Tetrapod Zoology and his current examination of some spectacularly shaped skulls of long extinct cetaceans takes a look at the astonishing diversity in morphology of some now extinct populations is great stuff.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:21:54 +0000

What’s also interesting to me is that we have a man who reliably catalogued many species that are known today, yet when he wrote of one that does not fit into our paradigm of what we know about, people begin to doubt his observations and disregars the sighting as a misidentification or fabrication. I for one think that considering Steller’s status as a good naturalist, perhaps he saw exactly what he says he saw, it is an officially undocumented animal without a specimen, and that perhaps we should not try to hard to shoehorn his sighting into a known explanation. So for me, the Steller’s Sea Ape remains a compelling, if unexplained, curiosity.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:09:40 +0000

DWA- Yes, some things are that rare. A lot of people don’t realize that there are some species that are known from only a single specimen. Makes one think, what was it that Steller saw? Part of me thinks it was, like others here have postulated, a known animal that maybe fell outside of the usual physical dimensions or was an unusual individual in some respect. However, part of me also keeps open the notion that perhaps Steller saw some new type of very rare animal.

It’s sad that we may never know, and that the Steller’s Sea Ape may be extinct, to forever go down in history as an oddity.