Small but deadly!The blue ringed octupus. (how does this animals' venom effect)
![Picture](/uploads/1/0/0/1/10011167/6858111.jpg)
First you will feel nauseous. Your vision becomes hazy. Within seconds you
are blind. You lose your sense of touch. You cannot speak or swallow. Three
minutes later you are paralyzed and unable to breath.
You knew that the blue-ringed octopus is extremely poisonous but how were you
to know that this was one when its tiny parrot-like beak bit through your
wetsuit. The last thing the victim sees are the blue rings – visible only when
it is about to attack.
The blue-ringed octopus is the size of a golf ball but its poison is powerful
enough to kill an adult human in minutes. There’s no known antidote. The only
treatment is hours of heart massage and artificial respiration until the poison
has worked its way out of your system.
The poison is not injected but is contained in the octopus’s saliva, which
comes from two glands each as big as its brain. Poison from the one is used on
its main prey, crabs, and is relatively harmless to humans. Poison from the
other gland serves as defense against predators. The blue-ringed octopus either
secretes the poison in the vicinity of its prey, waits until it is immobile and
then devours it, or it jumps out and envelops the prey in its 8 tentacles and
bites it.
There are two species of blue-ringed octopus: the Hapalochlaena lunulata,
which is the larger and grows up to 20cm (8 in) across its stretched tentacles.
The other, the Hapalochlaena maculosa, is small and more common, weighing a mere
28 grams (1 oz). They are found in the shallow coral and rock pools of
Australia. And they’re rather cute, being brown or yellow in color. But don’t
pick one up – by the time you see the electric-blue rings, it’s too
late!
See: The
blue-ringed octopus
are blind. You lose your sense of touch. You cannot speak or swallow. Three
minutes later you are paralyzed and unable to breath.
You knew that the blue-ringed octopus is extremely poisonous but how were you
to know that this was one when its tiny parrot-like beak bit through your
wetsuit. The last thing the victim sees are the blue rings – visible only when
it is about to attack.
The blue-ringed octopus is the size of a golf ball but its poison is powerful
enough to kill an adult human in minutes. There’s no known antidote. The only
treatment is hours of heart massage and artificial respiration until the poison
has worked its way out of your system.
The poison is not injected but is contained in the octopus’s saliva, which
comes from two glands each as big as its brain. Poison from the one is used on
its main prey, crabs, and is relatively harmless to humans. Poison from the
other gland serves as defense against predators. The blue-ringed octopus either
secretes the poison in the vicinity of its prey, waits until it is immobile and
then devours it, or it jumps out and envelops the prey in its 8 tentacles and
bites it.
There are two species of blue-ringed octopus: the Hapalochlaena lunulata,
which is the larger and grows up to 20cm (8 in) across its stretched tentacles.
The other, the Hapalochlaena maculosa, is small and more common, weighing a mere
28 grams (1 oz). They are found in the shallow coral and rock pools of
Australia. And they’re rather cute, being brown or yellow in color. But don’t
pick one up – by the time you see the electric-blue rings, it’s too
late!
See: The
blue-ringed octopus
Candiru (English and Portuguese) or candirú (Spanish), also known as cañero,
toothpick fish, or vampire fish, are a number of genera of parasitic freshwater catfish in the family Trichomycteridae; all are native to the Amazon River. Although some candiru species have
been known to grow to a size of 40 centimetres (16 in) in length, others are
considerably smaller. These smaller species are known for an alleged tendency to
invade and parasitise the human urethra; however, despite ethnological reports
dating back to the late 19th century,[1] the
first documented case of the removal of a candiru from a human urethra did not
occur until 1997, and even that incident has remained a matter of controversy.
The definition of candiru differs between authors. The word has been
used to refer to only Vandellia cirrhosa, the entire genus Vandellia, the subfamily Vandelliinae, or even the two subfamilies
Vandelliinae and Stegophilinae.[2][3][4][5]
Contents [hide]
[edit] Physical description
Candirus are small fish. Adults can grow to around 40 centimetres (16 in)
with a rather small head and a belly that can appear distended, especially after
a large blood meal. The body is translucent, making it quite difficult to spot
in the turbid waters of its home. There are short sensory barbels around the
head, together with short, backward pointing spines on the gill covers.[6]
[edit] Location and habitat
Candirus (Vandellia) inhabit the Amazon and Orinoco rivers of lowland Amazonia,
where they constitute part of the Neotropical fish fauna. Candirus are hematophagous and parasitize the gills of larger
Amazonian fishes, especially catfishes of the family Pimelodidae (Siluriformes).
[edit] Attacks on humans: myth vs. fact
Although lurid anecdotes of attacks on humans abound, very few
cases have been verified, and some alleged traits of the fish have been
discredited as myth or superstition.
[edit] Historical accounts
The earliest published report on this candiru attacking human hosts comes
from German biologist C. F. P. von Martius in 1829, who never actually
observed it, but rather was told about it by the native people of the area,
including that men would tie a ligature around their penis while going into the
river to prevent this from happening. Other sources also suggest that other
tribes in the area used various forms of protective coverings for their genitals
while bathing, though it was also suggested that these were to prevent bites
from piranha. Martius also speculated that the fish were attracted by the "odor"
of urine.[7] Later
experimental evidence showed this to be false, as the fish actually hunt by
sight and have no attraction to urine at all.[8]
Another report from French naturalist Frances de Castelnau in 1855 relates an
allegation by local Araguay fisherman, saying that it is dangerous to urinate in
the river as the fish "springs out of the water and penetrates into the urethra
by ascending the length of the liquid column."[9] While
Castelnau himself dismissed this claim as "absolutely preposterous," and the fluid mechanics of such a thing occurring defy
the laws of physics, it remains one of the more stubborn myths about the
candiru. It has been suggested this claim evolved out of the real observation
that certain species of fish in the Amazon will gather at the surface near the
point where a urine stream enters, having been attracted by the noise and
agitation of the water.[10]
In 1836 Eduard Poeppig documented a statement by a local
physician in Pará, known only as Dr. Lacerda, who offered an
eyewitness account of a case where a candiru had entered a human orifice.
