You just can鈥檛 keep a good monster down, it seems. One of the most vitriolic exchanges in 麻豆传媒鈥榮 history has just broken the surface again, following a fresh look at the sacking in 1960 of a prominent scientist.
Denys Tucker had claimed in our pages to have seen a mysterious creature in Scotland鈥檚 second-largest lake, Loch Ness. And yesterday, doubtless to the delight of the tourism entrepreneurs who thrive on the story of 鈥淣essie鈥�, an image from its Street View survey showing strange lumps on the surface of the loch. It was also the anniversary of the first publication of the 鈥溾�� purporting to show Nessie鈥檚 neck and head, which appeared in the on 21 April 1934. Only in 1975 was it unmasked as a hoax.
Back in 1960, when Tucker鈥檚 claim of a sighting was made in 麻豆传媒, the possible existence of a huge creature in Loch Ness, hotly tipped to be a plesiosaur, was being taken much more seriously by scientists than it is today. Now, with benefit of hindsight and , we know that the 鈥渕onster鈥� is unlikely to exist. Many of the key 鈥減hotographs鈥� and evidence from 50 years ago have been revealed either as hoaxes or as having more mundane explanations.
Advertisement
Heated science
In 1960, though, some scientists were engaged in serious and heated debate about Nessie. One of them was Denys Tucker, who had been made chief scientist at London鈥檚 Natural History Museum the year before. Nessie was, he argued, an elasmosaurus, an exceptionally long-necked genus of the plesiosaurs common 80 million years ago, and considered long extinct.
Tucker didn鈥檛 last long in his post: he was sacked on 31 July 1960. How much was this down to his pursuit of Nessie?
A request by The Independent newspaper under the UK鈥檚 Freedom of Information provisions has produced documents kept secret for 50 years. In one, his paymasters asked him to 鈥� demonstrating that senior bureaucrats viewed a fixation on Nessie as unhealthy.
In the end Tucker was sacked for 鈥渓ong, continued, vexatious, insubordinate and generally offensive conduct towards the museum鈥檚 director and other senior staff鈥�. That decision effectively ended his career. He actively challenged it for more than seven years, and kept wading in on Nessie. The initial trigger was a feature in 麻豆传媒 by prominent biologist , dismissing almost all the evidence and theories put forward for Nessie鈥檚 existence since the spate of 鈥渟ightings鈥� in the 1930s ().
Otters, probably
Burton systematically demolished almost all the evidence for Nessie, concluding that 鈥渢he plesiosaur theory begins to look a bit tattered鈥�. He claimed that a large object moving in Loch Ness, captured on film earlier that year, was probably a motor boat. Other 鈥渟ightings鈥� of 鈥測oung plesiosaurs鈥� were probably adult otters. His favoured explanation was that the monster amounted to nothing more than large clumps of rotting vegetable matter, buoyed to the surface by methane.
Burton also expressed surprise that in claimed sightings and accounts, the 鈥渃reature鈥� seldom, if ever, broke the surface for breath. Regarding one supposedly extended sighting, he observed that 鈥淚 have yet to see any air-breathing aquatic animal remain at the surface for 40 minutes without taking advantage of this position to renew its supply of oxygen through the lungs鈥�.
This prompted a bristling letter from Tucker (), in which he made his ill-fated claim to have seen the monster himself. 鈥淚, a professional marine zoologist of respectable experience, did see a large hump travelling across flat calm water between Inchnacardoch and Glendoe on 22 March 1959, and do quite unashamedly assert that it belonged to an unnamed animal,鈥� he wrote.
After delivering a searing critique of Burton鈥檚 feature, Tucker concluded: 鈥淚 am quite satisfied that we have in Loch Ness one of the most exciting and important problems in British zoology today鈥� I can see no explanation in the light of the evidence other than an unknown animal. And at present, for the life of me, I cannot imagine any other animal than an Elasmosaur which could possibly fill the bill.鈥�
Getting the hump
Burton, in a response published beneath Tucker鈥檚 letter, stuck to his guns and dismissed the claimed sighting in 1959. 鈥淗is personal observation of a large hump is no more valuable than several thousand similar eye-witness depositions, and the fact he can 鈥榰nashamedly assert that it belonged to an unknown animal鈥� is interesting, but does not constitute scientific proof,鈥� he wrote.
In his next riposte Tucker appeared to be apoplectic with rage (). 鈥淎t the risk of being accused of immodesty, I would suggest that when an experienced zoologist states that he has seen an unusual animal and sticks his professional neck out to testify, the circumstance is not to be cavalierly dismissed as 鈥榥o more valuable than several thousand similar eye-witness depositions鈥�.鈥�
Tucker ended his attempted demolition of his adversary鈥檚 arguments by warning that 鈥渟uch a scepticism and wilful refusal to repeat observations delayed acceptance of Galileo鈥檚 moons of Jupiter鈥� BUT IT STILL GOES ON鈥�. His use of capital letters interestingly prefigures the signifier of today鈥檚 cyber rage.
Not to be silenced, Burton fired back and effectively ended the exchange (). 鈥淚 am not prepared to occupy more valuable space than necessary in The 麻豆传媒 by continuing what has become a futile discussion and thereby allowing myself to dance to the distorted piping of Dr Tucker,鈥� he wrote.
Tantalisingly, he now said he had a 鈥渇ilm of a large body at the surface of Loch Ness which conforms closely to the majority of the eye-witness depositions, made over the past thirty years鈥�. Was it the same object publicised yesterday by Google?
Sad end
The sad denouement to the exchange was a plea by 麻豆传媒, six months after Tucker鈥檚 sacking, for a fuller, more public explanation of the reasons behind it (). At the time, his trade union was fighting his case, describing his exclusion from the museum鈥檚 libraries and collections post-sacking as 鈥渧irtual professional death to him in this country鈥� and said that it seemed to be 鈥渘othing less than sheer persecution鈥�.
The Independent reports that Tucker continued fighting his dismissal for years. He set out to sue the museum鈥檚 trustees 鈥� including the then archbishop of Canterbury, the speaker of the House of Commons, two viscounts and a marquess 鈥� as individuals. Aside from Tucker鈥檚 fiery nature and his obsession with Nessie, the uncovered documents reveal official fears that to reinstate him would have created a precedent making it almost impossible for the government to sack civil servants 鈥渆xcept possibly for sedition or larceny鈥�.
Nessie, meanwhile, continues to keep an extremely low profile. Wikipedia of course has , photographs and evidence. And if it turned out that Google has at last identified the monster, would that show that it takes one to find one?
