Loch Ness Monster Is Probably Eels

[arthwollipot]

Loch Ness monster could be a giant eel, say scientists

Otago University researchers confirm the loch contains no monster – or dinosaur – DNA

The Loch Ness monster could be a giant eel, according to a fishy new theory that will keep Highland tourists guessing.

In one of the biggest DNA studies of its kind, a team of scientists from New Zealand’s Otago University found the presence of about 3,000 species in the deep murky waters of the Scottish loch.

Most of the creatures were very small, and while they did detect DNA from pigs, deer, sticklebacks and humans, there were no monsters. But Prof Neil Gemmell, who led the study, said he couldn’t rule out a theory that eels in the loch have grown to an extreme size.

“It is possible there are very large eels,” Gemmell told a packed press conference at the Loch Ness Centre at Drumnadrochit, “but it depends how big you think ‘large’ is.”...

...Gemmell said the sheer volume of eel DNA surprised him and his team. And, maintaining a straight face, he added: “We don’t know if the eel DNA we are detecting is from a gigantic eel or just many small eels.”

Looking more sceptical, he outlined the theory: “The notion is that these eels would normally migrate to reproduce, but they, for whatever reason, don’t. And they continue to grow to a very large size, forgoing reproduction for growth.”

Personally I think the many-eel theory is more likely than the giant-eel theory. What do you think?

 

[8enotto]

It would fit with the 'snaking' motion in the water surface.

What anyone needs is clear video if it's a swarm of eels or one big one. The swarm is more probable, the giant much cooler.

 

[Axxman300]

Eel or giant salamander.

The idea that it is a dinosaur has always been silly.

 

[arthwollipot]

Eel or giant salamander.

The idea that it is a dinosaur has always been silly.

They found a LOT of eel DNA.

 

[Venom]

They were thinking of plesiosaurs, which are not dinosaurs.

But just as ridiculous.

 

[arthwollipot]

They were thinking of plesiosaurs, which are not dinosaurs.

But just as ridiculous.

Another extract from the article:

One of the favourite Loch Ness monster theories is that it is an elasmosaurus or plesiosaur that somehow survived the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Gemmell was more certain about ruling this out. “Is there a plesiosaur in Loch Ness? No. There is absolutely no evidence of any reptilian sequences. So I think we can be fairly sure that there is probably not a giant scaly reptile swimming around in Loch Ness.”

It was only the journalist suggesting it was a dinosaur.

 

[gerdbonk]

I thought we solved this with otters.

 

[arthwollipot]

I thought we solved this with otters.

No DNA evidence was found for otters or seals.

Again, this is covered in the article. Specifically the infographic.

 

[ArchSas]

But Prof Neil Gemmell, who led the study, said he couldn’t rule out a theory that eels in the loch have grown to an extreme size.

“It is possible there are very large eels,” Gemmell told a packed press conference at the Loch Ness Centre at Drumnadrochit, “but it depends how big you think ‘large’ is.”...

...Gemmell said the sheer volume of eel DNA surprised him and his team. And, maintaining a straight face, he added: “We don’t know if the eel DNA we are detecting is from a gigantic eel or just many small eels.”

Is it just me, or does this seem incredibly non-scientific? I mean, I get where he's coming from, and I don't blame Gemmel for the headline - they found a lot of eel DNA, and it's fun to speculate. But the idea that the Nessie is a large eel isn't supported at all by his data; it seems like he's just pulling that out of his ass for fun, and the press is having a field day with it. As a person somewhat prone to throwing out weird ideas during intellectual discussions with colleagues, I would be horrified if something like this happened to me.

As far as Nessie in general is concerned, I don't even feel the need for an "explanation," as such. It's a large body of water and people see things in it, probably as a result of many causes (eels, otters, logs, fish jumping, waves, imagination, etc.) because it's easy to see weird things on water. Looking into the phenomenon historically makes its origin in seeing things, tabloids, a need to drive tourism, and hoaxes quite clear. IMO, Nessie isn't one, specific thing, and can't be explained as such (except as a cultural phenomenon or meme); people see things in a situation where that can be expected, and it's classified as connected to folklore because that's what people want to do. There isn't anything "real" behind it, and any attempt to explain it materially ends up looking like the above: fun speculation that's ultimately an ass-pull.

 

[arthwollipot]

Is it just me, or does this seem incredibly non-scientific? I mean, I get where he's coming from, and I don't blame Gemmel for the headline - they found a lot of eel DNA, and it's fun to speculate. But the idea that the Nessie is a large eel isn't supported at all by his data; it seems like he's just pulling that out of his ass for fun, and the press is having a field day with it. As a person somewhat prone to throwing out weird ideas during intellectual discussions with colleagues, I would be horrified if something like this happened to me.

I think a giant eel, like otters, is something that has previously been proposed. As such it had to be addressed. Unlike otters, the DNA evidence did not rule out the giant eel theory.

But yes, this is why I think the many-eels theory is much more plausible.

 

[bluesjnr]

I'll be driving past the Loch his afternoon and will see if I can get a picture of Nessie.

 

[Mojo]

Personally I think the many-eel theory is more likely than the giant-eel theory.

In a hovercraft?

 

[arthwollipot]

In a hovercraft?

In, as you say, a hovercraft.

 

[Venom]

At one point they may have spotted some large eels.

And the bulk of alleged sightings thereafter explainable as ignorance and confirmation bias from seeing boats, birds, perhaps fallen logs.

Or vice versa

 

[Sideroxylon]

The Lake Van monster is real though.

 

[zooterkin]

No DNA evidence was found for otters or seals.

Again, this is covered in the article. Specifically the infographic.

But otters are seen in Loch Ness, so the absence of their DNA in the sampling is clearly not conclusive. Which of course means that it could be plesiosaurs after all...

 

[Porpoise of Life]

That is... you know... if people are actually spotting huge animals in Loch Ness.

The explanation of a King Kong inspired hoax, followed by people seeing what they want to see and copycat pranksters throwing oil on the fire now and again seems just as likely.
And it doesn't require any gigantic animal in the lake at all.

 

[Nessie]

I am a massive eel.

 

[Armitage72]

I'll be driving past the Loch his afternoon and will see if I can get a picture of Nessie.

I remember reading an account by someone who stopped by the Loch to take a picture of an impressive sunset. Someone driving past saw them with a camera, slammed on their brakes, got out of their car, and ran toward them, shouting "Where is it?!? Where's the Loch Ness Monster?!?"
No other reason to take a photo, after all.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Unless it's a gargantuan eel, I'm not interested.