Zoologist, media consultant, and science writer, Dr Karl Shuker is also one of the best known cryptozoologists in the world. Author of such seminal works as Mystery Cats of the World (1989), The Lost Ark: New and Rediscovered Animals of the 20th Century (1993; greatly expanded in 2012 as The Encyclopaedia of New and Rediscovered Animals), In Search of Prehistoric Survivors (1995), and more recently Extraordinary Animals Revisited (2007), Dr Shuker's Casebook (2008), Karl Shuker's Alien Zoo: From the Pages of Fortean Times (2010), Cats of Magic, Mythology, and Mystery (2012), and Mirabilis: A Carnival of Cryptozoology and Unnatural History (2013), his many fans have been badgering him to join the blogosphere for years. The CFZ Blog Network is proud to have finally persuaded him to do so.

Dr Karl Shuker's Official Website - http://www.karlshuker.com

IMPORTANT: To view a complete, regularly-updated listing of my ShukerNature blog's articles (each one instantly clickable), please click HERE!

IMPORTANT: To view a complete, regularly-updated listing of my published books (each one instantly clickable), please click HERE!

IMPORTANT: To view a complete, regularly-updated listing of my Eclectarium blog's articles (each one instantly clickable), please click HERE!

IMPORTANT: To view a complete, regularly-updated listing of my Starsteeds blog's poetry and other lyrical writings (each one instantly clickable), please click HERE!

Search This Blog




Saturday, 22 October 2016


A fake 'shot thunderbird' photo (above) and a fake 'shot bigfoot' photo (below) (creator unknown to me / © Kryptomaniacle – included here on a strictly non-commercial Fair Use basis only)

I recently noted on Facebook that I consider it very important to publicly expose and debunk fake cryptozoological photographs, because in doing so it not only  prevent them from cluttering the archives of cryptozoology in the future but also prevents cryptozoological sceptics from using them as evidence for claiming that the subject is credulous and not scientifically rigorous. So with that in mind, here are another two such photos that I have recently been able to shoot down as phoneys.

The first of these came to my attention on 12 October 2016 while I was browsing online – I first spotted it in the forums section of the Taurusarmed.net website, where it had been posted by someone with the username Moondawg on 5 June 2015, but I subsequently discovered that it had been posted by various other people on a number of other sites too. As seen here, it is a typical example of the 'shot thunderbird photograph' motif (click here for the saga of this ostensibly real but elusive image), of which numerous confirmed fake versions are still doing the rounds online, and which consist of what appears to be a vintage photo of hunters posing alongside an enormous dead winged creature, the thunderbird (aka 'big bird'), fastened with wings outstretched to a wall or barn door. In some such photos, the thunderbird is avian, in others it is pterosaurian – it is the latter in the version under consideration here.

The fake 'shot thunderbird photograph' (creator unknown to me)

As soon as I saw the photo, it seemed obvious to me that it was yet another fake. I freely confess that I am no photographic expert, but in terms of both contrast and edges the pterosaur was far sharper than anything in the remainder of the photograph. Moreover, as a zoologist I was readily aware that the pterosaur's morphology was consistent with the typical reconstruction of the American pterodactyl Pteranodon that was preponderant in books and magazines dating from the 1960s and 1970s, as opposed to ones from present-day publications and considered by present-day palaeontologists to be accurate.

With this in mind, I decided to conduct an online image search in the hope of tracing the original vintage photograph that had evidently been utilised by the unknown creator to produce this fake 'shot thunderbird' photo, and within only a very short time I succeeded in doing so. Here it is:

The original vintage hunters photograph that formed the basis for the fake thunderbird photo (public domain)

I discovered it on the Viewsofthepast.com website, on a page entitled 'Superior View Hunting & Wildlife' (click here to visit it), which contained a lengthy series of vintage hunting photos. The example that had been used as the basis for the fake thunderbird photo was listed as 'H-CAMP07 Log Cabin Hunters', and clearly dated back to at least the early 1930s, and quite possibly even earlier than that.

Here is the original vintage hunters photo and the fake thunderbird photo alongside one another, confirming that except for the Pteranodon presence in the latter the two are identical:

Fake thunderbird photo (above) and original vintage hunters photo (below) (creator unknown to me / public domain)

But what about the Pteranodon image used in the fake thunderbird photo – where had that come from? Again, it didn't take long for me to track that down online. It turned out to be a photo of a Pteranodon model available by various companies as a plastic model kit during the early 1970s (thus explaining why the reconstruction was so dated). I was first alerted to this model kit's existence via the following photograph of its box from the Revell-issued version that I found online:

Box containing 1970s Pteranodon model kit released by Revell (© Revell – included here on a strictly non-commercial Fair Use basis only)

As can be seen, the image of the Pteranodon on the lid of this model kit's box is almost identical to that of the Pteranodon in the fake thunderbird photo, and I could readily imagine that if a photo of the fully-assembled model Pteranodon were taken from slightly above the model so that its head, neck, and beak appeared slightly lower down over its body than they do in the picture on the model kit's lid, it would then correspond precisely with the fake thunderbird version.

