Reproduced with the permission of the Scottish Naturalist
Copyright:
May be used for private research. All other rights
reserved
By
ADRIAN J. SHINE
Loch
Ness and Morar Project
It would be churlish, in view of all the
recent additional information, to allow the sixtieth
anniversary of the naming of the Loch Ness 'Monster'
(Anon., 1933 - attributed to Mr. Alex Campbell)to pass entirely unremarked.For most people, certainly the majority of
the casually interested members of the general public,
the famous 'Surgeon's Photograph' of 1934 probably
represents their idea of the archetypal Monster.Certainly this well-known photograph has figured
in numerous publications over the past sixty-odd
years, and a serious investigation and assessment
of the photograph was published in the centenary
(1988) volume of the Scottish Naturalist (LeBlond
and Collins, 1988).
Acoustic
Assessment of Fish Size
One consequence of the introduction of more
quantifying acoustic techniques - in
situ target strength measurement in particular
, was the discovery that the great majority of pelagic
fish in Loch Ness belonged to a very small size
group, which were not caught prior to the trawling
methods recently described (Shine, Martin and Marjoram,
1993).Therefore
there was a tendency to 'scale' large sonar echoes
against gill-netted individuals of 20-30 cm, which
in reality represented only a small proportion of
the population. This imposes a further revision upon assessment
of sonar contacts which are strong in relation to
the surrounding fish echoes.
Estimates
of 'Monster' Population
Sheldon and Kerr (1972) first attempted estimations
of theoretical 'Monster' population density based
on fish biomass.They used the morphoedaphic index (total
dissolved solids/mean depth), devised by Ryder (1965),
to estimate the fish population. Lacking genuine Loch Ness information, however,
data was used from the northern basin of Loch Lomond. For Loch Ness, a fish standing stock of between
0.55 and 2.75 kg/ha was calculated, or between 3.135
and 15.675 tonnes in total.
On-site acoustic estimates of resident pelagic
fish in Loch Ness now range from 3.1 kg/ha (Shine, Martin and Marjoram, 1993)
to 4.23 kg/ha (Kubecka, Duncan and Butterworth,
1993), or between 17 and 24 tonnes in total, as
compared to 300
Vol 105, The Scottish Naturalist: Postscript: Surgeon or Sturgeon?
p272
to 400 kg/ha in the upper River Thames (current
acoustic estimate - Dr. J. Kubecka, pers. comm.). These estimates exceed those of Sheldon and
Kerr, and may be accounted for by allochthonous
organic inputs. Before hopes are raised too high, however,
it should be borne in mind that predators upon this
biomass should not amount to more than approximately
a tenth of the gross weight.Thus we have available a total of approximately
two tonnes of 'Monster', but this two tonnes may
not be as great as it at first seems. For example, it would be equivalent to scarcely
half the weight of a 36-ft (13 m) Whale Shark Rhinocodon typus.In fact, two tonnes divided into an absolute
minimum viable population of, say, ten creatures,
would give an individual weight of only 200 kg.
In fish terms this could be equivalent to
a Sturgeon Acipenser
sturio 2.8 m in length (Maitland and Campbell,
1992: 92).The
above pelagic biomass estimates are somewhat academic
since they do not include migratory Salmon Salmo
salar or Sea Trout Salmo
trutta, which may swim too close to the surface
or too close inshore to be surveyed efficiently
by acoustics. For
the same reason the littoral fish habitat, which
is richer than the pelagic, is not included since
some of the fish, and all benthic fish e.g. Eels
Anguilla anguilla, would be too close to the bottom to be detected. Nevertheless, it is now scarcely possible
to argue a case for a population of resident 'Monster'
predators.
Fish
the Most Likely Candidates
After
dismissing the classic Monster photographs, Shine
and Martin (1988) concluded that if, among the many
recorded explanations for sighting reports, large
unusual creatures were indeed involved, then fish
would be the most likely candidates. This was based upon the facts that Loch Ness,
as a proven refuge for cold-water Ice Age relict
species, was one of the last places on earth likely
to be favoured by reptiles, Jurassic or otherwise. Since there are no known marine amphibia,
these could not, like almost all the other vertebrate
inhabitants of the loch, have made their way up
the river from the sea. Finally, any mammals should long ago have advertised
their presence while breathing.
The
largest aquatic animal to have been recognised in
Loch Ness is the Common Seal Phoca
vitulina (Williamson, 1988), some of which occasionally
enter the loch, presumably in pursuit of migrating
Salmon, and could have caused some sighting reports. Salmon, the largest recorded fish in the
loch, migrate inland to spawn but do not feed in
fresh-water, and this habit may perhaps provide
a clue to another, much larger, possible candidate
which could have contributed to the Loch Ness controversy.
Vol
105, The Scottish Naturalist: Postscript: Surgeon
or Sturgeon? p273
Resident
Predators
A
problem with a theoretical population of hitherto
unrecorded predatory fish is that fish reproduction,
whether by egg-laying or live-bearing, gives rise
to relatively large numbers of small juveniles developing
independent of parental care. It seems unlikely that these would have avoided capture by fishing
over the years, either by towed lure or from the
beach. They would also have had to evade the netting
and trawling programmes described in Shine, Kubecka,
Martin and Duncan (1993), let alone decades of illicit
Salmon netting.