However, it was lodged in a native woman's vagina, rather than a male urethra.
He relates that the fish was extracted after external and internal application
of the juice from a Xagua plant (believed to be a name for Genipa americana). Another account was documented
by biologist George A. Boulenger from a Brazilian physician named Dr. Bach, who
examined a man and several boys whose penises had been amputated. Bach believed
this was a remedy performed because of parasitism by candiru, but he was merely
speculating as he did not speak his patients' language.[11]
American biologist Eugene Willis Gudger noted the area the patients were from
did not have candiru in its rivers, and suggested the amputations were much more
likely the result of having been attacked by piranha.[10]
In 1891, naturalist Paul Le Cointe provides a rare first-hand account of a
candiru entering a human body, and like Lacerda's account, it involved the fish
being lodged in the vaginal canal, not the urethra. Le Cointe actually removed
the fish himself, by pushing it forward to disengage the spines, turning it
around and removing it head-first.[12]
Gudger, in 1930, noted there have been several other cases reported wherein
the fish entered the vaginal canal, but not a single case of a candiru entering
the anus was ever documented. According to Gudger, this lends credence to the
unlikelihood of the fish entering the male urethra, based on the comparatively
small opening that would only accommodate the most immature members of the
species.[10]
It was also once thought that the fish was attracted to urine, as the
candiru's primary prey emits urea from its gills, but this was later
discredited in formal experimentation.[4][8]
Indeed, the fish appears not to have any response to any chemical attractants,
and primarily hunts by visual tracking.[8]
[edit] Modern
case
To date, there is only one documented case of a candiru entering a human
urinary system, which took place in Itacoatiara, Brazil in 1997.[13][14] In
this incident, the victim (a 23-year-old man known only as "F.B.C.") claimed a
candiru "jumped" from the water into his urethra as he urinated while thigh-deep
in a river.[15] After
traveling to Manaus on October 28, 1997, the victim underwent
a two-hour urological surgery by Dr. Anoar Samad to remove
the fish from his body.[14]
In 1999, American marine biologist Stephen Spotte traveled to
Brazil to investigate this particular incident in detail. He recounts the events
of his investigation in his book Candiru: Life and Legend of the Bloodsucking
Catfishes.[16]
Spotte met with Dr. Samad in person and interviewed him at his practice and
home. Samad gave him photos, the original VHS tape of the cystoscopy procedure, and the actual fish's body
preserved in formalin as his donation to the INPA.[17]
Spotte and his colleague Paulo Petry took these materials and examined them at
the INPA, comparing them with Samad's formal paper.
While Spotte did not overtly express any conclusions as to the veracity of the
incident, he did remark on several observations that were suspicious about the
claims of the patient and/or Samad himself.
[edit] In
literature
William S. Burroughs wrote about the candiru in
his 1959 novel Naked Lunch, describing it as "a small
eel-like fish or worm about one-quarter inch through and two inches long
patronizing certain rivers of ill repute in the Greater Amazon Basin, will dart
up your prick or your asshole or a woman's cunt faute de mieux, and hold
himself there by sharp spines with precisely what motives is not known since no
one has stepped forward to observe the candiru's life-cycle in situ."[22]
Burroughs also mentioned it in The Yage Letters: "At that time I was
stationed at the remote jungle outpost of Candiru, so named from a tiny eel like
fish that infests the rivers of that area. This vicious fish introduces itself
into the most intimate parts of the human body, maintaining itself there by
poisonous barbs while it feeds on the soft membranes".[23] The
fish is also referred to in David Grann's The
Lost City of Z and in Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club.
[edit] References
toothpick fish, or vampire fish, are a number of genera of parasitic freshwater catfish in the family Trichomycteridae; all are native to the Amazon River. Although some candiru species have
been known to grow to a size of 40 centimetres (16 in) in length, others are
considerably smaller. These smaller species are known for an alleged tendency to
invade and parasitise the human urethra; however, despite ethnological reports
dating back to the late 19th century,[1] the
first documented case of the removal of a candiru from a human urethra did not
occur until 1997, and even that incident has remained a matter of controversy.
The definition of candiru differs between authors. The word has been
used to refer to only Vandellia cirrhosa, the entire genus Vandellia, the subfamily Vandelliinae, or even the two subfamilies
Vandelliinae and Stegophilinae.[2][3][4][5]
Contents [hide]
- 1 Physical description
- 2 Location and habitat
- 3 Attacks on humans: myth vs. fact
- 4 In
literature - 5 References
- 6 External
links
[edit] Physical description
Candirus are small fish. Adults can grow to around 40 centimetres (16 in)
with a rather small head and a belly that can appear distended, especially after
a large blood meal. The body is translucent, making it quite difficult to spot
in the turbid waters of its home. There are short sensory barbels around the
head, together with short, backward pointing spines on the gill covers.[6]
[edit] Location and habitat
Candirus (Vandellia) inhabit the Amazon and Orinoco rivers of lowland Amazonia,
where they constitute part of the Neotropical fish fauna. Candirus are hematophagous and parasitize the gills of larger
Amazonian fishes, especially catfishes of the family Pimelodidae (Siluriformes).