The Revell Pteranodon picture, the fake thunderbird photo, and the original vintage hunters photo (© Revell – included here on a strictly non-commercial Fair Use basis only / creator unknown to me / public domain)

Moreover, Facebook colleague Robert Hodge kindly brought to my attention the following photo of an early 1970s version of the same Pteranodon model, fully assembled, that had been released by Aurora as part of its 'Prehistoric Scenes' series:

The fully-assembled Aurora-released version of the Pteranodon model (© Aurora - included here on a strictly non-commercial Fair Use basis only)

(As a noteworthy BTW: whereas the picture on the lid of the Revell version of this model is based directly upon the fully-assembled Pteranodon model itself, the picture on the lid of the Aurora version of this same model is merely a generic Pteranodon image.)

After I had made public on Facebook my findings documented here, another Facebook colleague, Joseph McKee, then used the box-lid picture of the Revell Pteranodon model to recreate via Photoshop the fake thunderbird photo, and as can be seen here his recreation confirms beyond any doubt that this plastic model was indeed the source of the Pteranodon in the fake thunderbird photo:

The fake thunderbird photo (top) and Joseph McKee's recreation of it using the Revell Pteranodon model's picture (bottom) (creator unknown to me / Joseph McKee)

Another case of crypto-photographic forgery well and truly closed!

Moving from 'big birds' to bigfoot: yesterday (21 October 2016), I was once again browsing online when I came upon the following image, purportedly a vintage photograph showing a shot bigfoot and the hunters who had dispatched it. I had been browsing various bigfoot-related sites, and had found it under discussion on several of them. Here it is:

Fake shot bigfoot photograph (© Kryptomaniacle – included here on a strictly non-commercial Fair Use basis only)

Looking at it, it seemed to me to be another vintage American hunters photo into which something foreign had been introduced – on this occasion some form of animal montage creating the supposed bigfoot, the body possibly being that of a bear, with what may be a gorilla's head (or a model of one?) superimposed on top of it, because the head and body do not appear to be continuous (and the body not very gorilla-like anyway). For what it's worth (pardon the forthcoming pun!), however, there was an additional (and totally unequivocal) clue readily visible in this 'shot bigfoot' picture that confirmed beyond any shadow of a doubt that this was indeed a phoney photograph. And that was the presence of a certain inscription in its bottom left-hand corner, reading 'Worth1000.com' – because this just so happens to be the name of a former website that specialised in competitions for producing the best photoshopped images.

Pursuing this lead, I was able to confirm that the 'shot bigfoot' had indeed been submitted for one of Worth1000's competitions – specifically, its 'Monster Hoaxes 6', competition held in early 2012; that it was Worth1000 Design #8830992; and that the person who had submitted it was based in the USA and had the username Kryptomaniacle. Click here to see this photo's official submission page. Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain further information because Worth1000.com has been taken over by the graphic design website DesignCrowd, and only its members can obtain more specific details regarding Worth1000 submissions, usernames, etc (and because this site's members need to be graphic designers, which I'm not, I'm not a member).

However, Kryptomaniacle did state alongside this bigfoot-inspired photo that he/she had photoshopped it as an April Fool's joke. It came 15th out of the 27 submissions in the competition (click here to see all of the entries). Some entrants provided the original sources used in creating their submissions, but unfortunately Kryptomaniacle didn't do so.

What I needed to do, therefore, was to do what I'd done with the fake thunderbird photo – i.e. trace the original vintage hunters photo that had evidently been used as the 'shot bigfoot' photo's basis. Once again, it wasn't long before I succeeded in doing this – and here it is:

Original vintage American deer hunters photograph used as the basis of the fake shot bigfoot photo (public domain)

I found it on the Wideopenspaces.com website, on a page entitled 'The Good Old Days@ 30 Historic Hunting Photos [Pics]' – click here to view this page (the vintage deer hunters photo used as the basis for the 'shot bigfoot' photo is Photo #26). It had originally appeared in Canada's Ottawa Sun newspaper.

As shown below, when the original vintage hunters photo and Kryptomaniacle's fake bigfoot photo are viewed alongside one another, it can be readily seen that except for the shot deer in the former photo and the ropes-suspended 'shot bigfoot' in the latter one (plus the image of an ungulate skull positioned over the body of the 'bigfoot'), the two are identical. Moreover, even the ungulate skull is a composite, combining the antlers of the deer in the original vintage hunters photo with the skull from some entirely different individual (and which may actually be a cow skull rather than a deer skull anyway).

