LOCH NESS

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 63, 15 March 1934, Page 17

LOCH NESS

IS THERE A MONSTER?

"A POSSIBILITY BUT—"

SIE ARTHUR KEITH'S VIEWS

Why are professional zoologists so sceptical of the news from Loch Ness? asks Sir_ Arthur Keith" in the "Daily Mail." Let mo try to placo r their point of "view before the public. I remember how sceptical many of us were when the late Sir Harry* Johnston announced the discovery of the okapi in the forests of Equatorial Africa. That was thirty-two years ago, when the only evidence he had of the beast's existence was a skin. Soon, however, a skull and 'other parts o,f this strange animal were discovered, and -we had to admit that' Sir Harry was right, ' and that there 'still, existed in the Semliki Forest'of Africa a'type-of-animal we had to. mee.t with not as a liyiilg reality "but, only, as a fossil.T The living tykapi is a survival1 from1 .a ~ prehistoric, 'period. ■ '\ t'~ '' ,( PREHISTORIC'TYPE. x With1; tho example of the okapi before, them why are zoologists so sceptical of the monstrosaurus of Loch Ness? In the okapi there-* has come down to us a type which is perhaps 2,000,000 yea,rs old. In the jungles df Borneo there lives-,a* small, climbing primate known as^ tarsius,' It is a the sole suivivor of a type.whjch flourished in countless foims some 30,000,000 years ago. Is it possible then that the Lo_ch Ness monster —monstrosaiirus—can bp a survival from, the age of igreat reptiles—which lies some 150,000,000 years distant 'from >us.? .7;' '* Is it^within the v linuts of-rpossibility that there exists :jn'Loch Ness "today, a live , v descendant of" some /ple.siosaur, dino_sa.ur, orVbrontosaur? I' have ..to a"dmit.,the possibility,. at the^same time' r Wave tp state with all possible emphasis that until now there has not been found anywhere in the world a tittle pf, evidence in. support of sucli a possibility. ••- ' ' .", ~ The professional disbelief in tjio existence ,6f' a fleahjand-blgo'd 'mobster •in Loch Ness is not Based1 on any iheoreticaljobjeotiqii,") Th^opposite' is,-the,case; so keen is the modern ' zoologist on 'his,'joh that hj>-w#uld;SeJl his1, soul for the dead carcass of a dinosaur or plasiosaiir so"'Jha^ he-- mightl be the firsif to have the honour' of 'dissecting \i% '•!& he-had- the slightest hope of,the materialisation' of monstrosaurus he would be trooping'tp the shores,of"Loch Ness, in .his.-thousjiiids'from all parts of the "world, j, ",, * - l The scepticism ..'of,* the, professional jzoologi&t ii,s|ue f^tho^gi?.ture of "the e&dence that '*iß>4boing before" Juta. In tth'e cai&Aof'the ekapi,;-Sir "Ha^y Johnston 'Could show^af least a, s"kin, but those .wlior^haya^onyinc'e'd the! $ooretary $<jr, Scotland, and yth'e* Chief Constable,rof Invwness.-sb.ire 'of ' ,the eyjg|enc.flfji*ip^^niqßistrosaurus have -not even'£%Ts£Blel or<q:'hair of his skin or a nair*ot a *toe"to "produce as evidence— 'only a'few. questionable footprints. s AOCO.UNTS: The accounts of the size and shape of monstrosaurus differ so greatly that there^must 'be' twenty kinds of monster in Loch Ness-^-not one. The single helpful -reported- &$;• is Hh»£- th,e "beast is of" large size-Uasf-'big'Ts-S-rhipkopo-tamus'/or'jjlephant* ip,&vehVH^jfle..«To keep'l such ia ►'supplied- with' food ouri monster must t work4ong -hours; flndjiunieroß^'.'tiacßs of? his t? leave "uamisiak.able;! footpriiits^-see-ing 'that he weighs well oV(3r a ton. Hejnust have a father and mqther somewhere,"Miving" or dead; ho -should have ( sisterg and brothers and cousins and uncles "and aunts. Perhaps he has a wife and isi the father of a family. Strange the thousands of eyes whichf have"""iear(;hed the / turbulent' watery o£ L'obJiNess havejseen'no trace of nis'relatives?i" Not a bone *6r "tooth; mark has been, observed —only a few footprints discovered in the shore fojpgle by: Mr) Wither e%", ( ""' yAn e3?amin»tio'iv/ of the* footprints has convince'ol'Mr. monstrosaurus is an amphibian. Now all ( living amphibia 4 are of small sizp; one' is'-largeVa^a^hippo^potamus -causes isoqlo|i«|ts ' raise their eyebrows and. -to revise their conception of ttf'at sion of vertebrate animals to,'jwhich an\phibia are assigned. ''-.v' * jtf tho postmistress- of Inveifavigaig has observed the monster accuiately—s and women are usually reliable 'witnesses —then it cannot be an amphibian, as Mr. "Wetherell has inferred from the footprints. For the postmistress saw that the monster was "hairy genorally" and had a "thick haily mane." This evidence was confirmed by another witness, who gave the additional infoimation that it was "a most 'ugly beast." , ] i Now zoologists have found that' there is a. high''degree of Orderliness in the construction.1 of things.,- They have always found r that if an, animal has a^hairy akin, ,±hen it has breasts to provide its young with milk, ,and that its brain, its heart, its lungs, its skull, and its teeth''are"constructed,1 according to a Well-knowii .pattern. The teeth 'of mqnstrosaurus are said to be conical and-pointed. Such teeth are characteristic £bl reptiles, but are also to be seen iic'tho jaws of ceitain whales. Laymen must, have patience with, professional zoologists who hesitate toicredit the existence pt a "most ugly beast," -which 'combines, characteristics of "amphibian,,,, leptile, and mammal. Such a beast .would be a kind of monster of which zoologists have had no experience hitherto. < SCORES OF WITNESSES. All the laymen, who have visited Loch Ness to collect'evidence at first hand lav-groat" stress, on the number of witnesses that' can tbe produced. Scores df men and women claim to~ha\e seen tlie monster in1 the' wateis of Loch Ness or basking on its shores. Strange to say, sit is just the greut number of witnesses and the disci epancy of their testimony that have convinced professional zoologists that the.Loch Ness monster is not a thing of flesh and bipod. Tor,' seeing; that monstrosaurus has been seen by so many people, at s& many timos and in so many places, then, concrete and unmistakable evidence of its csistrnce should ha\e beon at our disposal long befqre now. A Jive hippppotamus or a dolphin could not hide itself in Loch Ness fropx prying human eyes for a week, to say nothing of three months. The_ only kind of being whose existence is testified' to by' scores of witnesses, and which never reaches the dissecting table, belongs not to the material world but to the world of spirits. Or, indeed, such creations may exist only in the human imagination. So many people assured me they had seen railway trains laden with Eussian soldiers pass through England in the first year of the war that I nover doubted their statements; yet not a single soldier from Bussia was actually transported through England. Then there were tho Angels of Mons. Most reliable witnesses testified to hay. ing actually seen them. Yet not a single anatomist accepts the possibility of a flesh and blood angel. A vertebiato animal may have arms, or it may have wings, but one with both arms and wing* has never been sfeen in the flesh. I spent my boyhood on the banks of a, driver -which flows into the Moray