[edit] Attacks on humans: myth vs. fact
Although lurid anecdotes of attacks on humans abound, very few
cases have been verified, and some alleged traits of the fish have been
discredited as myth or superstition.
[edit] Historical accounts
The earliest published report on this candiru attacking human hosts comes
from German biologist C. F. P. von Martius in 1829, who never actually
observed it, but rather was told about it by the native people of the area,
including that men would tie a ligature around their penis while going into the
river to prevent this from happening. Other sources also suggest that other
tribes in the area used various forms of protective coverings for their genitals
while bathing, though it was also suggested that these were to prevent bites
from piranha. Martius also speculated that the fish were attracted by the "odor"
of urine.[7] Later
experimental evidence showed this to be false, as the fish actually hunt by
sight and have no attraction to urine at all.[8]
Another report from French naturalist Frances de Castelnau in 1855 relates an
allegation by local Araguay fisherman, saying that it is dangerous to urinate in
the river as the fish "springs out of the water and penetrates into the urethra
by ascending the length of the liquid column."[9] While
Castelnau himself dismissed this claim as "absolutely preposterous," and the fluid mechanics of such a thing occurring defy
the laws of physics, it remains one of the more stubborn myths about the
candiru. It has been suggested this claim evolved out of the real observation
that certain species of fish in the Amazon will gather at the surface near the
point where a urine stream enters, having been attracted by the noise and
agitation of the water.[10]
In 1836 Eduard Poeppig documented a statement by a local
physician in Pará, known only as Dr. Lacerda, who offered an
eyewitness account of a case where a candiru had entered a human orifice.
However, it was lodged in a native woman's vagina, rather than a male urethra.
He relates that the fish was extracted after external and internal application
of the juice from a Xagua plant (believed to be a name for Genipa americana). Another account was documented
by biologist George A. Boulenger from a Brazilian physician named Dr. Bach, who
examined a man and several boys whose penises had been amputated. Bach believed
this was a remedy performed because of parasitism by candiru, but he was merely
speculating as he did not speak his patients' language.[11]
American biologist Eugene Willis Gudger noted the area the patients were from
did not have candiru in its rivers, and suggested the amputations were much more
likely the result of having been attacked by piranha.[10]
In 1891, naturalist Paul Le Cointe provides a rare first-hand account of a
candiru entering a human body, and like Lacerda's account, it involved the fish
being lodged in the vaginal canal, not the urethra. Le Cointe actually removed
the fish himself, by pushing it forward to disengage the spines, turning it
around and removing it head-first.[12]
Gudger, in 1930, noted there have been several other cases reported wherein
the fish entered the vaginal canal, but not a single case of a candiru entering
the anus was ever documented. According to Gudger, this lends credence to the
unlikelihood of the fish entering the male urethra, based on the comparatively
small opening that would only accommodate the most immature members of the
species.[10]
It was also once thought that the fish was attracted to urine, as the
candiru's primary prey emits urea from its gills, but this was later
discredited in formal experimentation.[4][8]
Indeed, the fish appears not to have any response to any chemical attractants,
and primarily hunts by visual tracking.[8]
[edit] Modern
case
To date, there is only one documented case of a candiru entering a human
urinary system, which took place in Itacoatiara, Brazil in 1997.[13][14] In
this incident, the victim (a 23-year-old man known only as "F.B.C.") claimed a
candiru "jumped" from the water into his urethra as he urinated while thigh-deep
in a river.[15] After
traveling to Manaus on October 28, 1997, the victim underwent
a two-hour urological surgery by Dr. Anoar Samad to remove
the fish from his body.[14]
In 1999, American marine biologist Stephen Spotte traveled to
Brazil to investigate this particular incident in detail. He recounts the events
of his investigation in his book Candiru: Life and Legend of the Bloodsucking
Catfishes.[16]
Spotte met with Dr. Samad in person and interviewed him at his practice and
home. Samad gave him photos, the original VHS tape of the cystoscopy procedure, and the actual fish's body
preserved in formalin as his donation to the INPA.[17]
Spotte and his colleague Paulo Petry took these materials and examined them at
the INPA, comparing them with Samad's formal paper.
While Spotte did not overtly express any conclusions as to the veracity of the
incident, he did remark on several observations that were suspicious about the
claims of the patient and/or Samad himself.
- According to Samad, the patient claimed "the fish had darted out of the
water, up the urine stream, and into his urethra." While this is the most
popularly known legendary trait of the candiru, according to Spotte it has been
known conclusively to be a myth for more than a century, as it is impossible due
to simple fluid physics.[18] - The documentation and specimen provided indicate a fish that was 133.5 mm in
length and had a head with a diameter of 11.5 mm. This would have required
significant force to pry the urethra open to this extent. The candiru has no
appendages or other apparatus that would have been necessary to accomplish this,
and if it were leaping out of the water as the patient claimed, it would not
have had sufficient leverage to force its way inside.[19] - Samad's paper claims the fish must have been attracted by the urine.[14] This
belief about the fish has been around for centuries, but was discredited in
2001.[8] While
this was merely speculation on Samad's part based on the prevailing scientific
knowledge at the time, it somewhat erodes the patient's story by eliminating the
motivation for the fish to have attacked him in the first place. - Samad claimed the fish had "chewed" its way through the ventral wall of the
urethra into the patient's scrotum. Spotte notes that the candiru does not
possess the right teeth or strong enough dentition to have been capable of
this.[20] - Samad claimed he had to snip the candiru's grasping spikes off in order to
extract it, yet the specimen provided had all its spikes intact.[19] - The cystoscopy video depicts traveling into to a tubular space (presumed to
be the patient's urethra) containing the fish's carcass and then pulling it out
backwards through the urethral opening,[17]
something that would have been almost impossible with the fish's spikes
intact.[21]
[edit] In
literature
William S. Burroughs wrote about the candiru in
his 1959 novel Naked Lunch, describing it as "a small
eel-like fish or worm about one-quarter inch through and two inches long
patronizing certain rivers of ill repute in the Greater Amazon Basin, will dart
up your prick or your asshole or a woman's cunt faute de mieux, and hold
himself there by sharp spines with precisely what motives is not known since no
one has stepped forward to observe the candiru's life-cycle in situ."[22]
Burroughs also mentioned it in The Yage Letters: "At that time I was
stationed at the remote jungle outpost of Candiru, so named from a tiny eel like
fish that infests the rivers of that area. This vicious fish introduces itself
into the most intimate parts of the human body, maintaining itself there by
poisonous barbs while it feeds on the soft membranes".[23] The
fish is also referred to in David Grann's The
Lost City of Z and in Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club.
