With six years of phd work on theropod dinosaurs behind him, Darren Naish mostly spends long hours in the library, hunched over his laptop. But he gets out sometimes, and picks up litter and pursues exotic lizards across the British countryside, aiming all the while to publish his technical work on obscure Cretaceous dinosaurs. He also messes around with pterosaurs, swimming giraffes, British big cats and stuff like that. He has given up on the stupid idea of being a dedicated academic and ekes out a living as a technical consultant, editor and author. He can be contacted intermittently at eotyrannus (at) gmail dot com. For more biographical info go 
Yay for day.... (counts) ... four of sea monster week. This time another familiar carcass image... well, familiar to me anyway. This remarkable object/shapeless hunk is the Tecolutla monster, collected from Palmar de Susana between Tecolutla and Nautla, Veracruz, Mexico, in 1969. Initially encountered by a group of farmers who chanced upon it in the dead of night* (apparently when it was still alive), they kept it secret for a week but eventually informed the Tecolutla mayor, Professor César Guerrero. Believing it to be a crashed plane (this story gets better and better), he organised a volunteer rescue party, only to be confronted with the immense head of some unidentified beast and a huge, partially buried lump of meat. News of the discovery quickly spread and people arrived in earnest to examine the carcass. It was 22 m long, 2 m wide, weighed about 24 tons, and had a 2 m long head that was 1 m tall. Serpentine in shape and covered in armour, it also had wool like a lamb, immense eye sockets, and a gigantic beak, and horns...
* Hmm. Group of farmers, on the beach, at night? The mind boggles.
I repeatedly saw the best known image of this carcass while exploring the literature (the one shown above), while rooting through articles in the CFZ, that sort of thing, and never knew how to interpret it. Partly this is because it's a huge misshapen mass that hasn't photographed at all well, but partly this is because it looks like some sort of godforsaken monster with a huge scary head. My semi-serious interpretation is shown below.
Thanks to a very detailed report produced by Rafael A. Lara Palmeros we have a very good account of what happened next. Mayor Guerrero sought the help of biologists from the Fishing and Biology Station of Tampico, but they failed to identify it, saying that the farmers had disfigured it beyond recognition. Another biologist failed to reach a verdict, and it was rumoured in a popular magazine article that the Biology Institute of California wanted to buy the carcass, and thought that it was that of a prehistoric animal (is there even such a place as the 'Biology Institute of California'? There doesn't seem to be, but perhaps there was in 1969). Bernandino Villa of the National University of Mexico proposed that the monster might have been preserved in an Arctic iceberg prior to being thawed out. Continuing with the confused or indeterminate identifications, a 1975 Spanish book by Jacques Bergier and George Gallet claimed that the carcass was covered in armour plating.
Even in 1969, however, some people had gotten it right. Ivan Sanderson had said in Pursuit magazine that it was a whale, and in 1970, John Keel had concluded that accounts of what was in fact a whale carcass had been combined with various other rumours in order to create a bizarre and perplexing story (Keel 1970). On investigating the case some years later, Palmeros (1994) interviewed local people and tried to get information from the Estación de Biología Pesquera, but neither avenues of investigation yielded any useful information. However, biologists at the National University had kept photos and had concluded that it was indeed a whale, specifically a Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis. This was confirmed by Bernard Heuvelmans, who provided the same identification in correspondence (Palmeros 1994). The 'beak' was presumably the long, pointed rostrum present in all rorquals while the 'horns' must have been the elongate, pointed dentaries: these often splay apart in rorqual carcasses and protrude like tusks or horns, as previously discussed at Tet Zoo ver 1 here.
The final proof for the whale identification comes from the fact that the skull was retained (Palmeros (1994) published a closeup of the dorsal surface of the back of the skull). It is undoubtedly that of a rorqual and, so far as I can, does match that of a Sei whale in the length of its nasals and other details. Some pictures on the web seem to be identified as the skull of the Tecolutla creature (one is shown here), but they don't make sense: it looks as if the entire back part of the skull has been inverted and then raised up at a steep angle relative to the rostrum. Maybe that's exactly what's happened: it's hard to say from small photos alone [UPDATE: the photo shown here is not from the Tecolutla carcass. See the comments]. Anyway, it's case closed on this one.
More tomorrow. You realise that when this is all finished I'm going to go very, very quiet. Multiple end-July deadlines approach... and SVPCA is looming. Yes, I'm goin' to Ireland.