Fake shot bigfoot photo (top) and original vintage American hunters photo (bottom) (© Kryptomaniacle – included here on a strictly non-commercial Fair Use basis only / public domain)

All that remains to be done now in order to complete the full exposure of this 'shot bigfoot' photo's origins is to trace Kryptomaniacle's sources for the 'bigfoot' head and body, and for the ungulate skull placed over the body. Yet even if this isn't achieved, what I have already revealed here in relation to it is more than sufficient to verify the photo's fake nature.

Indeed, the 'Worth1000.com' inscription should have been enough for anyone to have realised straight away that the 'shot bigfoot' photo was a phoney, which is why I was so surprised to find it the subject of serious discussion as to its possible authenticity on various websites. Having said that, I must make a clear differentiation regarding this photo between its being a fake and a hoax. Yes, it IS a fake, created by Kryptomaniacle using photoshopping techniques; but it is NOT a hoax, because it was submitted openly by Kryptomaniacle for a public photoshopping competition, with no intention to deceive, having been clearly identified by him/her as a photoshopped image. It is only because it has subsequently been uploaded by others onto various sites where it has mistakenly been thought to be real that cryptozoological confusion concerning its true origin and nature has occurred.

My sincere thanks to Robert Hodge and Joseph McKee for their much-appreciated assistance in relation to my researches documented here.

From bear to bigfoot - another fake bigfoot photograph that I debunked - click here to read all about it.

Saturday, 24 September 2016


Three (un)usual suspects as the identity of the Shatt-al-Arab's venomous mystery fish – the Asian stinging catfish (top); the long-tailed moray eel (centre), and the bull shark (bottom) (public domain)

Yesterday, here on ShukerNature, I offered a blenny for your thoughts (click here). So today, I'm offering another one! You can thank me later.

The Shatt-al-Arab is a 120-mile-long river formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the southern Iraq town of Al-Qurnah. Flowing southwards, it constitutes the physical border of Iraq with Iran, and empties into the Persian Gulf. Many species of fish inhabit its waters, but one of them may be a notable species still unknown to science.

The Shatt-al-Arab river (public domain)

I first learnt of this small but potentially significant unidentified freshwater fish many years ago, when reading Dangerous To Man (1975), Roger Caras's definitive book on creatures hostile to humans, but its mystery remains unsolved to this day. In his book, Caras included the following brief but very intriguing paragraph:

From Tehran comes a report of a diminutive black fish found in the Shatt al Arab River. It reputedly has killed twenty-eight people with a venomous bite. Death is said to be swift. No other information is presently available. (No other fish is known to have a venomous bite, and this report is at least suspect.)

What makes the above snippet so interesting (apart from the fact that except for my own researches into it and documentation of it in various of my books and articles, I have never encountered anything more about this creature anywhere) is Caras's claim that it is its bite that is venomous and that no other fish is known to have a venomous bite. In contrast, a wide range of piscean species possess venomous spines, for instance, or toxin-secreting skin.

My copy of Dangerous To Man by Roger Caras (© Roger Caras; reproduced here on a strictly non-commercial, Fair Use basis only)

But if we assume that such a fish does indeed exist, what could it be, and how can its reputedly venomous nature be explained? Various candidates can be selected from the many thousands of fish species already known to science, but none can offer a comprehensively satisfying solution.

When I originally read Caras's report, the first candidate that came to mind, for several reasons, was the Asian stinging catfish Heteropneustes [formerly Saccobranchus] fossilis. This species does indeed inhabit the Shatt-al-Arab (though it is an imported rather than a native fish here, originating from Indochina). Moreover, it is often only around 4 in long (though it can grow up to 1 ft), it is definitely black in colour, and, of particular significance, it is known to be venomous. So far, so good.

Asian stinging catfish (public domain)

However, unlike the Shatt-al-Arab mystery fish, the Asian stinging catfish is venomous due not to a toxic bite but instead to a poison gland at the base of a spine on each of its two pectoral fins. This can yield an extremely painful but not fatal sting. Consequently, even if victims (or onlookers) were mistaken in assuming that this catfish had bitten them (unless perhaps it had done so in self-defence if they had been molesting it, but this would not have been a source of venom), they would not have died from its fin spines' sting. Exit H. fossilis from further consideration.

A second candidate is the long-tailed or slender giant moray eel Strophidon sathete (aka Thyrsoidea macrura). Although typically marine, and distributed widely in the tropical Indo-Pacific Ocean, it is well known for entering estuaries and travelling considerable distances up rivers, including the Shatt-al-Arab. What is particularly interesting about this species in relation to the latter river's mystery fish is that in a sense it can be said to have a toxic bite, albeit not in the usual convention.