[edit] References
- ^ Ricciuti, Edward R.; Bird, Jonathan (2003).
Killers of the Seas: The Dangerous Creatures That Threaten Man in an Alien
Environment. The Lyons Press. ISBN 978-1-58574-869-3. - ^ Froese,
Rainer, and Daniel Pauly, eds. (2007). "Vandellia
cirrhosa" in FishBase. July 2007 version. - ^ Breault, J.L. (1991). "Candiru: Amazonian parasitic
catfish". Journal of Wilderness Medicine 2 (4):
304–312. doi:10.1580/0953-9859-2.4.304. http://www.wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0953-9859&volume=002&issue=04&page=0304. [dead link] - ^ a b de Carvalho, Marcelo R. (2003). "Analyse D'Ouvrage"
(PDF). Cybium 27 (2): 82. http://www.mnhn.fr/sfi/cybium/numeros/pdf/272pdf/01.analysecarvalho.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-22. - ^ DoNascimiento, Carlos; Provenzano, Francisco (2006).
"The Genus Henonemus (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae) with a Description
of a New Species from Venezuela". Copeia 2006 (2): 198–205. doi:10.1643/0045-8511(2006)6[198:TGHSTW]2.0.CO;2. - ^ Piper, Ross (2007), Extraordinary Animals: An
Encyclopedia of Curious and Unusual Animals, Greenwood Press, ISBN 978-0-313-33922-6. - ^ von
Martius, C. F. P. 1829.Preface, p. viii, of van Spix, J. B., and Agassiz, L.
Selecta Genera et Species Piscium ouos in Itinere ocr Brnsiliam annis 1817-20
Collcgit ... Dr. J. B. de Spix, etc. Monachii, 1829. - ^ a b c d Spotte, Stephen; Petry, Paulo; Zuanon, Jansen A.S.
(2001). "Experiments on the feeding behavior of the hematophagous candiru".
Environmental Biology of Fishes 60 (4): 459–464. doi:10.1023/A:1011081027565. - ^ CASTELNAU, FRANCIS DE. 1855. Expedition dans les Partics
Cent&es de I'AmPrique du Sud, 1843 a 1847. Animaux Nouveaux ou
Rares-Zoology. Paris, 3: 50, p1. 24, fig. 4. - ^ a b c Gudger, E.W. (January 1930). "On the alleged
penetration of the human urethra by an Amazonian catfish called candiru with a
review of the allied habits of other members of the family pygidiidae" (Print).
The American Journal of Surgery (Elsevier Inc.) 8 (1): 170–188. doi:10.1016/S0002-9610(30)90912-9. ISSN 00029610. - ^ BWLENGER, G. A. 1898a. Exhibition of specimens, and
remarks upon the habits of the siluroid fish, Vandellia cirrhosu. Proc. Zool.
Sot. London [1897], p. 90 I. - ^ Le
Cointe, Paul. 1922. L'Amazonie Bresilienne: Le Pays; Ses Inhabitants, scs
Ressources. Notes et Statistiques jusqu'en 1920. Paris, II: 365. - ^ Spotte, p.211
- ^ a b c "this
was the only documented evidence of an accident involving humans." Anoar Samad,
"Candiru inside the
urethra". Google translation from Portuguese, with
pictures. - ^ "Can the candiru fish swim upstream into
your urethra (revisited)?". The Straight Dope. 7 September
2001. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010907.html. - ^ Spotte, Stephen. (2002). Candiru : life and legend of
the bloodsucking catfishes. Berkeley, Calif.: Creative Arts Book Co.. ISBN 0-88739-469-8. - ^ a b Spotte,
p.217 - ^ Spotte, p.216
- ^ a b Spotte,
p.218 - ^ Spotte, p.214
- ^ Spotte, p.215
- ^ Burroughs, William S. Naked Lunch, the restored
text edition, edited by James Grauerholtz and Barry Miles, 2001. Page
38 - ^ Burroughs, William S. and Allen Ginsberg. The Yage Letters. San Francisco: City Lights
Books, 1963. ISBN 0-87286-004-3 Page
92.
Kraken
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Kraken
(disambiguation).
Kraken
The colossal octopus: pen and wash
drawing by malacologist Pierre Dénys de Montfort, 1801, from the
descriptions of French sailors reportedly attacked by such a creature off the
coast of Angola
Mythology
Norse
Grouping
Legendary creature
Sub-grouping
Sea
monster
Country
Greenland
Habitat
Greenland Sea
Kraken ( /ˈkreɪkən/ or /ˈkrɑːkən/)[1] are
legendary sea
monsters of giant proportions said to dwell off the coasts of Norway
and Greenland.
