Legend of Loch Ness Monster Will Be Tested With DNA Samples (apnews.com)

The stories seem as tall as the lake is deep. For hundreds of years, visitors to Scotland's Loch Ness have described seeing a monster that some believe lurks in the depths. But now the legend of "Nessie" may have no place left to hide. From a report: A New Zealand scientist is leading an international team to the lake next month, where they will take samples of the murky waters and conduct DNA tests to determine what species live there. University of Otago professor Neil Gemmell says he's no believer in Nessie, but he wants to take people on an adventure and communicate some science along the way. Besides, he says, his kids think it's one of the coolest things he's ever done. One of the more far-fetched theories is that Nessie is a long-necked plesiosaur that somehow survived the period when dinosaurs became extinct. Another theory is that the monster is actually a sturgeon or giant catfish. Many believe the sightings are hoaxes or can be explained by floating logs or strong winds.

Comments

Re:If nothing else, Biodiversity recordings

[Anonymous Coward]

> The legend is more valuable than the truth; because you can sell the legend.

Yeah I don't know about that. I went to Loch Ness as part of a group tour and I was prepared to be inundated with Nessie this and Nessie that.

I was very pleasantly surprised when I wasn't indundated with Nessie stuff. There is a little building that I think is also an inn, with a Nessie monster display, and that's about it. The narration on board a boat tour spent far more time talking about the real history of the region than monster sighting. Really, the whole Loch Ness Monster thing seemed to be an afterthought and not nearly as important as Urquhart Castle.

And outside of that area the only time I saw Nessie-related things was solely in tourist trinket shops.

It really feels like they are not trying hard to capitalise on this legend at all.

Re:If nothing else, Biodiversity recordings

[shess]

If nothing else comes from it, at least there will be a snapshot of the current level of biodiversity in the lake. Which could be useful for future planning if there is ever a algae bloom or other problem that arises. They could look back at the test and track where the problem first showed up.

How accurate is taking DNA samples from water though? Can you really take a sample of water and determine all the creatures that live there? I'm skeptical on how accurate this is. I certainly don't believe there is an actual Loch Ness Monster, but if there were, and their numbers were very low, how likely would you be to catch their DNA in a sample, in 10, in 100.

Maybe the science for this is better than I suspect (I'm no expert) but this strikes me of fishing for Tuna in a back-yard pond.

The biggest problem is that such a sampling expedition is going to find a lot of unknown DNA and a lot of ambiguous DNA, which is all you need to keep the legend rolling. You can't explain 100% of the DNA you find in a local puddle, much less a substantial body of water like this with relatively low through current.

They are not they dislike it

[aepervius]

Last time I was there I friended a few locals at a pub, and the gist of it is that they dislike all nessie stuff, and think it overshadow their region and its history. Basically if you talk to the local they will barely mention it, some don't even do (and if you DO mention it you get the "tourist idiot" stamp and they won't talk to you). There are a few selling trinkets but you speak to most local, you pretty much the impression Nessie's story is a plague. As for "100 of years" that is a load of BS. There is a few story here and there and some hint at a very small monster (human sized roughly) but in reality until start of the 20th century (about 1930-1940) you pretty much have zero tradition of it. It only exploded with the Surgeon hoax photo.