"NATURE'S" VERDICT ON THE MONSTER

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 71, 24 March 1934, Page 19

"NATURE'S" VERDICT ON THE MONSTER

The widely celebrated "Loch Ness monster" is neither a prehistoric plesiosaurusnor a sea serpent of the ancients, but only a large grey seal which lias strayed from its natural habitat, according to "Nature," an authoritative scientific journal, reports the "New York Times."

The controversy over the identity of the denizen that has lately been disporting itself in inland Scottish waters has been mostly confined to layman eyewitnesses, except for Sir Arthur Keith, the noted anthropologist, who wrote an article for the "Daily Mail," saying he believed tho monster was not a thing of flesh and blood, but a fan-' tasy. ■ .. . ■

An .issue of "Nature" sums up tho whole remarkable ease on which so much ink has been spilt in Fleet Street. It.says:— . .

■"A species of seal occurs not infrequently in Moray Firth, -whence it probably conies from the nearest breeding grounds, in the Orkney Islands. It

is a common species of the western isles of Scotland."

"Nature's" expeit examined the original negative- which purported to be a photograph of the alleged monster and declared the object represented no animal known to science. He said the evidence of the monster's great - size, seen in a spoor about which fantastic tales had been spread, was unsupported. •'■ ■;'"'-.■

The "Illustrated London. News" devoted its first three, pages entirely to various drawings of the alleged monster male by a special artist from conflicting reports of different observers. All the sketches in which the head is visible depict roughly the same sort of small fat head, which might easily be that of a seal, although the neck is generally somewhat elongated. It is certain, however, that "Nature's" verdict will not satisfy hordes of observers, local and otherwise, who are watching from the shores' of Loch Ness. Such a simple solution obviously would remove all the charm from the great Loch Ness mystery.