Long-tailed (slender giant) moray eel (public domain)

True, its teeth do not actually secrete a toxin, via poison sacs, like those of venomous reptiles do. However, as a voracious carnivore the long-tailed moray eel will certainly have pieces of rotting flesh left over from previous meals and packed with pathogenic bacteria sticking to its teeth, just like crocodiles and carnivorous mammals like lions and tigers do. Consequently, a bite from this fish might well transfer some of those bacteria into the wound caused by its teeth, which in turn may lead to septicaemia developing, especially in someone with a less than robust immune system, such as a child, an elderly person, or someone recovering from a major illness. Even so, no known human fatalities resulting from a bite by this moray eel species are on record, and there is also the not-inconsiderable problem of size difference to reconcile, because it can attain a maximum length of up to 12 ft when fully grown (even its average length is over 2 ft). So this species can hardly be deemed 'diminutive', like the Shatt-al-Arab mystery fish. Don't call us, S. sathete.

Nor can the bull shark Carcharhinus leucas be termed diminutive, bearing in mind that it averages 7.5 ft long. Unlike most sharks, this notably aggressive species is frequently found in freshwater habitats, including the Shatt-al-Arab River, and like those of moray eels its teeth are brimming with pathogenic bacteria from rotting meat still attached from earlier meals. So again, a bite from this fish, although not intrinsically venomous, might well lead to blood poisoning. And several human deaths caused by this fish attacking them have been confirmed here. But as even a new-born specimen is normally around 2.5 ft long, this species clearly has no bearing upon the identity of the Shatt-al-Arab mystery fish.

Bull shark (public domain)

As I researched further into this ichthyological puzzle, however, I made an unexpected breakthrough, by discovering that one crucial aspect of Caras's account was fundamentally incorrect. Contrary to his statement, some fishes do possess a genuinely venomous bite.

And one of these is the blackline fang blenny Meiacanthus nigrolineatus. Its lower jaw bears sizeable canine teeth that have grooved sides and venom-producing tissue at their base. These teeth enable it to produce a sufficiently unpleasant bite to deter all predatory fishes, large and small. In general appearance, it is relatively nondescript – no more than 3.75 in long, with a blue-grey head and foreparts, and the remainder of its body pale yellow. There is also a thin black stripe running lengthwise just beneath its dorsal fin, which earns it its common name.

Blackline fang blenny (© Akvariumugamyba at http://akvariumugamyba.lt/ - reproduced here on a strictly non-commercial Fair Use basis only)

Over 830 species of true blenny or blennioid are currently known to science, generally small in size and scaleless but many-toothed, and are of worldwide distribution. Most are marine fishes, as indeed is the blackline fang blenny, which is native to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Suez and Aqaba. However, there are freshwater species too (such as the well-known Salaria fluviatilis, which is native to rivers in several European countries as well as in Morocco, Algeria, Israel, and Turkey).

No human fatalities have been recorded with the blackline fang blenny, but what if the Shatt-al-Arab River is harbouring a still-undescribed, darker-coloured, but otherwise comparable freshwater relative that is capable of producing a more potent venom? If such a creature, known locally but attracting little notice from the outside, scientific world, is one day captured and formally identified, then our mystery fish will surely have been unmasked at last - turning up like the bad blenny that it is.

My special thanks to French ichthyologist Dr François de Sarre for very kindly sharing his own thoughts and comments with me regarding this fishy affair.

This ShukerNature blog article is adapted and expanded from my book Karl Shuker's Alien Zoo: From the Pages of Fortean Times.

Friday, 23 September 2016


Side view of the Caneva combtooth blenny (public domain)

True blennies (aka blennioids, to distinguish them from a range of other, only distantly-related fishes also frequently dubbed 'blennies') are generally small, elongate fishes superficially reminiscent of gobies and dragonets, but collectively belonging to six taxonomic families housed within the perciform suborder Blennioidei. Over 800 species are currently recognised, some of marine persuasion, some brackish, and some freshwater, but in recent times this number has decreased by one due to an unexpected taxonomic twist.

It all began in February 1986, when a new species of combtooth blenny was described by French ichthyologist Dr François Charousset in a paper published by the periodical Ezhegodnik Zoologicheskogo Muzeya Akademiia nauk SSSR and also in a version of it published by Clin d'Oeil, after two specimens had been collected by him in Mediterranean waters off Croatia's Istrian coast (specifically in Istria's Zelena Laguna). A small, yellow-headed blenny, just under 3 in long and commonly known locally as the midget, such a relatively unspectacular fish and its discovery would not normally be considered particularly remarkable or significant.

My collection of cryptozoology books authored by 'the Father of Cryptozoology', Dr Bernard Heuvelmans (© Dr Karl Shuker)

Yet the midget was noteworthy, because it epitomised the definition of a cryptozoological animal. Namely, a species (or subspecies) known to the local people sharing its domain, but whose existence has long remained unconfirmed by science. So it was with the midget, reported by the locals for several decades but eluding scientific detection until Charousset's collection of the two Istrian specimens.

