Cryptozoology forums > Cryptids > Sea and Lake Monsters > view thread

Subject: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 4:27am  Georg Wilhelm Steller was a reputable naturalist who first discovered and described many of the animals of the north Pacific, Bering Sea and Alaska. He wasn't a kook and is highly regarded as one of the great scientists of the field. here's a link about Steller: Georg Wilhelm Steller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Here's a description of an animal sighted in 1741, in the sea near Alaska: Sea Monkey—Valentin Sapunov, Russia: "South of the Semidis (Southwest Alaska), shortly before sunset on August 10, 1741 Steller's eye was attracted by a very unusual and unknown sea animal' --the mysterious 'sea monkey' whose identification has been a source of endless argument for two centuries. 'It was about two Russian ells [five feet] in length,' he wrote, 'the head was like a dog's, with pointed, erect ears. From the upper and lower lips on both sides whiskers hung down, which made it look almost like a Chinaman. The eyes were large; the body was longish, round and thick, tapering gradually toward the tail. The skin seemed thickly covered with hair, of a grey color on the back, but reddish white on the belly; in the water, however, the whole animal appeared red, like a cow. The tail was divided into two fins, of which the upper, as in the case of sharks, was twice as large as the lower. Nothing struck me as more surprising than the fact that neither forefeet (as in marine amphibians) nor, in their stead, fins were to be seen. ' "He was particularly impressed by 'its wonderful actions, jumps, and gracefulness. For over two hours it swam around our ship, looking, as with admiration, first at the one and then at the other of us. At times it came so near to the ship that it could have been touched with a pole, but as soon as anybody stirred it moved a little farther. It could raise itself one-third of its length out of the water exactly like a man, and sometimes it remained in this position for several minutes. After it had observed us for about half an hour, it shot like an arrow under our vessel and came up again on the other side...in this way it dived perhaps thirty times. There drifted by a seaweed, club-shaped and hollow at one end like a bottle, toward which, as soon as it was sighted, the animal darted, seized it in its mouth, and swam with it toward the ship, making such motions and monkey tricks that nothing more laughable can be imagined. After many funny jumps and motions it finally darted off and did not appear again. It was seen later, however, several times in different places of the sea." Such an animal has never been sighted again... Any thoughts? Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: itsjustme posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 6:39am  The behavior "makes it" a mammal(no reptilan would behave like that, IMO). I`d say a sealion with some kind of "defect"(= "misformed" fins). I. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Jason Crocker posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 7:18am  Wow. Love it. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Hawkwolf posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 7:22am  I have to admit, Keith, this one is a puzzler. As you say, Steller wasn't a kook. You asked for thoughts. Here are mine, such as they are. It's tempting to try and dismiss it as a misidentified sea otter or seal, based on the description of the head, except that Steller knew darn well what sea otters and seals looked like, and wrote about them elsewhere, even having a species of sea lion named after him. The behavior sounds a lot like a cetacean, especially a dolphin, except, none of the other details given are consistent with that theory: visible ears and whiskers, a visibly hairy body, and that sharklike tail. That tail's the real sticking point for me. As far as I know, no known mammal has ever had a vertical tail fin like that, although the rest of his description clearly points to a mammal. We could go with the old standby, a partially decayed shark, with collagen fibers giving it a hairy look, and explaining the lack of forelimbs, except the description talks about an actively moving animal, not a carcass drifting in the current. Here's a few things to consider, for whatever they're worth: The fact that such a creature was never reported again should raise a red flag. Remember that those seas weren't exactly left untouched by man, with at least two of the species Steller discovered now apparently extinct as a direct result of hunting. The behavior of the creature as reported showed it wasn't especially worried about the ship, and thus probably would have shown similar behavior to a ship at a future time. Where are the other 'sea monkeys'? What is the exact source of the description you gave? If the narrative can be confirmed as an accurate translation of a journal or book by Steller, it carries more weight. If it comes from any other source, flags should go up again. Now, let's assume that the description of the "Sea Monkey", can be reliably traced back to a primary source (Steller), where does that leave us? First, since the animal described doesn't fit in with our current understanding of marine mammals, we have to ask "Was Steller pulling our leg?" While the popular image of of an 18th century scientist might be of a dour worshipper at the Altar of Truth, we need look no further than Benjamin Franklin to discover that they weren't all that way. Perhaps it was his little joke, a way to amuse himself on a long voyage. Without more details about the man than dry facts from history, we have no way of knowing if he was capable of such a thing. For