The legend may actually have originated from sightings of real giant
squid that are variously estimated to grow to 13–15 m (40–50 ft)
in length, including the tentacles.[2][3] These
creatures normally live at great depths, but have been sighted at the surface
and have reportedly attacked ships.[4]
The sheer size and fearsome appearance attributed to the kraken have made it
a common ocean-dwelling monster in various fictional works.
Contents [hide]
[edit] History
The 13th century Old Icelandic saga Örvar-Odds saga tells of two massive
sea-monsters called Hafgufa ("sea mist") and Lyngbakr ("heather-back"). The hafgufa is believed to
be a reference to the kraken:
Now I will tell you that there are two sea-monsters. One is called the
hafgufa (sea-mist), another lyngbakr (heather-back). Whales are
the biggest of everything in the world, but the hafgufa is the greatest
monster occurring in the water. It is its nature that it swallows both men and
ships and whales and everything that it can reach. It is submerged both by day
and night together, and when it strikes up its head and nose above the surface,
then it stays at least until the turn of the tide. Now, that sound we sailed
through? We sailed between its jaws, and its nose and lower jaw were those rocks
that appeared to you in the ocean, while the lyngbakr was the island we
saw sinking down. However, Ǫgmundur Floki has sent these creatures to you by
means of his secret arts for to cause the death of you and all your men. He
thought that more men should have gone the same way as those that had already
drowned, and he expected that the hafgufa would have swallowed us all.
Today I sailed through its mouth because I knew that it had recently
surfaced."[5]
After returning from Greenland, the anonymous author of the Old
Norwegian scientific work Konungs skuggsjá (circa 1250) described in detail the physical characteristics
and feeding behavior of these beasts. The narrator proposed there must only be
two in existence, stemming from the observation that the beasts have always been
sighted in the same parts of the Greenland Sea, and that each seemed incapable of
reproduction, as there was no increase in their numbers.
"There is a fish that is still unmentioned, which it is scarcely advisable
to speak about on account of its size, because it will seem to most people
incredible. There are only a very few who can speak upon it clearly, because it
is seldom near land nor appears where it may be seen by fishermen, and I suppose
there are not many of this sort of fish in the sea. Most often in our tongue we
call it hafgufa. Nor can I conclusively speak about its length in ells,
because the times he has shown before men, he has appeared more like land than
like a fish. Neither have I heard that one had been caught or found dead; and it
seems to me as though there must be no more than two in the oceans, and I deem
that each is unable to reproduce itself, for I believe that they are always the
same ones. Then too, neither would it do for other fish if the hafgufa
were of such a number as other whales, on account of their vastness, and how
much subsistence that they need. It is said to be the nature of these fish that
when one shall desire to eat, then it stretches up its neck with a great
belching, and following this belching comes forth much food, so that all kinds
of fish that are near to hand will come to present location, then will gather
together, both small and large, believing they shall obtain there food and good
eating; but this great fish lets its mouth stand open the while, and the gap is
no less wide than that of a great sound or fjord, And nor may the fish avoid
running together there in their great numbers. But as soon as its stomach and
mouth is full, then it locks together its jaws and has the fish all caught and
enclosed, that before greedily came there looking for food."[6]
Carolus Linnaeus classified the kraken as a cephalopod, designating the scientific name
Microcosmus marinus in the first edition of his Systema Naturae (1735), a taxonomic
classification of living organisms. The creature was excluded from later
editions.[7][8]
Linnaeus' later work, Fauna Suecica (1746) calls the creature
singulare monstrum, "a unique monster", and says of it Habitare fertur
in mari Norwegico, ipse non dum animal vidi, "It is said to inhabit the seas
of Norway, but I have not seen this animal".[9]
Kraken were also extensively described by Erik Pontoppidan, bishop
of Bergen, in his Det Forste Forsorg paa Norges Naturlige
Historie "Natural History of Norway" (Copenhagen, 1752–3).[10][11]
Pontoppidan made several claims regarding kraken, including the notion that the
creature was sometimes mistaken for an island[12] and
that the real danger to sailors was not the creature itself but rather the whirlpool
left in its wake.[13]
However, Pontoppidan also described the destructive potential of the giant
beast: "it is said that if [the creature's arms] were to lay hold of the largest
man-of-war, they would pull it down to the
bottom".[12][13][14]
According to Pontoppidan, Norwegian fishermen often took the risk of trying to
fish over kraken, since the catch was so plentiful[8] (hence
the saying "You must have fished on Kraken"[15]).
Pontoppidan also proposed that a specimen of the monster, "perhaps a young and
careless one", was washed ashore and died at Alstahaug in 1680.[14][16] By
1755, Pontoppidan's description of the kraken had been translated into
English.[17]
Swedish author Jacob Wallenberg described the kraken in the 1781 work Min
son på galejan ("My son on the galley"):[18]
... Kraken, also called the Crab-fish, which is not that huge, for heads and
tails counted, he is no larger than our Öland is wide [i.e., less than 16 km] ... He
stays at the sea floor, constantly surrounded by innumerable small fishes, who
serve as his food and are fed by him in return: for his meal, (if I remember
correctly what E. Pontoppidan writes,) lasts no longer than three months, and
another three are then needed to digest it. His excrements nurture in the
following an army of lesser fish, and for this reason, fishermen plumb after his
resting place ... Gradually, Kraken ascends to the surface, and when he is at
ten to twelve fathoms, the boats had better move out of his
vicinity, as he will shortly thereafter burst up, like a floating island,
spurting water from his dreadful nostrils and making ring waves around him,
which can reach many miles. Could one doubt that this is the Leviathan of Job?
