Talk:Zuiyo-maru carcass

Untitled

No one seems to be bringing up the fact that the creature had four large fins. I know that basking sharks have two large fins, and two very small ones in the back, is this consistent with the carcass on the Zuiyo Maru? Gsat555 (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading about this in the newspaper back in 1977, which is why I looked it up again (finding it by following a link from plesiosaur). I wanted to know what the final verdict was, and this article implies that the proverbial jury remains out. But if they have samples of the fin tissue, can't they now run a DNA test to see if the DNA matches or closely resembles a basking shark? Given the notariety of this case, I'd be surprised if nobody did such a test when the techniques became available. Can anyone comment on this and perhaps update the article accordingly? [unsigned]

I would likewise be curious. I've never seen a shark, basking or otherwise, with fins that enormous. --Chr.K. 11:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

'Enormous' in relation to what? Their absolute size (actual measurements) don't seem to be all that differnet from a large white shark , let alone a whale shark. But if you mean relative size to the rest of the body, then, yes, they do look unusual. However, realize that all you are seeing to measure them against is basically the cranium, rib cage and neck vertebrae. Flesh it out with whale shark proportions, and it's not so extreme. CFLeon 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How come we completely dismiss the idea that the animal is a plesiosaur? I edited the introduction so it said "Many believe it is the carcass of a basking shark" but it was changed back to "It is most likely the carcass of a basking shark." And in the Young Earth Creationism article, a caption said it was "later shown to be the carcass of a basking shark". I changed it to "believed to be the carcass of a basking shark", meaning it COULD be a plesiosaur. But my edit was omitted. Why can't anybody accept that plesiosaurs could still be living? Wouldn't it be great if someone discovered a real, living plesiosaur? I don't understand. Elasmosaurus (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of how great it would be if there was a living plesiosaur(!) it's a matter of what is the verifiable state of the science on the issue. The overwhelming scientific consensus is the plesiosaurs have been extinct for over sixty million years, I can find you dozens of sources for that. Couple that with the fact that there is absolutely no reason at all to think this carcass is a plesiosaur, and many reasons to think it's a shark. Unchecked speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. — John.Conway (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Being a reptile, wouldn't a plesiosaur need to come ashore to lay it's eggs? The "fins" as well as the "neck" of the Zuiyō Maru creature appear to be part of a shark's natural decaying process. Roz666 (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"New Nessie"??

This article was originally titled "Zuiyo Maru." Bueller 007 moved this article to "New Nessie" on July 4, 2009 because, quoting his change comment, "Zuiyō Maru is the name of the ship. This article doesn't deal with the ship (which is of itself non-notable), it deals the supposed sea monster "New Nessie" that it caught."

While I agree that "Zuiyo Maru" is a potentially misleading title for the article, would not the title "Zuiyo Maru Carcass" have been preferable to "New Nessie"? I recall the discovery of the news surrounding the discovery of tis carcass in 1977, have read numerous articles on the subject (on various sides of the argument, i.e. 'Basking Shark' vs. 'Plesiosaur' vs. 'Unknown'), and can't recall ever seeing anyone refer to this animal as "New Nessie." Every source I can ever recall (although I don't have anything handy at the moment for a citation) refers to this carcass as the 'Zuiyo Maru Carcass.' I propose the article be renamed to "Zuiyo Maru Carcass", but without an exhaustive study of sources to tally references to 'Zuiyo Maru Carcass' versus 'New Nessie', I'll refrain from doing so without discussion. ApostleGreen (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As a footnote, a Google search of the term "Zuiyo Maru" turned up numerous links to articles dealing with or referring to this incident; i.e. the discovery of the Zuiyo Maru Carcass. A Google search of "New Nessie" resulted in links to web pages containing the string "new Nessie" in various contexts; e.g. "Are the reports of the new Nessie sighting real?" but the only specific reference to "New Nessie" in the context of the Zuiyo Maru Carcass that I could find, was the link to this very [renamed] Wikipedia page. In plain terms, for what this is worth, searching "New Nessie" on Google doesn't specifically provide you with a bunch of Zuiyo Maru Carcass references. ApostleGreen (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also as footnote has to be said that most of the so called pseudo-plesiosaurs named after the location they were found. The Girvan-Carcass, the Querqueville- or Cherbourg-Carcass, the Man Hill Beach- or Scituate-"Monster", the Henry Island-Carcass, the Stronsay-Carcass... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.92.12 (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold and after a bit of research, made the change. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese name for the creature is "New Nessie". It's their "monster". Their name for it needs to be in the article somewhere. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible source

I suggest citation be made about this article:[ Sea-monster or Shark? An Analysis of a Supposed Plesiosaur Carcass Netted in 1977|http://paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.32.67.68 (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Originally published in Reports of the National Center for Science Education , May/June 1997, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 16-28, an excellent source. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zuiyo-maru carcass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125223019/http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.html to http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)