Accordingly, Charousset very appropriately christened this new combtooth blenny Lipophrys heuvelmansi - in honour of veteran cryptozoologist Dr Bernard Heuvelmans, popularly called ‘the father of cryptozoology’ due to his seminal work in this emerging investigative science.

A male specimen of the Caneva combtooth blenny spawning, clearly displaying the very broad black facial stripe that mature males of this species develop as a secondary sex characteristic during the breeding season (public domain)

Unfortunately, however, that honour has now been rescinded for taxonomic reasons. In 2015, via a scientific paper published in the journal Naturalista Siciliano (series 4, vol 39, no, 2, pp. 97-103 – accessible online here), a four-strong team of Italian researchers that included marine ecologist Francesco Tiralongo and cryptozoological researcher Lorenzo Rossi closely compared the morphology of one of the midget's two procured specimens (which had been preserved in alcohol in the Museum of Lausanne, Musée Cantonal de Zoologie) with that of a mature male specimen of the closely-related Caneva combtooth blenny Microlipophrys [formerly Lipophrys] canevae sampled in Italy's Tyrrhenian Sea during its species' breeding season. The team could not find any taxonomically significant differences between the two fishes.

Growing up to 3 in long, M. canevae is native to the Mediterranean and also to the northeast Atlantic Ocean near Portugal, and for much of the year both sexes of this species exhibit a uniformly yellow head. During the breeding season, however, lasting from April to August each year, mature males develop as a secondary sex characteristic a very broad black stripe running centrally up their face, from the lower edge of the jaw upwards to the first ray of their dorsal fin – and of particular significance, this exactly matches the appearance of the face of the two Heuvelmans midget specimens, both of which just so happened to have been collected by Charousset in June. i.e. right in the middle of the breeding season for M. canevae.

Diagram from the paper of Tiralongo et al. (2015) illustrating the extreme similarity between Heuvelmans's midget combtooth blenny (A, top) and a mature male specimen of the Caneva combtooth blenny collected during the breeding season (B, bottom) (© Tiralongo et al., 2015, reproduced here on a strictly non-commercial Fair Use basis only)

Consequently, taking this and all of the other morphological similarities fully documented by them in their paper into consideration, the team concluded that the two L. heuvelmansi specimens were nothing more than mature males of M. canevae. So, as these two species are apparently conspecific, and because M. canevae had been formally named and described way back in 1880 (i.e. over a century before L. heuvelmansi), the team affirmed in accordance with the rules of nomenclatural precedence that L. heuvelmansi should be considered hereafter to be merely a junior synonym of M. canevae.

RIP Heuvelmans's midget combtooth blenny.

My sincere thanks to Lorenzo Rossi for very kindly bringing his team's revelatory paper to my attention recently.

A female Caneva combtooth blenny, lacking the black head stripe that mature males acquire during the spawning season (public domain)

Friday, 16 September 2016


Here's Nessie! A Monstrous Compendium From Loch Ness – my 24th book, now in print (© Dr Karl Shuker/CFZ Press)

It is all thanks to my mother Mary Shuker taking me as a child to the town of Walsall in the West Midlands, England, one afternoon during the late 1960s that I first learnt of the Loch Ness monster (LNM). For it was while we were browsing together that day in Walsall's branch of the books and stationery shop W.H. Smith that Mom bought me a thoroughly amazing, captivating book entitled Stranger Than People.

Published in 1968, it was packed with lavishly-illustrated spreads documenting mysteries from the real world, the world of myths and legends, and the world of fiction (which included some wonderful, specially-written short stories). It is within the pages of this momentous, life-changing volume, one that profoundly influenced and nurtured what has become my lifelong interest in mysterious phenomena (especially of the cryptozoological and zoomythological kinds), that I first read about such diverse but fascinating subjects as the yeti, the colossus of Rhodes, Edgar Cayce and telepathy, werewolves and vampires, the kraken, giants, the minotaur, Von Kempelen's chess player, mermaids, witches and witchcraft, 'deathless' warriors, aliens, trolls, zombies, leprechauns, feral children, Herne the hunter, Moby Dick – and, of course, Nessie, the Loch Ness monster (LNM).

With two wonderful, life-changing books – The Story of the Loch Ness Monster and Stranger Than People; and with one wonderful, life-changing lady – my mother, Mary Shuker (© Dr Karl Shuker)

A few years later, moreover, during a visit to the Warwickshire, England, town of Stratford-upon-Avon (birthplace of William Shakespeare), Mom bought me my first LNM book, Tim Dinsdale's The Story of the Loch Ness Monster (1973). An enthralling account of this Scottish mystery beast's remarkable history, it was justifiably lauded as a Commended Title in the prestigious Times Educational Supplement Information Book Awards during that same year.

Needless to say, I was hooked - and have been in relation to this long-necked aquatic cryptid ever since – unlike Nessie, conversely, which continues to be just as evasive today as way back then, over 40 years ago now, but, equally, remains just as thought-provoking and enigmatic too.