It is not inconceivable, however, that along
with the Salmon and the Common Seal, Loch Ness might
have played host to another visitor.
A
Sturgeon?
The
possibility of the afore-mentioned Sturgeon actually
being responsible for the beginnings of the tradition,
and for some sighting reports since then, is quite
attractive. Sturgeons would not necessarily be immediately
recognised as fish. They are very large, have a long upturned
snout, and a dorsal fin set well back towards the
tail (Figure
1a, 2K) (Gould, 1934: 136).
In
1987 a Sturgeon, eleven feet (3.35 m) long and weighing
900 lbs (408 kg) was found dead, floating in Lake
Washington near Seattle, U.S.A., where stories of
a 'Monster' had circulated (Albuquerque Journal, 7th November 1987). No-one would suggest, however, that Sturgeons
would even begin to enter the reckoning, against
the huge multi-humped manifestations of the 1930s
ascribed by Baker (Observer, 26th August 1962), to boat wakes, or to many other reports. There is no one answer to the question of
the Loch Ness Monster.
Sturgeons are cold-water
northern hemisphere fish of very large size (up
to >3.0 m) and of unusual appearance. They would be independent of the food resources,
since, before entering the loch in order to spawn,
they would cease feeding. Moreover, since Sturgeons are such rare visitors
to British rivers, any which did succeed in passing
the two weirs on the River Ness would be very unlikely
to find mates. After a lonely vigil off one of the river mouths
they would presumably leave again without issue,
save, perhaps, for some interesting sighting reports.
Vol
105, The Scottish Naturalist: Postscript: Surgeon
or Sturgeon? p275
Gould's Early Investigations
In
November 1933 Lt.-Commander R.T. Gould (1934: 30)
listened to the account of Mr. John McLeod, who,
some 20-30 years previously had seen, at the mouth
of the River Moriston beneath the lowest fall, a
creature with a "head like an eel and a long
tapering tail". This is how a Sturgeon might appear from above. Another witness, Miss K. MacDonald, spoke
of a "crocodile"-like creature, 6-8 feet
long, ascending the River Ness and heading for the
Holm Mills weir, in February 1932 (Gould, 1943:
38). Rather
more recently, in 1993, Mrs Marion MacDonald described
to the author an experience at the Fort Augustus
Abbey harbour. She saw what she first thought was a log,
because of a distinctive 'scaly' bark pattern, but
which then developed a wake and moved off to submerge,
while she called her family. After
she had sketched her impression (Figure
2, 8K) she was shown an illustration of
a Sturgeon's bony plates, and considered the pattern
to be reminiscent of what she had seen.
For and Against a Sturgeon
Anyone, of course, can assemble sighting reports to support
a pet theory, and this one is brought forward mainly
to show that, even in the absence of significant
food resources, the largest freshwater fish in existence
could possibly have been seen at intervals in Loch
Ness. Given the large number of other causes behind
sighting reports (Binns and Bell, 1983; Campbell,
1986), these intervals could be very long indeed.
There is, however, a great deal more to the
Loch Ness Monster than scientific probabilities,
and the greatest argument against the Sturgeon or,
more importantly, against any species of fish, is
the long neck reported (Figure
1b, 7K), although such reports are more
rare than is generally realised. It should be borne in mind that the first
report of a long neck was when the "nearest
approach to a dragon or prehistoric animal"
lurched its way across the hot tarmac in front of
the Spicer's motor car in July 1933 (Inverness Courier, 4th August 1933). This
unprecedented behaviour has never been reported
since. Prior to this, the beast was usually considered
to be an unusual fish; Inverness Courier, 8th October 1868 ("a huge fish"), Northern Chronicle, 27th August 1930 ("a
fish.....or whatever it was") and Scottish Daily Express,
9th June 1933 ("a mystery fish").
Errors
of Identification
Undoubtedly, some 'long-necked'
reports originate from water birds, such as Mr.
Alex. Campbell's sighting (Gould, 1934: 111), although
this was subsequently revised as the archetypal
plesiosaur (Witchell, 1975: 55). Some large long-necked animals have indeed
been seen swimming in the loch. The author is aware of five
Vol 105, The Scottish Naturalist: Postscript:
Surgeon or Sturgeon? p277
instances when such animals have subsequently been identified as swimming
deer. On three occasions, photographs were taken
(Figure
3). It has been suggested by Burton (1961: 130-138) that some sightings,
including some influential ones, could be due to
such errors.
Experiments
with Human Perception
It
is now well understood that human perception consists
of much more than just image, retina and memory. In contrast to 'hard' evidence, such as photographs,
however, it is very difficult to assess sightings
evidence because it is not usually possible to stand
beside the witness. An exception to this is if an incident is
contrived.
