VAGUELY FAMILIAR
The first account I have included is both and interesting and useful one. It is interesting in the fact that it dates from 1857, a relatively plesiosaur free time and is useful in the fact that it allows us to develop a line of reasoning to exclude known animal species. This reasoning can then be adapted and applied in some instances to future pages.
It originates from South East Australia at a time when the white settlers were becoming established and had began to explore the vast territories that existed, learning along the way of the rich sometimes confusing, aboriginal culture.
Part of this culture was the belief in an unusual form of freshwater denizen known culturally as the `bunyip`, a strange and enigmatic creature, which appeared to be able to take on several different forms. One of these forms was a short-necked semi aquatic creature, attributed with various characteristics and variously described, said to inhabit outback billabongs and remote stretches of water where it seems to have been greatly feared. Another form appears to have been a long necked creature, combining a number of native animal components in its description. This bunyip was found predominantly in the rivers and lakes of South East Australia and it is the composite nature of this beast that is of interest to us here.
The report is a typical `white mans bunyip` encounter as described by a Mr Edwin Stoqueler, an artist come naturalist, who took it upon himself to sail down the Murray and Goulburn rivers in a canvas boat. He apparently spent much of 1856/7 doing just this, whiling away the time compiling sketches for a diorama he was working on. When completed this was then apparently to be published in England. The account was reported in the Moreton Bay Free Press of 15/4/1857 and can be found in Malcolm Smith’s excellent `cryptozoology down under` book, "Bunyips and Bigfoots", as well as Costello’s work. Thanks to Pam Cory of the Brisbane Historic Society, I have been able to view a copy of the original newspaper report myself.2
"Mr Stoqueler informs us that the Bunyip is a large freshwater seal having two small paddles or fins attached to the shoulders, a long swan like neck, a head like a dog, and a curious bag hanging under the jaw, resembling the pouch of a pelican. The animal is covered with hair like the platypus, and the colour is a glossy black. Mr Stoqueler saw no less than six of the curious animals at different times, his boat was within 30ft. of one, near M`Guires point, on the Goulburn and fired at the Bunyip, but did not succeed in capturing him. The smallest appeared to be about 5 ft. in length, and the largest exceeded 15 ft. The head of the largest was the size of a bullocks head and 3 ft. out of the water."
Had it not been for the lack of a second barrel on his gun, and the flimsy nature of his boat, Mr Stoqueler would have apparently made a serious attempt at killing one of the creatures.
Now, apart from the `swan` like necks of the creatures, which Smith rightly points out are not easily reconciled with the 3 ft. mentioned, it would appear that Stoqueler was observing seals although it is not clear if the paper nominated them `freshwater seals`, or whether Stoqueler did.
Although many species of pinniped can wander widely, the native pinnipeds of Australia , are the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea), discovered in 1816, and the South African or Australian fur seal (1776, Arctocephalus pusillus).
Although in their neighbour, the New Zealand or Hookers sea lion (1844, Phocarctus hookeri ), adult males may reach 2-3.25 metres in length (6-10ft.), the males of both these Australian species average 2-2.5 metres (6-8 ft.), while the females of all the species are smaller. So even accounting for such a poor judgement of length at such a close distance, neither reaches the 15ft. plus of the largest animal seen but average lengths can of course be exceeded.
Although otariids have flexible necks that can appear quite long when extended, Stoqueler likens them to the necks of swans, which are thin and distinct. While bunyip reports have mainly been equated with seal like animals over the years, an otter like identity has also at times been suggested.
An otter would have a `glossy` coat and its outstretched neck may appear thinner and more distinct than a seals and in fact the South American giant otter can reach well over 6 ft. But a fifteen-foot otter is presently unknown. However, although Stoqueler is close enough to report `hair`, he makes no mention of ears or whiskers which otters and otariids both have, (ears sleeked back may not be very noticeable in otariids), while he does compare the heads to those of dogs which do have ears. What is more, he is close enough to report another curious feature, a `pouch like that of a `pelican`, (although coming from the land of marsupials, I suppose we should expect this), a most unusual and intriguing one. No pinniped or otter displays such a feature, unless the pouch was merely folded skin. The nearest possible comparison that could perhaps be made with a pinniped, is the walrus, which has two pharyngeal pouches either side of the oesophagus which can be inflated to hold up to 13 gallons of air3. These are not however visible. This attribute is found in both sexes, but is more developed in the male and is used variously as a buoyancy aid allowing the animal to float, while also enabling it to make specific sounds, which are of importance in mating. Walruses are also obviously quite distinct and do not inhabit the southern hemisphere.