Pierre Dénys de Montfort's "Poulpe Colossal"
attacks a merchant ship (1810)
In 1802, the French malacologist Pierre
Dénys de Montfort recognized the existence of two kinds of giant
octopus in Histoire Naturelle Générale et Particulière des Mollusques, an
encyclopedic description of mollusks. Montfort claimed that the first type, the
kraken octopus, had been described by Norwegian sailors and American
whalers, as well as ancient writers such as Pliny the Elder. The much larger second type, the
colossal octopus, was reported to have
attacked a sailing vessel from Saint-Malo, off the coast of Angola.[12]
Montfort later dared more sensational claims. He proposed that ten British
warships, including the captured French ship of the line Ville de Paris, which had mysteriously
disappeared one night in 1782, must have been attacked and sunk by giant
octopuses. The British, however, knew—courtesy of a survivor from the Ville
de Paris—that the ships had been lost in a hurricane off the coast of Newfoundland in September 1782, resulting in a
disgraceful revelation for Montfort.[8]
[edit] Appearance and origins
Since the late 18th century, kraken have been depicted in a number of ways,
primarily as large octopus-like creatures, and it has often
been alleged that Pontoppidan's kraken might have been based on sailors'
observations of the giant squid. In the earliest descriptions,
however, the creatures were more crab-like[16] than
octopus-like,
and generally possessed traits that are associated with large whales rather than with giant squid. Some traits
of kraken resemble undersea volcanic activity occurring in the Iceland region, including bubbles of water;
sudden, dangerous currents; and appearance of new islets.[citation needed]
Later versions of the legend may have originated from sightings of real giant squid, which are variously estimated to
grow to 13–15 m (40–50 ft) in length (including tentacles).[2][3] These
creatures normally live at great depths, but have been sighted at the surface
and have reportedly attacked ships.[4]
[edit] Etymology
The English word kraken is taken from Norwegian but its origins are otherwise
obscure.[19] In
Norwegian, Kraken is the definite form of krake, a word designating
an unhealthy animal or something twisted (cognate with the English crook and crank).[20] In
modern German, Krake (plural and declined singular: Kraken) means octopus, but can also refer to the legendary
Kraken.[21]
[edit] Legacy
Main article: Kraken
in popular culture
An illustration from the original
1870 edition of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by
author Jules
Verne
Although fictional and the subject of myth, the legend of the kraken continues to the
present day, with numerous references existing in popular culture, including film, literature, television, video
games and other miscellaneous examples (e.g. postage stamps, a rollercoaster ride, and a rum product).
In 1830 Alfred Tennyson published the irregular sonnet The Kraken,[22] which
described a massive creature that dwelled at the bottom of the sea:
Below the thunders of the upper deep;
Far far beneath in the abysmal
sea,
His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep
The Kraken sleepeth: faintest
sunlights flee
About his shadowy sides; above him swell
Huge sponges of
millennial growth and height;
And far away into the sickly light,
From
many a wondrous grot and secret cell
Unnumber'd and enormous polypi
Winnow
with giant arms the slumbering green.
There hath he lain for ages, and will
lie
Battening upon huge seaworms in his sleep,
Until the latter fire shall
heat the deep;
Then once by man and angels to be seen,
In roaring he shall
rise and on the surface die.
Pontoppidan's description influenced Jules Verne's depiction of the famous giant squid
in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea from
1870.[citation needed]
Later developments of the kraken image may be traced at Kraken
in popular culture.
[edit] See
also
[edit] References
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Kraken
(disambiguation).
Kraken
The colossal octopus: pen and wash
drawing by malacologist Pierre Dénys de Montfort, 1801, from the
descriptions of French sailors reportedly attacked by such a creature off the
coast of Angola
Mythology
Norse
Grouping
Legendary creature
Sub-grouping
Sea
monster
Country
Greenland
Habitat
Greenland Sea
Kraken ( /ˈkreɪkən/ or /ˈkrɑːkən/)[1] are
legendary sea
monsters of giant proportions said to dwell off the coasts of Norway
and Greenland.
The legend may actually have originated from sightings of real giant
squid that are variously estimated to grow to 13–15 m (40–50 ft)
in length, including the tentacles.[2][3] These
creatures normally live at great depths, but have been sighted at the surface
and have reportedly attacked ships.[4]
The sheer size and fearsome appearance attributed to the kraken have made it
a common ocean-dwelling monster in various fictional works.
Contents [hide]
[edit] History
The 13th century Old Icelandic saga Örvar-Odds saga tells of two massive
sea-monsters called Hafgufa ("sea mist") and Lyngbakr ("heather-back"). The hafgufa is believed to
be a reference to the kraken:
Now I will tell you that there are two sea-monsters. One is called the
hafgufa (sea-mist), another lyngbakr (heather-back). Whales are
the biggest of everything in the world, but the hafgufa is the greatest
monster occurring in the water. It is its nature that it swallows both men and
ships and whales and everything that it can reach. It is submerged both by day
and night together, and when it strikes up its head and nose above the surface,
then it stays at least until the turn of the tide. Now, that sound we sailed
through? We sailed between its jaws, and its nose and lower jaw were those rocks
that appeared to you in the ocean, while the lyngbakr was the island we
saw sinking down. However, Ǫgmundur Floki has sent these creatures to you by
means of his secret arts for to cause the death of you and all your men. He
thought that more men should have gone the same way as those that had already
drowned, and he expected that the hafgufa would have swallowed us all.