PS - this article is Tet Zoo ver 2's 300th entry. Woo-hoo, pass the favoured alcoholic beverage.
Refs - -
Keel, J. 1970. Strange Creatures from Time and Space. Sphere Books, London.
Palmeros, R. A. L. 1994. A marine monster in Tecolutla, Mexico? Info Journal 71, 24-26.
Life Science
Environment
Comments
Nice stuff. Ive not encounter ed this 'sea monster' before. Looking back at the photo it does look like a scene from an whaling ship with the whale hoisted up. And the skull just mnakes it obvious. This pattern of dispelling all this sea serpent myths is a bit dissapointing thou; will you been ending the week with conclusive proof of the existence of a gigantic reptilian sea serpent? lol
Posted by: Neil | July 10, 2008 4:32 AM
I'm with Neil - I want to believe!
Stewart
Posted by: Stewart Macdonald | July 10, 2008 4:39 AM
"Group of farmers, on the beach, at night? The mind boggles."
In that area, they're all farmers, unless they're fishermen. Walking home from a fiesta of some sort in the next village, probably.
Posted by: Susannah | July 10, 2008 5:37 AM
Hattie told Matty
About a thing she saw
It had two big horns
And a wollen jaw...
Hey, that's the original inspiration for the song "Wolly Bully", a jewel of tex-mex rock'n'roll !!!
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 10, 2008 5:41 AM
"Bernandino Villa of the National University of Mexico proposed that the monster might have been preserved in an Arctic iceberg prior to being thawed out."
By nuclear testing, no doubt... :)
Posted by: JuliaM | July 10, 2008 6:06 AM
Christophe: You're right! I didn't even think of that while reading about the monster. Good catch.
Posted by: KillerChihuahua | July 10, 2008 6:10 AM
What is it with marine cryptids and "prehistoric animals frozen in icebergs"? We had that earlier with the Santa Cruz carcass.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | July 10, 2008 7:57 AM
The "semi-serious interpretation" bears a striking resemblance to Cecil, the seasick sea-serpent, from the old Beany and Cecil cartoon.
Posted by: Barn Owl | July 10, 2008 8:11 AM
"What is it with marine cryptids and "prehistoric animals frozen in icebergs"?"
Please, lets' not joke about the latter, as it's a very serious topic. Let's not forget it happened to Godzilla.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 10, 2008 10:15 AM
I always thought that the Wolly Bully song was about a Wooly Mammoth, but that is an interesting idea. If this was popular in the news at the time, it's possible. Wonder if there is anything on that?
Posted by: Badger3k | July 10, 2008 10:52 AM
Well, looking at Sam's site, the song was written in 1964, before this thing appeared, so I guess that would be a no. Sam was from Dallas, so he could also have just been writing about a hairy Bull (an Oxen or something), or else just writing nonsense that sounded good. I couldn't find anything on the origins of the song in a quick search, although there is an interesting article on his site that deals with his death and an occult connection. Pretty funny.
BTW - why do they always forget Gamera? He's the Friend to Children, don't ya' know!
Posted by: Badger3k | July 10, 2008 11:00 AM
Cool! This is one I definitely have never seen before.
Posted by: Bee | July 10, 2008 11:28 AM
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | July 10, 2008 11:50 AM
Well, Godzillas origins were retconned in Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah, one of the 90's Heisei films. No longer the victim of an icy fate, Godzilla was originally a Godzillasaurus, who lived on Laos Island and was shot to death during WWII. His broken body washed out to see and sank, but then the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima revived and mutated him.
I kinda like the iceberg theory more.
Posted by: Zach Miller | July 10, 2008 1:24 PM
Sea Monster Week rules. I have always enjoyed crytozoology, in a light hearted, skeptical way. I look forward to the final installment, which I also assume will be the unveiling of Real Evidence(tm). As for Godzilla vs Gamera, I'm sorry but flaming, spinning, child befriending giant turtles just aren't as cool as radioactive, city-stomping, electricity-eating dinosaurs. But I suppose Godzilla needs *something* to compare itself to make it look like it has good production values. :)
Posted by: jba | July 10, 2008 4:26 PM
Bah. The only worthwhile Gamera movies made up the Heisei trilogy. The old 60's and 70's movies were bad, bad, bad.
Posted by: Zach Miller | July 10, 2008 6:56 PM
The is a great post.