all I know now, his close friends could have called him "Georg the Joker". Ok, so maybe it was a completely faithful account of something he saw. What did he see? Maybe it wasn't what he thought he was seeing. Bear with me here, I'm in complete "what-if" mode, and have absolutely nothing to back this up. What follows is complete speculation based on the flimsiest of data. Flimsy piece of data number one: German and Russian bread is often made from rye rather than wheat. Bread, in the form of hardtack, was important part of the shipboard rations of the period. Flimsy piece of data number two: Ergot contamination, if I recall correctly, is more common in rye. Hard datum: Ergot is a source of lysergic acid. Connect the admittedly faint dots. While I freely admit that the idea that Steller may have made his observations while mildly hallucinating is a bit of a reach, the theory does fit the account. First, we have a couple of improbable details in the description of the animal, such as the lack of forelimbs and the shark tail, coupled with behavior that sounds fairly typical of a seal or dolphin. We have an animal not seen since, and nothing remotely like it seems to show up in the fossil record. Then, there's the reaction of Steller to the creature's antics: "that nothing more laughable can be imagined." Call me Mr Grumpypants, but unless Steller left something out, it sounds like a bit of an overreaction. Certainly the sight of a seal or dolphin (or a similar creature)having fun can bring a smile to most folks' faces, but does it rate that kind of hyperbole? Sure it does, if you're, shall we say, impaired at the time. Again, I have no evidence to support this theory, but until evidence is presented that completely or even partially refutes it, it's as good as anything else. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 8:18am  Yeah, it's a puzzler. I think we can discount this being a joke. Steller is an important figure in his field and he isn't going to write of something that will discredit his reputation. He has too many important finds to put his reputation at risk - Stellers Eider, Stellers Sea Lion, Stellers Sea Cow, Stellers Sea Eagle, Stellers Jay... And no, I don't buy the LSD theory. Why even go there? I don't know what he saw, but he saw something and I believe we can trust his description since everything else he described holds up. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Hawkwolf posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 10:28am  I agree with all your points. Remember, I did put a disclaimer in, especially for my admitedly off the wall ergot theory. Think of it as free associating, or brainstorming, because that darn tail has me stumped. He observed the animal closely, over a relatively long period of time, yet he never noticed forelimbs, and there's that tail.... again. The thought that occurred to me over my evening walk along the lane here with my dog was "What exactly did the original manuscript say?" I doubt it was written in English, so the details that don't make sense may just be a result of transcription or translation errors. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 10:42am  I just checked something. Stellers original manuscript was written in "18th century zoological Latin"... You have a German, writing in an arcane branch of Latin, later translated to Russian, and then to English. Furthermore, the manuscript was unfinished at the time of his death and so printed posthumously and with any errors or omissions left uncorrected. I guess we can assume the description might be a tad off... Is it possible he just made some notes on an unknown (to him) dolphin or porpoise? Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Hawkwolf posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 1:38pm  I'd lean more toward a seal or a sea lion, given the description of the head. Now I'm more curious than ever about the original text, especially as regards that tail. Oddly enough, Latin would be something I could struggle through,as I took three years of it in high school, and at one time could read authors like Ovid and Catullus without breaking much of a sweat. While not up to that any more. I don't think Steller would have been writing like one of the Roman poets, but more like Caesar or even Bede, which I might be able to make headway on. But, I think you're on to something there that pretty much clears up the mystery: an unknown marine mammal, probably extinct by now, with the odd bits of the description resulting from a translation or transcription error. Nice bit of detective work, Keith. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 2:51pm  Well, I wouldn't say it's solved. Maybe somebody will pop in with a link to Stellers first person account. Or I may get something from these books I've ordered. The physical description sounds like a seal or sea lion, but the behavior sounds entirely like a porpoise or dolphin. Seals don't play around like that, only dolphins and porpoises do. In looking around I found a porpoise called the finless porpoise, meaning it has no dorsal fin like other species. I can see that lack of top fin getting mistranslated into a lack of a front fin. And it's only 5 feet in length which accords with what Steller saw. This porpoise is native to the waters around Japan, which isn't that awful far from here. The rest of the description - fur, ears, color, don't work for this porpoise, or any porpoise. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: mysticete posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 10:35pm  I lived in California for several years, and sea lions can be playful. I have even heard of them porpoising alongside boats. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 3:05pm  I just found a better candidate. The northern right whale dolphin is a six foot critter without a dorsal fin and with very small front flukes. This dolphin is native to the area where the sea-monkey was sighted. It's still a poor fit for some of the description (ears, fur, whiskers), but the shape, length and behavior are right on. To work, it would have to be a really poor translation, or perhaps somebody combining notes on two different animals when they put out the book - Steller died in Siberia and his notes were forwarded back to western Russian for publication. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: mysticete posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 10:38pm  I am skeptical of a mis-id'ed Right whale Dolphin. When you see one, the most obvious characteristic is the shape, which is unusually cigar like And as you mentioned the head characteristics sound all wrong. I still would say a pinniped (cryptid, vagrant, or mis'id) the most likely solution. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 2:10am  Well, I spent twenty years at sea, most of that in Alaska. And I still live in Alaska, on the sea in the midst of thousands of pinnipeds, in fact not very far from where he saw this critter. At any rate, I've never seen a pinniped act like the description, but I have seen porpoise' and dolphins act like that. But you're absolutely right, the physical description of the head sounds more like a seal or sea lion. But remember, Steller is credited with the discovery of the northern fur seal and Steller sea lion - he knew what a pinniped looked like! He also knew what a sea otter looked like since the sea otters he collected started the big fur rush that spurred Russian occupation of Alaska. He's also describing a critter with fins and without front appendages...? I'm thinking that perhaps, somehow, the notes Steller left on two different animals somehow got jumbled together. Remember he died in Siberia before his notes could be organized or corrected. That's the only explanation I can think of... Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: mysticete posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 6:49am  oh, I am sure some muddying occurred, both in the sighting and and the later revisions. I am just not sure how much, which leaves this case an intriguing mystery Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: mysticete posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 8:24am  The book I reviewed a few weeks ago (Neptune's Ark) goes quite a bit into the life of Steller, and also discussed this sighting. The author treats the sighting as genuine, and the same author wrote a biography of the explorer, so I think this sighting is valid, though some details may be off. I doubt ergot poisoning is involved either, as the author made many extensive notes on local wildlife which has been validated by later researchers. This is one of my favorite cryptids, though I am not sure what it maybe. At least one person has put forth a north Pacific version of the sea mink as an identity. Some sort of relative of a fur seal is also possible. The lack of forelimbs may simply be due to the animal keeping them so close to it's sides that they were not observed, and a splashing back end could cause misinterpretation of a shark like tail. As for the no further sightings, Russian sailers and furriers managed to wipe out the Steller's Sea Cow, from the same region, in 3 decades. Given that the island appears to have acted as a ice age refuge for animals which died out elsewhere (a flightless cormorant, also extinct, also was native to the area), it's possible that the "sea ape" was also confined to this small region, and as a fur bearing animal it may have been hunted into extinction at the same time the Russian decimated the Fur Seals and other marine mammals. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: mysticete posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 8:28am  oh, and my own personal thought...everything in this description describes to me a otariid (the family that includes fur seals and sea lions). The fins may be interpreted as flippers. Whether it's a new species or vagrant I don't know, but the "sea ape" is almost certainly extinct now. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 11:08am  I just ordered two books on Steller through amazon.com. Maybe these will tell us something. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 10:56am  I'd sure like to get my hands on an original translation of Stellers description. This account by Sapunov (above) leaves a lot to be desired. Oh, and the sea-ape (sea-monkey) was spotted near the Semidi (or Shumagin) islands, southwest of Kodiak, and at least a thousand miles from the western Aleutians where the sea cow was found. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: mysticete posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 9:45pm  ahhh...thanks for the clarification. Just about everything related to natural history and Steller tend to eventually gravitate towards his time spent in the western Aleutians, so I assumed that the sea ape was reported there. Though Russian sealers did pretty much work the whole chain, so I think my line of argument on why they aren't further records still stands. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 2:15am  The Russians worked their way all the way to California and built settlements there, and everywhere to the north. It was the sea otter that spurred this occupation. Sea otter pelts were literally worth more than gold, by weight. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: mysticete posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 6:47am  Yep...which led to them being declared extinct, IIRC, at least two separate times Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Arctodus posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 10:16am  -Hawkwolf- "That tail's the real sticking point for me. As far as I know, no known mammal has ever had a vertical tail fin like that, although the rest of his description clearly points to a mammal." There is one known species of mammal that swims with sideways undulations of it's tail, the Giant Otter Shrew So a mammal with a vertical tail fin isn't impossible. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Hawkwolf posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 12:48pm  Thank you for the heads up on the Giant Otter Shrew. Although a mammal with a vertical tail fin isn't impossible, the fact remains no such animal (to my knowledge) has ever been discovered. Given that all known marine mammals(unless you count polar bears as marine mammals) swim by vertical undulation, regardless of what their distant ancestors were, a vertical tail makes no sense for them. Shave it with Ockham's Razor. One the one hand, you have roughly 120 known species of cetaceans, sirenians, pinnipeds, and sea otters all swimming with a vertical undulation of the body. On the other hand, you have one species of rare mammal found in Cameroon that uses horizontal undulations of the tail to swim. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Arctodus posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 1:56pm  "Shave it with Ockham's Razor. One the one hand, you have roughly 120 known species of cetaceans, sirenians, pinnipeds, and sea otters all swimming with a vertical undulation of the body. On the other hand, you have one species of rare mammal found in Cameroon that uses horizontal undulations of the tail to swim." Incorrect, phocids swim with lateral undulations of their hind flippers.Muskrats and several other aquatic rodents as well as desmans and otter shrews use lateral undulations of their tails both for sculling and direct propulsion. Lateral undulations are more common in mammals than you believe.Now whether or not the "Sea monkey" is a totally unknown sea mammal with a laterally undulating tail fin is of course debatable. Personally, I think Stellar mis-identified a phocid of some sort.The tail fins can easily look like shark fins if not fully exposed and perhaps the phocid didn't reveal much of it's fore flippers.What were the weather conditions like? Were the seas choppy and murky that day? Stellar may have see an unusually reddish Bearded Seal In low light conditions (shortly before sunset) he may have gotten confused and thought there were ears present. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Hawkwolf posted Tue, Jan 15 2008, 3:12am  First, as to Steller's observations, please read the account again. He observed the animal for two hours. It was close enough to the ship at times that it could have been touched with a pole. Conditions allowed him to make an observation about the animal's coloring both above and below the water. He could clearly see whiskers. He could even identify the seaweed the animal "played" with. This wasn't a quick glimpse, but a long, close range look under what seems to be good conditions at an animal by a respected scientist, and trained observer, who casually mentions at the end of the section that the animal was sighted again on later occasions. As part of that original observation, he notes a vertical tail, like a shark's. I'll get back to that in a moment. While seals and their kin may use lateral motions of their fins, it doesn't change how they use their spines. Discussions of other mammals using their tails to scull doesn't change the fact that none of them have developed a vertical tail fin, despite having millions of years to do so. Other mammals possibly exhibiting horizontal undulation doesn't change the fact that no known marine mammal does so. The next marine mammal found with a vertical tail will be the first. So, in spite of all the odds against it, Steller apparently saw and wrote about something unique, never seen before or since: a vertical tail on a marine mammal, like a shark's. Or did he? When I read the translation of the incident that Keith linked to, something interesting popped up, something that you reminding me that seals use a lateral motion of their rear flippers when swimming turned even more light on. The translation Keith linked to makes no mention of the tail being like a shark's. Instead, it refers to the tail being like a rooster. Apparently, the words are very close in the 18th C Zoological Latin Steller wrote in, and the assumption was made that Steller meant "shark", and "rooster" was just the result of a spelling error or a mis-reading of Steller's penmanship in the original manuscript. However, if Steller indeed meant "rooster", the observation makes a lot more sense. Consider the tail of a rooster as compared to the tail of a shark. Where a shark's tail is two distinct vertical lobes, a rooster's tail is not. It's more spread out. Now, imagine an unknown seal, using its hind flippers. Imagine that those flippers are shaped such that there is a distinct elongation to the "top" side of each flipper, the pair of them forming a "rooster" tail when the animal swims. Take it a step further. Another problem with Steller's observation is he clearly mentions no visible forelimbs. However, if we go back to the "rooster" tail, we can explain this as well. If the forelimbs are fairly close to the hind limbs, that adds to the "rooster" effect, and requires no weird shape to the rear flippers. Perhaps Steller saw front flippers, and just interpreted them as part of the "tail". This explanation requires only one simple assumption: that Steller meant "rooster" when he wrote "rooster". Since his notes were published after his death, he would have had no opportunity to correct the efforts of well-meaning editors. "Rooster? He can't have meant rooster? It's a sea animal after all. He probably meant shark, and that's how we'll publish it." Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Arctodus posted Tue, Jan 15 2008, 5:08am  "rooster" tail, that definitely makes sense. So Stellar could identify the seaweed the animal was playing with?That certainly indicates good visibility.Still, even if you take into account that tail was "Rooster-like" it must be an unknown basal phocid which still retains ears if it is a seal.Otarids do not use their hind legs at all except for steering. "While seals and their kin may use lateral motions of their fins, it doesn't change how they use their spines." Have you ever seen seals in all out flight?They are as fast as otarids and there is no vertical yaw what so ever.Seals can actually porpoise and do it for extended periods of time.Phocid spines are highly derived in their capabilities for movement.They have to be because they have different locomotive approaches on land and in water. "Discussions of other mammals using their tails to scull doesn't change the fact that none of them have developed a vertical tail fin, despite having millions of years to do so." So what?The past 65 million years have seen two groups of mammals successfully shed their ties to the land (cetaceans and sirenians) and one group that has partially done so (pinnipeds) plus odds and ends of mammals that no longer exist (desmostylans and thalassocnids).Your presumption that it is easy to take the oceans when it is clearly not.There are abundant diverse lines of aquatic mammals in existance today and likely there were throughout the cenozoic and mesozoic (Castorcauda,Kolikodon).Yet the entire mesozoic shows no marine mammals whatsoever.The cenozoic was hardly a blank slate just "waiting" for the mammals to casually conquer.By the earliest Eocene, you had a flowering of Shark diversity not to mention the surviving dyrosaurs and newly-evolving marine gharials.Penguins and plotopterids were really getting their start around this time. The first whales and pinnipeds were largely limited to shallow, rich seas in isolated regions, (Teythis and western north america respectively).At any time, conditions could've change drastically enough to cause total extinction of these lineages, just like it did for the thalassocnids and desmonstylans. "Other mammals possibly exhibiting horizontal undulation doesn't change the fact that no known marine mammal does so." (blinks) uh, phocids?Yes, they use both pelvis _and_ spine laterally udulating to propel themselves forward. "The next marine mammal found with a vertical tail will be the first." I'm not holding my breathe on that, but what an interesting critter that would be. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Hawkwolf posted Tue, Jan 15 2008, 3:10pm  I will bow to your expertise on pinnipeds, and simply admit I was wrong. However (you knew there was a "however", didn't you?), I will take issue with you on: "Your presumption that it is easy to take the oceans when it is clearly not." Show me where I made that presumption. What I said, and what you repied to was: "Discussions of other mammals using their tails to scull doesn't change the fact that none of them have developed a vertical tail fin, despite having millions of years to do so." Nowhere in that statement do I say it was easy for mammals to take to the oceans. The only presumption in that statement is "none of them" when I should have said "none of them that we know of", and I freely admit that lapse. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Arctodus posted Tue, Jan 15 2008, 7:09pm  I forgive you for your error(s) ;) But yes, it is certainly true that no known marine mammals extant or extinct are known to have utilized a vertical tail fin. ...and I also forgive you for making me presume you were referring to all possible mammals entering marine environments instead of the specific known lineages.* *yes, that was tongue in cheek :) Seriously, I apologize for presuming. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Kraken posted Wed, Jan 16 2008, 1:21am  Although I have nothing pertinent to add, I couldn't let this thread slip by without commenting what an intelligent discussion this has been and the way I would love to see most threads go. Too often disagreements turn into a shouting match but this back and forth banter was refreshing. For the record I like a good scrap as much as anyone as long as you can back it up with intelligent conversation and established facts but I digress. I myself lean towards it as being a phocid but to it's exact identification I have no idea. I have to respect Steller's observations as the rest of the animals he has described have held up remarkable well. This may indeed be one of the possible true cryptids that we have discussed on this forum. I am hoping it's nothing so banal as a mistake in the translation or misidentification but the absence of reports other than the one cited in this thread puts some doubt in my mind. Perhaps it was hunted to extinction but it's strange we would not have more details if it was hunted for a commodity such as it's fur. Then again I'm not sure how concerned they were with keeping records of such things in those days. Questions just leading into more questions but it is fun to speculate. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Hawkwolf posted Wed, Jan 16 2008, 4:33am  "I couldn't let this thread slip by without commenting what an intelligent discussion this has been and the way I would love to see most threads go. Too often disagreements turn into a shouting match but this back and forth banter was refreshing." Well, from my side of it, I thank you for the implied compliment. Perhaps it's because neither of us took the other disagreeing with him as anything personal. I think, especially in faceless internet discussions, people sometimes tend to forget you can disagree with someone while still respecting their opinion. And, you can attack someone's arguments without ever attacking them personally. As to the identity of the "Sea Monkey", having Keith find an accessible document that brought the whole rooster/shark point to light reminded me of how important it is when discussing historical accounts to go back as close as possible to the original source. A tail like a "shark" causes all sorts of problems. A tail like a "rooster" can quickly be fitted in to a plausible explanation that points to an unknown phocid. "Perhaps it was hunted to extinction but it's strange we would not have more details if it was hunted for a commodity such as it's fur. Then again I'm not sure how concerned they were with keeping records of such things in those days." Given how friendly the animal appeared to be, it probably would have been easy prey for a crew hunting furs. If it was indeed an unknown phocid, the sealers probably would have neither known nor cared that it may have been something rare or unusual. Any records they kept would have likely just lumped it in with the rest of the seal skins, unless the fur or coloring was unusual enough to make them worth tallying and selling separately. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Aziraphale posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 4:00pm  That description looks like a cut-down version of one in Roy Mackal's "Searching For Hidden Animals". He doesn't give a source, but I think it's probably from a book he cites, "Bering's Voyages" by F. A. Golder (National Geographic society, 1925) He thinks it was an unknown species of pinniped, probably similar to the Antarctic leopard seal, which was holding its front flippers tightly against its body. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: kreeper101 posted Sun, Jan 13 2008, 10:14pm  Sea otter...maybe...just maybe... Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 4:49am  I finally found an original first person translation here: Wisconsin Historical Society Digital Collection : Compound Object Viewer You need to open Steller's journal of a sea voyage from Kamchatka to America and return, and then read pages 64, 65, 66 and 67. The editorial notes underneath are as confused as our own speculation in this thread. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: TheDirtyOne posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 5:45am  Can you spank a Sea Monkey? Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 7:37am  Page 64 Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 7:38am  page 65 Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 7:39am  page 66 Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 7:40am  page 67 Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Archosaurs posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 8:19am  Well, about the animal not beeing sighted again apart from Steller´s discription, I found this in "Mysteries of Planet Earth", by Dr.Karl Shuker: "...On a clear afternoon in June, 1965, however, eminet British yacthsmen-adventurer Brigadier Miles Smeeton was sailing by teh central Aleutian Islands aboard his 46 foot ketch Tzu Hang, with his wife, daughter and friend aboard, when he and the other sighted a remarkable beast." "As since documented by explorer-journalist Miles Clark (BBC Wildlife,Jan 1987), lying in the water close off the port bow was what seemed to be a 5 foot ( 1,5m) long animal with 4-5 inch (10-13cm) long reddish-yellow hair and a head more dog-like than seal-like, whose dark intelligent eyes were placed close together, rather then set laterally on the head like a seal´s." The brigadier´s friend stated that that it had a face like a " Tibeatan shih-tzu terrier with drooping Chinese whiskers" No one observed any limbs The animal desappeard as the vessel drew near and the whole sighting lasted some 10-15 seconds There is a theory proposed by two scholars that Steller´s sea monkey may have been a "vagrant speciemen of the Hawaiian monk seal Monachus ishauinslandi, that wanderd of to the north of the archipelago and that the color of the animal´s fur was a result of it beeing undergoing it´s annual moult. However, it dosen´t account for the animal´s distinct apperance Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: mysticete posted Mon, Jan 14 2008, 8:14pm  Not to mention I have never heard of Hawaiian Monk Seals being recorded outside the Hawaiian archipelago. If your going to point to vagrant seals, and arctic seal would be much more likely. Not sure what stock to put into this much more recent sighting Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: TheDirtyOne posted Tue, Jan 15 2008, 12:53am  I have actually came across documented proof that Stellar's Sea Monkeys actually existied. It even has pictures! Check it out.... Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: saint posted Tue, Jan 15 2008, 2:08am  Anything is possible. We have human flipper-babies - maybe there was a sealion or otter flipper-baby too. A freak random mutation; an evolutionary advance that never progressed because of a hungry orca, or because it's lack of front paws prohibited it from mating. Stupid? Yes. THe first use of the term "flipper-baby" on this site, though? Yes. Subject: Re: Stellers Sea Monkey From: Therst posted Tue, Jan 15 2008, 4:15am  Stellar dude...........Stellar.

Close Window