So although going some way to explain what Stoqueler saw, neither an otariid or otter fitsthe whole description, meaning that we must take a look at some other possibilities.
There are two other possible pinniped contenders, but again neither fits the bill completely.
These are the leopard seal (1820, Hydrurga leptonyx), and the southern elephant seal (1758, Mirounga leonina), both usually Antarctic dwellers but known to roam widely. The elephant seal is a veritable mammoth among pinnipeds, reaching up to and over 5 metres (approx. 20ft.) in the male of the species and the male does have a sort of pouch, its inflatable proboscis, although this is situated on the front and top of its head. The leopard seal, which can reach 3 metres (10ft.), is in fact renown for cutting a sinuous figure and has a neck and head to match, however its pelage is silvery grey to blue. Both animals are known to wander from their regional climes and are phocids, which would mean they would not have ears. In fact, according to T. Healey and P. Cropper in another `aussie` crypto book, "Out of the Shadows", elephant seals were once quite common in some parts of Australia, while a leopard seal was captured 48 km. up the Shoalhaven River in 1870, complete with a platypus in its stomach.
In both cases however, a distinct swan like neck would be hard to demonstrate. Leopard seals are also mainly loners and aggressively curious in nature, so although it would not be impossible for leopard seals to be found so far from home, even accounting for the possibility that Stoqueler saw one or more of the animals twice, it would be unlikely.
If we also take into account the fact that Stoqueler took a shot at one, it would have been unusual for the animal, if a leopard seal, not to have elicited some response. Besides all this, Stoqueler, having spent some considerable time witnessing the local fauna, presumably becoming familiar with certain pinniped species, would have surely recognised them for what they really were, known seals.
If he had also spent much of 1856/7 sailing up and down these stretches of water it might be expected that he would have in fact made sightings of wandering seals imitating bunyips more frequently, allowing him to distinguish clearly between the two.
By all accounts he appears to have been regarded as a reliable witness, running for a position in the local police force at the time of his encounter. He made a sketch of one of the animals, which was then viewed by some of the local aborigines. They informed him that the drawing showed the bunyips brother and this was interpreted by the paper as meaning an exact likeness of the bunyip.
Unfortunately the sketch does not appear to have withstood the passing of time, but apparently showed the head and neck from one of the freshwater bunyips. This is a shame as if he were an artist of some talent we may have probably gained a very accurate picture of the creature.
A reading of many `bunyip` accounts by various researchers and the fact that seals have been positively identified around inland Australia indicates that many such sightings are simply due to `out of the way` pinnipeds. A group of seals fo instance was observed 1200km from the sea swimming up the Murrumbridge river in 1850, while a pinniped was apparently shot and mounted in the same year 1500km from the ocean in New South Wales. One was also observed 400km up the Murray River itself in 1890 4 while in 1947 four seals were reported to be inhabiting the Mulwaree river, about 5 miles from Goulburn.
It has also been noted that modern bunyip reports are few and far between and may indicate that people today are more familiar with seals, which were previously mistaken for them. There are also likely to be many more man made obstacles today that may prohibit wandering creatures such as seals to travel inland.
Ten years previously, another bunyip had been seen, this time at a cattle station by the junction of the Lachlan and Murrumbridge Rivers after extensive flooding had taken place. The whole encounter was reported in the Argus on the 29/6/1847. This time the bunyip had been found, `grazing`! It was:
" as big as a six month calf, dark brown colour, long neck and long pointed head, with a thick mane of hair from its head down to its neck and large ears that pricked up. It had a shambolling gallop and a large tail with its fore quarters large in proportion to its hind quarters."
Both
man and beast fled from the scene of the encounter. However,
instead of a pelicans pouch, this creature had two `tusks` no less!
A sabre toothed sea lion?!, Heuvelmans snorkels?! We will never know.
