|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This article does not appear to be neutral and fails to mention the sea serpent classifications. I will try and fix that and give links to where various classification have been recorded.
On the giant squid bit: 2005 was when the footage was released; it was shot in 2004.
Ok ok, I need back up.
In a book I have the writer states that in 1933 someone found a young eel that was 6 feet long. I have not been able to find anything about this eel in any other place. Is there any truth to this? (I'll post the book, writer, and reak date later once I dig up my copy.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zerath13 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
- You're thinking of Anton Bruun, who found a six-foot elver and, from the size disparity of juvenile and adult eels he was familiar with, extrapolated an adult size of 108-180 feet. Alas, it was a juvenile spiny eel, and they don't get much bigger than their elver form. See http://books.google.com/books?id=z9gMsCUtCZUC&pg=PA529&lpg=PA529&dq=anton+bruun+eel&source=bl&ots=JTVsjsgi4T&sig=xbxHtMGRFwQMMVvLg9wwaQNKkVo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5sbbULK_F6a-0QH7_4CYBA&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=anton%20bruun%20eel&f=false --Jere7my (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Long-necked seal "evidence"
Interestingly, a long necked seal is now known from the fossil record.
That's nice and all, but this sentence seems a bit... misleading. Last I'd heard (which was about a year ago), the only "long-necked seal" known was Acrophoca longirostris, and its neck wasn't all that long--its neck made up 21% of the vertebral column, while in living seals the neck makes up 17%. So far as I can tell, compared to a living seal of the same size, that adds a whopping... 2.4 inches.
Saying "We've found long-necked seals!" implies that its neck was, I don't know... long? I wouldn't call an additional 2.4 inches a "long neck"--maybe if we were comparing bulldogs, but not when we were just talking about a hypothetical animal with a neck like a giraffe. While I agree that Acrophoca may be an indication that there could be seals with even longer necks out there, it isn't Megalotaria's lost twin.
And on a side note, why doesn't this article mention anything about vertebral articulation? You'd think it would be worth mentioning that reptiles generally wriggle their bodies horizontally. So are sea serpents an exception to the rule, are they horribly confused, or are we dealing with the reptilian equivalent of the flounder? :P 188.8.131.52 20:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Oarfish = Real
I would think that the oarfish would only confirm the existence of sea serpents (at least in one form): it's long, serpentine, rarely seen, and has a freakish looking head. Shouldn't that be a case of confirmation rather than a case of mistaken identity? AnkhAnanku 15:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point, since the Oar-fish is probably the most likely explanation for the sitings from Aeneid from 30 B.C., given that the Oar-fish had red around its head, and could have been mistaken for a serpent with a red main.
But the oar-fish is still just a fish, and 'sea serpent' implies a snake or snake-like reptile. Many of the sea serpent sightings describe it as having large sharp teeth, being anywhere from 60-200 feet in length, and having large 'humps' which can be seen above the water like in the Cape Ann picture. Also, many of the sightings have described the head as being the head of a cow, horse, or camel. The oar-fish is a harmless fish, it has no teeth, its maximum length is said to be up to 22 feet, and its head is clearly that of a fish. Also, the oar-fish could not have moved like a snake, with humps above the water.
The oar-fish is more of an explanation of what some of the sightings could have been, rather than justification of the sea serpent, because afterall, they are two completely different things. I hope that helps, I'd be glad to discuss this further if you have questions, or if I was unclear about something.
Myself I am conviced that the sea serpent is either basilosaurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus) or a mosasaurus(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosasaur). The very detailed illustration made by Hans Egede looks very much like either one of those creatures. (they look very simmilar to each other). Note that his descrition predates paleotonlogies discovery of these creatures so he couldn't have gotten inspiration there from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
There could be a simple explanation for at least some of these sightings.
According to the Brittanica most of the sightings are in the cold water currents of the worlds oceans, areas frequented by giant squids.
Squids have two extra large tentacles amidd the cluster of usual tentacles. If such a squid is (basking)on the surface with one tentacle raised out of the water, from a distance it looks just like a head on a long neck.
That is incorrect. We (Bill and Bob Clark) saw a sea serpent at least 60 feet in length from only 20 yards away on February 5, 1985. We saw it at 7:45 A.M. when we were parked in our car at Marina Green. The animal was swimming in San Francisco Bay when it got stranded on a submerged rocky ledge while it was chasing a sea lion. We saw the entire animal exposed above the surface of the water except for the rear section and the tail. We can give an accurate and detailed description of what we saw. You can go to our blog at http://home.access4less.net/~sfseaserpent/ for more information about our sightings and some other sightings in the SF Bay area. We posted information about our sightings and the Stinson Beach sighting that occurred on October 31, 1983 in this article about sea serpents but someone removed it. Apparently someone doesn't want the information about our sightings and the Stinson Beach sighting to be included in Wikipedia's article about sea serpents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)