Tim Dinsdale, to whom my book is dedicated (© Prof. Henry H. Bauer)

Indeed, the LNM is not only the premier mystery beast of the United Kingdom, it also vies with the bigfoot or sasquatch as the most famous one anywhere in the world. Little wonder, therefore, that during my many years as a cryptozoological researcher and writer I should have documented it and all manner of aspects relating to it in a wide range of publications.

Now, however, for the very first time and in direct response to popular demand, the vast majority of these previously disparate Nessie-themed writings of mine have finally been brought together, and in expanded, updated form whenever possible too, to yield my newly-published LNM compendium, covering a fascinating, extremely broad spectrum of pertinent topics.

Nessie, is this really you? Artistic reconstruction of what the LNM may look like, always assuming of course that such an entity actually exists! (© Connor Lachmanec)

The first two chapters set the scene by offering a comprehensive review of the history and controversies associated with this most contentious of aquatic cryptids. The others that follow them investigate such subjects as some of the most – and least – plausible taxonomic identities that have been proposed for it; the closely-linked traditional Scottish folklore of kelpies and other water-horses; a look at various Nessie-related hoaxes; an extensive survey of less familiar water monsters reported from other Highland lochs; some reviews of Nessie-related material; a hitherto-unpublished LNM sighting given to me by none other than leading Nessie researcher and eyewitness Tim Dinsdale shortly before his untimely death (and to whom my book is dedicated); Nessie and the noble hobby of philately; a retrospective devoted to the historic LNM conference staged by the International Society of Cryptozoology at Edinburgh's Royal Museum of Scotland in 1987; the abiding paradox of the mystifying Pictish beast as intricately carved upon numerous ancient symbol stones by Scotland's early 'painted people' the Picts; my very own tribute in verse to Nessie; an annotated, YouTube-linked listing of Nessie-themed songs and music videos; and much more too!

Supplementing these diverse subjects is an equally eclectic selection of illustrations - a dedicated Nessie gallery containing a dazzling array of spectacular full-colour LNM artwork, including a number of specially-commissioned, previously-unpublished examples - plus a wide range of text images, a delightful foreword by veteran Nessie researcher Prof. Henry H. Bauer, very comprehensive bibliography of non-fiction LNM books, a listing of current Nessie-themed websites, and a detailed index.

Smirnoff's famous, fondly-remembered Nessie-themed magazine advertisement from the 1980s (© Smirnoff – reproduced here on a strictly non-commercial Fair Use basis only)

So without further ado, I hope that you enjoy my latest, 24th book, welcoming you to the sometimes decidedly weird yet always totally wonderful world of Nessie - the mystifying but ever-memorable monster of Loch Ness.

My book is available here on Amazon USA, and here on Amazon UK (the 'temporarily unavailable' notice on the latter site merely relates to its need to order more stock of it), as well as directly from the publisher, CFZ Press, here.

Peek-a-boo! – Styxosaurus plesiosaur (© Julian Johnson/Wikipedia CC BY-SA 2DOT0 licence)

Wednesday, 7 September 2016


Caroline Gast's exquisite illustration of Pliciloricus enigmaticus, a close relative of Shuker's loriciferan P. shukeri (public domain)

Eleven years ago, I was very honoured to receive what must surely be the greatest personal accolade for any zoologist – a new species of animal was named after me. The creature in question is Shuker's loriciferan Pliciloricus shukeri – but how and why did this come about, and what exactly is a loriciferan anyway?

Although these creatures are only tiny in size, from a taxonomic standpoint the discovery of loriciferans was one of the most significant events of the entire 20th Century, because they added a totally new phylum to the officially recognised roster of animal life. Excerpted and expanded from my book The Encyclopaedia of New and Rediscovered Animals (2012), here is their fascinating history, including the scientific debut in 2005 of P. shukeri.

My three books on new and rediscovered animals (© Dr Karl Shuker)

Loricifera - a Prediction Come True
Giving one's name to an uncommonly ugly form of animal larva may not be everyone's idea of obtaining scientific immortality, but it is nonetheless an effective way to achieve this - especially when that larva's species is so utterly different from all others that a completely new phylum has to be created to accommodate it.

Its story began in 1961 when, as a student at Washington's National Museum of Natural History, Robert Higgins predicted the existence of a remarkable little creature unlike any known to science at that time. By a sadistically ironic twist of fate, in May 1974 he actually found a real-life specimen of his hitherto-hypothetical creature - but failed to recognise it for what it was! Instead, he deemed it to be nothing more than a larval priapulid worm.

The following year, however, another specimen was found, this time by Danish zoologist Dr Reinhardt Møbjerg Kristensen, from the University of Copenhagen. Yet as bad luck would have it, the tiny animal was destroyed during its preparation for transmission electron microscopy. Happily, between 1976 and 1979 Dr Kristensen discovered some larvae, in shell gravel obtained from depths of 330-365 ft outside western Greenland's Godhavn Harbour. And finally, in April 1982, an adult turned up - completely by accident.