Still around Australia, we will next take a look at an often-quoted account of a sea serpent, seen on land. This encounter happened in Tasmania, in 1913, April again. It was related by a mining engineer prospecting on the west coast of Tasmania who had learned of it from the two men, his colleagues, who had witnessed it.
Oscar Davies and his mate, W. Harris, who were apparently quite familiar with `sea leopards`, seals and sea lions, were walking along the coast, when they noticed a dark object at a distance of about half a mile. It was under some sand dunes and appeared to be showing some signs of movement.
They advanced to within about 50 yards of it, when;
" It rose suddenly and rushed down to the sea. After going about 30 yards, it stopped, turned around showing only the head for about 5 seconds and then disappeared under the water".
They described it thus:
" It
was 15 ft. long, it had a very small head, only about the size of a
Kangaroo dog. It had a thick arched neck, passing gradually into the
barrel of the body. It had no definite tail, and no fins. It was
furred, the coat in appearance resembling that of a horse of chestnut
colour, well groomed and shining. It had four distinct legs. It
travelled by bounding, that is arching its back and gathering up its
body so that the footprints of the fore feet were level with those of
the hind feet. It made definite footprints. These showed circular
impressions with a diameter (measured) of 9 inches and the marks of
claws, about 7 inches long, extending outward from the body. There
was no evidence for or against webbing.
The creature travelled very fast. A Kangaroo dog followed it hard on course to the water and in that distance gained about 30 ft. When disturbed it reared up and turned on its hind legs, its height when standing on four legs would be 3ft.6 – 4ft.".
Firstly, although the men were apparently familiar with pinnipeds, they do not seem to associate them with this remarkably seal like animal. The creature itself, is not very big as sea serpents go and as both Smith and Heuvelmans point out, no mention is made of the familiar long neck, but instead, a `neck that passed gradually into the barrel of the body`. However, this cannot have been very gradual if we take into account the animals height of 3-4ft.
So what did the men see?
It isn’t an otter, as apart from the size, there is no conspicuous tail and a phocid seems to be out of the running literally, as the animals movements sound very otariid in nature and unless the dog was deliberately trying to avoid it, the creature must have been moving at a fair old clip.
Although the animal is described as having four distinct legs, it could be supposed that if the beach was sandy and the animal heavy, a fair amount of sand may have been displaced as it made its escape, which possibly obscured the true nature and shape of its limbs. The men cannot have been too sure about these as they state there was no evidence “for or against webbing” possibly indicating that they did not get that good a look at them. Definite footprints were made though, with the apparent impressions of claws, but it is not clear whether the claws were present in all the footprints, which may have helped identity the creature. All in all is tempting to argue that all the men saw was maybe a pinniped that they were not familiar with (although from their statement this cannot have been many), a possible example perhaps being a fur seal whose fur had dried out giving it an unfamiliar appearance. Even so, the encounter if not of some type of seal, must remain a true, baffling `unknown`, as it should be remembered that the men had a pretty good view, walking from a distance of half a mile to within 50 yards of it, presumably keeping it in view for the whole time.
All very frustrating.
Heuvelmans concluded that the men had seen a juvenile `long neck`, however all I think that can possibly be concluded is that they saw a very seal like animal, with the ensuing debacle obscuring its true nature.
1 It is beyond the scope of this present work to get embroiled in further analysis and differentiation between the various types of bunyip but a brief glance at the bibliography section will give ideas for further reading. A typical bunyip described by the aboriginal people of the Port Philip district, `Tunatpan`,is described as aquatic with an elongated neck and head resembling an emu, a mane like a horse, flippers like a seal and a horse like tail. `Too-roo-don`, a bunyip of the North West Victoria aboriginal people is similar. In fact these peoples differentiated between two types, `banib`, pronounced bunnip, a lake living pig like creature and`banip-ba-gunuwar` meaning bunyip and swan1
2 The Australian fur seal, described in 1904 has slight cranial differences to the South African fur seal but is classed as the same species.
3 Aboriginal people of the Murrumbridge area had a firm belief in `katenpai`, `kinepratia` and tanatbah according to dialect. This animal could grow as big as a bullock, again with an emu like head and neck, mane, horse like tail. It also had four legs with three flipper like webbed toes on each foot. 5
Electronic mail
address
robert@cornes1.fsnet.co.uk
Web
address
http://www.cornes1.fsnet.co.uk