Excruciatingly Large Things

Daniel Rourke's new website is:

MachineMachine.net


A Real Moby Dick?

→ by Danieru
This is great. Perspective-Shift-Ahoy!
"In 1741, a Danish-Norwegian missionary named Hans Egede published what became a famous account of "a most dreadful monster" that appeared off the coast of Greenland. "The case is interesting," the modern scientists write, "in that Egede had drawn and described a number of large northern whale species in his book, so he obviously felt the 'dreadful' monster was something different."

Paxton says that most historians have relied solely on a bad translation of Egede's book. He and his colleagues apply modern biological insights to the case. Egede's animal had a serpent-like tail that appeared out of the water when the rest of the beast had disappeared.
But rather than a tail, Paxton et al say, this was most likely a penis. They present photographs of well-endowed male whales, and also a drawing from Egede's book, in which we see the sea monster's serpent-like tail. The latter is remarkably similar to what we see in the photographs.

The case is not proved definitively, but it should be an inspiration to both biologists and whale-watching tourists." -
link

Thanks Deep Sea News and Pharyngula!
Categories: , , , , , ,

Archived Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Blogger Jennyology said...

somewhere between spam and sea monsters, you may never be out of fodder for penile conversation...

"You may have noticed a hint of a pattern in facts number one, two and three: sex. Charles Paxton's newest sea monster report, published in the Archives of Natural History, continues the pattern."

This must be the absolute most wrong fetish I've ever heard of.

November 08, 2005 11:43 AM    

Anonymous daledrinnon said...

I have reviewed this information and posted a rebuttal in my cryptozoology group.

Actually the head of the monster in the drawing turns out to be a fair depiction of a Gray whale's head, but more importantly for this discussion, the tail as drawn shows one fluke of a typical whale's tail. The tail could have been in such a postion that only one half was seen.

In any event, the invocation of the whale's penis is wrong. The tail section reported is clearly much larger that the penis would seem and is more along the lines of the actual tail in length.

May 31, 2007 3:25 PM    


Subscribe to Comments