Today I sailed through its mouth because I knew that it had recently
surfaced."[5]
After returning from Greenland, the anonymous author of the Old
Norwegian scientific work Konungs skuggsjá (circa 1250) described in detail the physical characteristics
and feeding behavior of these beasts. The narrator proposed there must only be
two in existence, stemming from the observation that the beasts have always been
sighted in the same parts of the Greenland Sea, and that each seemed incapable of
reproduction, as there was no increase in their numbers.
"There is a fish that is still unmentioned, which it is scarcely advisable
to speak about on account of its size, because it will seem to most people
incredible. There are only a very few who can speak upon it clearly, because it
is seldom near land nor appears where it may be seen by fishermen, and I suppose
there are not many of this sort of fish in the sea. Most often in our tongue we
call it hafgufa. Nor can I conclusively speak about its length in ells,
because the times he has shown before men, he has appeared more like land than
like a fish. Neither have I heard that one had been caught or found dead; and it
seems to me as though there must be no more than two in the oceans, and I deem
that each is unable to reproduce itself, for I believe that they are always the
same ones. Then too, neither would it do for other fish if the hafgufa
were of such a number as other whales, on account of their vastness, and how
much subsistence that they need. It is said to be the nature of these fish that
when one shall desire to eat, then it stretches up its neck with a great
belching, and following this belching comes forth much food, so that all kinds
of fish that are near to hand will come to present location, then will gather
together, both small and large, believing they shall obtain there food and good
eating; but this great fish lets its mouth stand open the while, and the gap is
no less wide than that of a great sound or fjord, And nor may the fish avoid
running together there in their great numbers. But as soon as its stomach and
mouth is full, then it locks together its jaws and has the fish all caught and
enclosed, that before greedily came there looking for food."[6]
Carolus Linnaeus classified the kraken as a cephalopod, designating the scientific name
Microcosmus marinus in the first edition of his Systema Naturae (1735), a taxonomic
classification of living organisms. The creature was excluded from later
editions.[7][8]
Linnaeus' later work, Fauna Suecica (1746) calls the creature
singulare monstrum, "a unique monster", and says of it Habitare fertur
in mari Norwegico, ipse non dum animal vidi, "It is said to inhabit the seas
of Norway, but I have not seen this animal".[9]
Kraken were also extensively described by Erik Pontoppidan, bishop
of Bergen, in his Det Forste Forsorg paa Norges Naturlige
Historie "Natural History of Norway" (Copenhagen, 1752–3).[10][11]
Pontoppidan made several claims regarding kraken, including the notion that the
creature was sometimes mistaken for an island[12] and
that the real danger to sailors was not the creature itself but rather the whirlpool
left in its wake.[13]
However, Pontoppidan also described the destructive potential of the giant
beast: "it is said that if [the creature's arms] were to lay hold of the largest
man-of-war, they would pull it down to the
bottom".[12][13][14]
According to Pontoppidan, Norwegian fishermen often took the risk of trying to
fish over kraken, since the catch was so plentiful[8] (hence
the saying "You must have fished on Kraken"[15]).
Pontoppidan also proposed that a specimen of the monster, "perhaps a young and
careless one", was washed ashore and died at Alstahaug in 1680.[14][16] By
1755, Pontoppidan's description of the kraken had been translated into
English.[17]
Swedish author Jacob Wallenberg described the kraken in the 1781 work Min
son på galejan ("My son on the galley"):[18]
... Kraken, also called the Crab-fish, which is not that huge, for heads and
tails counted, he is no larger than our Öland is wide [i.e., less than 16 km] ... He
stays at the sea floor, constantly surrounded by innumerable small fishes, who
serve as his food and are fed by him in return: for his meal, (if I remember
correctly what E. Pontoppidan writes,) lasts no longer than three months, and
another three are then needed to digest it. His excrements nurture in the
following an army of lesser fish, and for this reason, fishermen plumb after his
resting place ... Gradually, Kraken ascends to the surface, and when he is at
ten to twelve fathoms, the boats had better move out of his
vicinity, as he will shortly thereafter burst up, like a floating island,
spurting water from his dreadful nostrils and making ring waves around him,
which can reach many miles. Could one doubt that this is the Leviathan of Job?
Pierre Dénys de Montfort's "Poulpe Colossal"
attacks a merchant ship (1810)
In 1802, the French malacologist Pierre
Dénys de Montfort recognized the existence of two kinds of giant
octopus in Histoire Naturelle Générale et Particulière des Mollusques, an
encyclopedic description of mollusks. Montfort claimed that the first type, the
kraken octopus, had been described by Norwegian sailors and American
whalers, as well as ancient writers such as Pliny the Elder. The much larger second type, the
colossal octopus, was reported to have
attacked a sailing vessel from Saint-Malo, off the coast of Angola.[12]
Montfort later dared more sensational claims. He proposed that ten British
warships, including the captured French ship of the line Ville de Paris, which had mysteriously
disappeared one night in 1782, must have been attacked and sunk by giant
octopuses. The British, however, knew—courtesy of a survivor from the Ville
de Paris—that the ships had been lost in a hurricane off the coast of Newfoundland in September 1782, resulting in a
disgraceful revelation for Montfort.[8]
[edit] Appearance and origins
Since the late 18th century, kraken have been depicted in a number of ways,
primarily as large octopus-like creatures, and it has often
been alleged that Pontoppidan's kraken might have been based on sailors'
observations of the giant squid. In the earliest descriptions,
however, the creatures were more crab-like[16] than
octopus-like,
and generally possessed traits that are associated with large whales rather than with giant squid. Some traits
of kraken resemble undersea volcanic activity occurring in the Iceland region, including bubbles of water;
sudden, dangerous currents; and appearance of new islets.[citation needed]
Later versions of the legend may have originated from sightings of real giant squid, which are variously estimated to
grow to 13–15 m (40–50 ft) in length (including tentacles).[2][3] These
creatures normally live at great depths, but have been sighted at the surface
and have reportedly attacked ships.[4]
[edit] Etymology
The English word kraken is taken from Norwegian but its origins are otherwise
obscure.[19] In
Norwegian, Kraken is the definite form of krake, a word designating
an unhealthy animal or something twisted (cognate with the English crook and crank).[20] In
modern German, Krake (plural and declined singular: Kraken) means octopus, but can also refer to the legendary
Kraken.[21]
[edit] Legacy
Main article: Kraken
in popular culture
An illustration from the original
1870 edition of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by
author Jules
Verne
Although fictional and the subject of myth, the legend of the kraken continues to the
present day, with numerous references existing in popular culture, including film, literature, television, video
games and other miscellaneous examples (e.g. postage stamps, a rollercoaster ride, and a rum product).