Posted by: Michael Ivy | July 10, 2008 8:45 PM
Sea Monster Week is the best fun I've had in a while. As I recall, "Woolly Bully" was The Pharaohs' bass player's cat.
Posted by: carel | July 10, 2008 10:04 PM
"The story of Giant Monster Gamera is that Gamera is a giant monster."
"Being a giant monster, Gamera is instinctively drawn to Tokyo."
-- www.stomptokyo.com
Posted by: David Marjanović | July 11, 2008 7:15 AM
Awesome week thus far and a clever way to get more traffic, too! But, uh, WHERE'S DAY FIVE?!!!!!!!
Posted by: Strider | July 11, 2008 2:28 PM
Everybody now:
Gamera is really neat,
Gamera is full of meat,
We believe in Ga-me-raaaaa!
Posted by: Jenny Islander | July 11, 2008 2:54 PM
What about the Lake Champlain "monster" and Sandi Manci's photo?
Posted by: Chuck | July 11, 2008 4:28 PM
I have nothing at all to say on that case. I take it you're not a regular reader :)
Posted by: Darren Naish | July 11, 2008 4:47 PM
Fascinating stuff Darren, and one I'd never heard of too! (I have a week's worth here to catch up on now).
Andreas Johansson said
Good insight!
I think the psychology of such events is fascinating. Some finders appear to wilfully though maybe at times unwittingly collude (unspokenly conspire?) in 'mystification' and 'mythification' of their find, even at times NOT doing obvious things that would likely assist in its factual identification (such as: taking clear photos from various angles with reference objects to show scale; keeping samples of flesh or bone; summoning expert witnesses promptly; etc).. a group-Munchausen syndrome?
While I think true enthusiasts would welcome all truth (even disproof), some people evidently yearn not for truth but for a real yet forever-unknowable mystic 'something'; a magic 'other' in nature, that will awe (awe OTHERS, especially) but will elude man's firm grasp. I suspect that such people were instrumental in the devising and perpetuation of various cults and mystery religions: idolatry, weird practices and relic-veneration.
With 'finders' well-placed to embellish finds (verbally or materially), to interpret them freely, and to set themselves up as priest(esse)s (read proprietors-for-life of the resulting pilgrim/tourist/religion), I think the temptation is obvious.
And it goes on today, with crop circles, the UFO lecture circuit, chupacabras and Hubbardism.
Posted by: Graham King | July 11, 2008 5:51 PM
That last photo isn't a bryde's whale skull; in fact, it isn't even from a mysticete. Its an upside down sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) skull.
1) The premaxillae lay ventral to the maxillae in (most)cetaceans, and in this case they are are below the maxillae in the photo, indicating the specimen is upside down.
2) No mysticete has a ventrally deflected postorbital portion of the supraorbital process, such as this; this is however a very prominent feature in many odontocetes, especially in Physeter.
3) The structure at the top of the photo is unlike the dorsal surface of any cetacean skull; the two bones have downwards pointing 'v' at the top are the palatines, which form the floor of the internal choanae.
4) The entire palate is convex; all balaenopterids have primarily flattened palates (with a slight medial convexity posteriorly).
5) There isn't a vertex here, and as stated, there are palatines instead, indicating the vertex is on the other side.
Here's another ventral view of Physeter: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2137/2507363635_1bb3667130.jpg?v=0
Eh, just some observations...
Posted by: Boesse | July 19, 2008 3:30 AM
Thanks very much for this - I had thought the same (which is why the text in the article says that 'Some pictures on the web seem to be identified as the skull of the Tecolutla creature'). I will alter the text accordingly. The skull roof pictured in Palmeros (1994) is, however, that of a rorqual.
Posted by: Darren Naish | July 19, 2008 6:57 AM
I am absolutely amazed that this event in this very obscure little fishing village is still gaining attention. I was a UCLA Broadcasting student at the time and a friend and myself went to Tecolutla to film the event.
Clearly we knew we were looking at some kind of whale -- but that wasn't the story. The story was the amazing transformation of that little village whose population must have swelled 100-fold or more during that time.
After flying to Mexico City, we took a bus (from hell) to Tecolutla. Nine hours and some two dozen little villages later we arrived. We had crummy little rooms but the food was good. Those were the days.
Posted by: Cliff Asay | August 20, 2008 12:56 AM