Mr. Richard Frere gives an account (Frere,
1988: 175) of standing at a busy lay-by and, through
a little theatrical behaviour, drawing attention
to the turbulence caused by some trawler wakes. Reactions included sightings of various humps,
long dark bodies, side flippers, and a thrashing
tail. A drawing produced by a child showed a plesiosaur.
On a less spectacular scale, members of the
Project have also stood beside volunteer eye-witnesses,
who were asked to observe an object surfacing and
submerging. All
were aware that we were contriving the incident,
and it therefore seems possible that impressions
were inspired less by pre-conceived Loch Ness Monster
stereotypes than by concepts of the mechanism in
the equipment. However, the results of this rather 'conservative'
experiment (Figure
4, 17K) are of some interest, since 31%
of the 36 observers retained impressions at some
variance with the 45 cm straight-sided post they had
actually seen at a range of approximately 150 m.
Given
that variation exists between image and perception
in such prepared observers, it seems likely that
individuals, sighting unrecognised objects on Loch
Ness, may well have their perceptions influenced
by the well-known Monster stereotypes. It is certainly the case that the wider impression of events, as
disseminated and recorded by the media, may bear
little relationship to what was actually seen. For example, in a recent case Miss Edna MacInnes
was widely reported as having seen a creature with
a "giraffe-like" neck (Aberdeen Press and Journal, 25th June
1993). When
interviewed later she denied this, and stated that
she had used the word "giraffe" in the
context of conveying the sense of movement which
the object made. Her drawing appears in Figure
5 (12K).
Vol
105, The Scottish Naturalist: Postscript: Surgeon
or Sturgeon? p281
Some Conclusions
Burton
(1961: 91) suggested that gas such as methane could
bring decaying vegetation, perhaps including branches
resembling necks, to the surface. In the main, the Project's work has shown
little gas production in deep Loch Ness sediments. There are two exceptional areas, however;
one is a small area in Urquhart Bay, and there is
a larger one off Fort Augustus, where great quantities
of organic material accumulate and emit gas continuously
during the summer. On one occasion (Figure
6, 19K colour chart), gas was detected from
a source as deep as 97 m, which remained active
for two weeks. It seems that vegetable debris, including branches, could break
the surface in this particular 'Monster spot'.
The morals of this story are two-fold. Firstly, large creatures may plausibly be
witnessed in Loch Ness, whether or not science discovers
sufficient red-herrings with which to feed them. On the other hand, the types of creatures suggested by science should
not be over-ruled simply because they do not fit
all witness perceptions.
Those who find the author's attempts to modify the status
of the very long-necked sightings unsatisfactory,
may take comfort from the 'Surgeon's Photograph',
standing guard over popular expectations for some
sixty years, and confounding any science to take
itself too seriously.
References
Anon. (1933). Strange spectacle on Loch Ness. What was it? (From a correspondent). Inverness
Courier, 2nd May 1933.
Binns, R. and Bell, R.J. (1983). The Loch Ness Mystery Solved. Shepton
Mallet, Somerset: Open Books.
Burton, M. (1961). The Elusive Monster.London: Hart
Davies.
Campbell, S. (1986). The Loch Ness Monster. The Evidence. Wellingborough, Northamptonshire: Aquarian Press.
Frere, R. (1988).Loch Ness. London: John Murray.
Gould, R.T. (1934). The Loch
Ness Monster and Others. London: Geoffrey Bles.
Kubecka, J., Duncan, A. and
Butterworth, A.J.
(1993). Large
and small organisms detected in the open waters
of Loch Ness by dual-beam acoustics. Scottish
Naturalist, 105: 175-193.
Vol
105, The Scottish Naturalist: Postscript: Surgeon
or Sturgeon? p282
Leblond, P.H. and Collins,
M.J. (1988). The
Wilson Nessie photograph: a size determination based
on physical principles. Scottish Naturalist, 100:
95-108.
Maitland
P.S. and Campbell, R.N. (1992). Freshwater
Fishes of the British Isles. New Naturalist Library, No. 75. London:
Harper Collins.
Ryder,
R.A. (1965). A
method for estimating the potential fish production
of north-temperate lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 94: 214-218.
Sheldon,
R.W. and Kerr, S.R. (1972). The
population density of Monsters in Loch Ness. Limnology
and Oceanography, 17: 746-798.
Shine,
A.J. and Martin, D.S.
(1988). Loch
Ness habitats observed by sonar and underwater television. Scottish Naturalist, 100:
111-199.
Shine,
A.J., Martin, D.S. and Marjoram, R.S. (1993). Spatial
distribution and diurnal migration of the pelagic
fish and zooplankton in Loch Ness. Scottish Naturalist, 105: 195-235.
Williamson,
G.R. (1988). Seals in Loch Ness. Scientific Reports of the Whales Research
Institute, No. 39 (March 1988). Tokyo, Japan.
Witchell,
N. (1975). The
Loch Ness Story. London: Penguin Books.
Received
July 1993
Mr. Adrian J. Shine,
Loch Ness and Morar Project,
Loch Ness Centre,
DRUMNADROCHIT,
Inverness-shire
IV3 6TU.