Ventral view of adult female loriciferan Nanaloricus mysticus (After R. M. Kristensen, 1983, 'Loricifera, a new phylum with Aschelminthes characters from the meiobenthus', Z. Zool. Syst. Evolutionsforsch., 21(3): 163–180)

Kristensen had obtained a huge sample of shell gravel from a depth of 83-100 ft during field work at the Marine Biological Station in Roscoff, France, and was in a hurry to examine the minute creatures living between the gravel particles, as this was his last day there before leaving for Denmark again. Consequently, instead of employing the usual sophisticated but somewhat protracted techniques for dislodging animals from the particles, lack of sufficient time spurred him to use a cruder but much quicker method - simply washing the gravel in freshwater.

The change in salt concentration experienced by the tiny marine organisms in the gravel shocked them into loosening their grip on its particles, and they could then be collected in the surrounding water. Among the creatures obtained in this way was an adult of Higgins's postulated animal form, plus others from every stage in its life history. Shortly afterwards, specimens belonging to a slightly different species were obtained from Greenland gravel samples, using this same technique.

By now, Kristensen and Higgins had learnt about each other's interest in these mysterious minute creatures, and had teamed up to work on them. They discovered that the individual (a larva) collected by Higgins in 1974 was indeed of the same group, but sufficiently different from Kristensen's species to warrant separation within a new genus and family. As for the creatures in toto, true to Higgins's expectations they required a brand new phylum. In 1983, Kristensen named it Loricifera, and formally described its first species, the Roscoff one, which he christened Nanaloricus mysticus.

Scanning electron micrograph of two Nanaloricus mysticus Higgins larvae; scale bar = 100 μm (© Dr Reinhardt M. Kristensen)

A tiny creature, no more than 0.01 in long, with a fairly squat body and a head section bearing a collar of radiating spines, it leads a sedentary existence - quite unlike its free-swimming larva, whose striated, pear-shaped body has a rear pair of flipper-like appendages. Anatomically, the species combines features from several different phyla, but is characterised by a unique mouth, consisting of a long tube that can be retracted completely within the creature's body in a manner not previously recorded from any other type of animal.

As for Higgins, although he did not have the honour of describing the first real-life species of his conjectured creature he was given an unusual consolation prize - ever afterwards, the basic larval type produced by loriciferans would be officially referred to in zoological parlance as the Higgins larva. Higgins's reaction to this accolade was to comment: “I'm very pleased of course, even though it is such an ugly creature”. Twenty-two years after his student prognostication, his hypothetical animal was hypothetical no longer.

Incidentally, in 1986 Higgins was able to describe the species to which his lost specimen had belonged; its scientific name is Pliciloricus enigmaticus, and it was just one of eight new species that Higgins and Kristensen described within a single paper. The other seven species were: P. dubius, P. gracilis, P. orphanus, P. profundus, Rugiloricus carolinensis, R. cauliculus, and R. ornatus. In 1988, Kristensen described a notably important species, P. hadalis - the first loriciferan recorded from fine sediment (red clay), from a depth (27,082 ft) great enough to be included within the hadal bathymetric zone, and from the western Pacific.

Shuker's loriciferan Pliciloricus shukeri; scale bar = 200 μm (© Dr Reinhardt M. Kristensen)

Loriciferans possess five distinct body regions - the mouth cone, consisting of a small terminal mouth; the head (introvert), containing the brain; the neck; and a trunk portion that is in turn divided into the thorax and the abdomen. The abdomen is surrounded by a series of plates yielding a corset-like or girdle-like arrangement known as the lorica (from which they derive their zoological name, and also the vernacular name 'girdle wearers'), which is variously cuticular or highly folded in form. On their head, they bear several whorls of protective spines called scalids (earning them a second, rarely-used vernacular name - 'brush-heads'), and because adult loriciferans can withdraw their head into their neck, and their neck in turn into their trunk, when they do so it means that their head is then entirely protected by the lorica laterally and the scalids dorsally (which stick outwards). Although they do possess a body cavity, it is not a true one lined completely by mesoderm tissue (i.e. a coelom), but is one that is only partly mesoderm-lined (i.e. a pseudocoelom). They entirely lack a circulatory system and a respiratory system, but they do possess a straight-through gut from proximal mouth to distal anus, and also a well-developed nervous system. The sexes are separate (males and females), each of which possesses a single pair of gonads.

Morphologically, loriciferans share affinities with two phyla of superficially worm-like creatures - the priapulids and the kinorhynchs, and have been traditionally grouped with them in a clade known as Scalidophora. More recently, however, molecular studies have promoted a closer taxonomic affinity between Loricifera and Nematomorpha (the latter phylum containing the horsehair worms).