In 1830 Alfred Tennyson published the irregular sonnet The Kraken,[22] which
described a massive creature that dwelled at the bottom of the sea:
Below the thunders of the upper deep;
Far far beneath in the abysmal
sea,
His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep
The Kraken sleepeth: faintest
sunlights flee
About his shadowy sides; above him swell
Huge sponges of
millennial growth and height;
And far away into the sickly light,
From
many a wondrous grot and secret cell
Unnumber'd and enormous polypi
Winnow
with giant arms the slumbering green.
There hath he lain for ages, and will
lie
Battening upon huge seaworms in his sleep,
Until the latter fire shall
heat the deep;
Then once by man and angels to be seen,
In roaring he shall
rise and on the surface die.
Pontoppidan's description influenced Jules Verne's depiction of the famous giant squid
in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea from
1870.[citation needed]
Later developments of the kraken image may be traced at Kraken
in popular culture.
[edit] See
also
- Aspidochelone
- Cetus (mythology)
- Colossal squid
- Cryptozoology
- Gigantic octopus
- Globster
- Lusca
- Scandinavian folklore
- Vanishing island
[edit] References
- ^ Oxford English Dictionary (Second ed.). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press. 1989. - ^ a b O'Shea,
S. 2003. "Giant Squid and Colossal Squid Fact
Sheet". The Octopus News Magazine Online. - ^ a b Boyle, Peter; Rodhouse, Paul (2005). "The search for the
giant squid Architeuthis". Cephalopods: Ecology and Fisheries. Oxford,
England: Blackwell. pp. 196. ISBN 0632060484. - ^ a b Marx, Christy (2004). Life in the Ocean Depths. New
York: Rosen. pp. 35. ISBN 082393988X. - ^ Rafn,
Carl Christian, ed. Fornaldarsögur
Norðurlanda. Vol. 2. Copenhagen: Enni Poppsku. 1829. pp.
248-249. - ^ Keyser,
Rudolph, Peter Andreas Munch, Carl Rikard Unger. Speculum Regale.
Konungs-Skuggsjá. Oslo: Carl C. Werner & Co. 1848. Chapter
12, p. 32. - ^ Microcosmus marinus in Systema
Naturae - ^ a b c "Kraken". Encyclopædia
Metropolitana; or, Universal Dictionary of Knowledge . 21. B.
Fellowes, London. 1845. pp. 255–258. - ^ Linnaeus, Carolus. Fauna Suecica. Stockholm:
Laurentius Salvus. 1746. p. 386. - ^ Pontoppidan, Erich. Det Forste Forsorg paa Norges
Naturlige Historie. Copenhagen: Berlingste Arvingers Bogtrykkerie.
1752. - ^ Pontoppidan, Versuch einer natürlichen Geschichte
Norwegens (Copenhagen, 1752–53). - ^ a b c Hamilton,
R. (1839). The Kraken. In: The
Natural History of the Amphibious Carnivora, including the Walrus and Seals,
also of the Herbivorous Cetacea, &c. W. H. Lizars, Edinburgh. pp.
327–336. - ^ a b [Anonymous]
(1849). New Books: An Essay on the credibility
of the Kraken. The Nautical Magazine 18(5):
272–276. - ^ a b Sjögren,
Bengt (1980). Berömda vidunder. Settern. ISBN 91-7586-023-6 (Swedish) - ^ Bringsværd, T.A. (1970). The Kraken: A slimy giant at the
bottom of the sea. In: Phantoms and Fairies: From Norwegian
Folklore. Johan Grundt Tanum Forlag, Oslo. pp.
67–71. - ^ a b "Kraken". Encyclopædia
Perthensis; or Universal Dictionary of the Arts, Sciences, Literature,
&c.. 12 (2nd ed.). John Brown, Edinburgh. 1816. pp.
541–542. - ^ The London Magazine, or, Gentleman's
Monthly Intelligencer Vol. 24 (Appendix, 1755). pp
622-624. - ^ Wallenberg, J. (1835). Min son på galejan, eller en
ostindisk resa innehållande allehanda bläckhornskram, samlade på skeppet
Finland, som afseglade ifrån Götheborg i Dec. 1769, och återkom dersammastädes i
Junii 1771. (5th ed.). Elméns och Granbergs Tryckeri,
Stockholm. (Swedish) - ^ "kraken". The Free Online Dictionary.
- ^ "krake". Bokmålsordboka.
(Norwegian) - ^ Terrell, Peter; et al. (Eds.) (1999). German
Unabridged Dictionary (4th ed.). Harper Collins. ISBN 0-06-270235-1 - ^ "The Kraken" (1830). The
Victorian Web.