In February 1992, I was delighted and honoured to learn from Dr Kristensen that in due course he would be naming a new species of loriciferan after me (at that time, he had nearly 70 undescribed species in his collection!), in recognition of the very significant contribution made to the zoological literature by my first book on new and rediscovered animals – The Lost Ark: New and Rediscovered Animals of the 20th Century (1993). He later informed me that 'my' loriciferan was currently the most interesting species known, because it is neotenous, i.e. its Higgins larval stage becomes sexually mature precociously, developing an ovary, so the post-larval stage is reduced. Also, it was the first loriciferan species known to possess a double secondary organ, and was markedly different from all previously-described Pliciloricus species, thereby requiring the diagnosis of the genus Pliciloricus to be amended accordingly.

Schematic diagram of the adult, type specimen of P. shukeri from Heiner and Kristensen, 2005 (© Drs Iben Heiner and Reinhardt M. Kristensen)

Three specimens of Shuker's loriciferan (one 210-μm-long adult, serving as the holotype or type specimen, and two smaller Higgins larvae, serving as paratypes) had been collected at BIOFAR (Benthic Investigation of the Faroe Islands) Station 627 on the Faroe Bank by the German research vessel Valdivia in 1990, and their species was formally described by Kristensen and fellow loriciferan researcher Dr Iben Heiner in 2005, when it was duly christened Pliciloricus shukeri. Quoting from their paper, the etymological derivation of this species’ name is as follows:

The name of this species epithet is in honor of Dr. Karl Shuker, a prominent expert in cryptozoology. The new species is dedicated to Dr. Shuker for his outstanding book “The Lost Ark, New and Rediscovered Animals of the 20th Century”. In this book, the discovery of Loricifera received much credit as one of the major events of the 20th Century.

The full reference to the paper in which P. shukeri is formally named and described, and which should be accessed for the entire, highly-detailed morphological description of 'my' species, is:

HEINER, I. and KRISTENSEN, R.M. (2005). Two new species of the genus Pliciloricus (Loricifera, Pliciloricidae) from the Faroe Bank, North Atlantic. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 243(3): 121-138.

(The other new loriciferan species described by them in the above paper was P. leocaudatus, the 'lion-tailed loriciferan'.)

Schematic diagram of one of the Higgins larva paratypes of P. shukeri from Heiner and Kristensen, 2005 (© Drs Iben Heiner and Reinhardt M. Kristensen)

Currently, 26 species of loriciferan in eight genera have been described, but at least a hundred more have been discovered and are currently awaiting description. Indeed, with delicious irony in view of their only very recent arrival in the annals of zoological discovery, based upon the findings of studies conducted so far the loriciferans appear to be one of the most abundant groups of meiofauna in the deep sea (meiofauna being tiny organisms inhabiting the spaces between sediment particles and smaller in body size than macrofauna but bigger than microfauna), they have also been shown to occur in mud on shallower water, and they may actually be one of the dominant meiofauna groups .

Moreover, in April 2010 the existence of a trio of loriciferan species inhabiting the sediments at the bottom of the L'Atalante basin in the Mediterranean Sea, over 10,000 ft deep, was formally documented in a paper (click here to access it) authored by a team of researchers that once again included Drs Kristensen and Heiner, and which was published in the scientific journal BMB Biology. This revelation was of great zoological notability, because these three loriciferan species (respectively constituting a new Pliciloricus species, a new Rugiloricus species, and a new Spinoloricus species) were the first multicellular organisms known to spend their entire lives in an anoxic or anaerobic (oxygen-free) environment.

They can achieve this remarkable feat because they utilise hydrogenosomes (or similar organelles) rather than mitochondria for providing energy. Less than 0.04 in (1 mm) long, these very specialised loriciferans undergo their life cycles in the total absence not only of oxygen but also of light.

Light microscopy image of the new species of anoxic Spinoloricus loriciferan, stained with Rose Bengal; scale bar = 50 μm (© Roberto Danavaro et al., 2010/Wikipedia CC BY 2.0 licence)

Despite having been formally known to science for over three decades now, the loriciferans have clearly lost none of their capacity to surprise the zoological world!

My sincere thanks to Dr Reinhardt M. Kristensen for most kindly making available to me for use in my writings his illustrations included here – and, above all else, for doing me the immense honour of naming a new species after me, something that I'd always dreamed about since a very small child but never expected to happen. Sometimes, dreams really do come true.

And who knows, perhaps one day a second, closely-related, but presently-unfulfilled dream of mine will also come true – that someone will also name a new species after my late mother, Mary Shuker (without whose love, guidance, and encouragement I would never have achieved anything, including writing The Lost Ark and my other books), so that her name will very deservedly live on, and that she will therefore continue to be remembered when I am no longer here to do so.  God bless you Mom, I love you and miss you so much.

Shuker's loriciferan (© Dr Reinhardt M. Kristensen)