Skip to content
Above Top Secret
Sea Creatures

The giant squid: from sea monster to filmed animal

For centuries it was a sailors’ story. Then carcasses washed ashore, then it was photographed alive in 2004, then filmed in 2012. The sequence is the most instructive thing in cryptozoology.

ATS Research DeskDocuments and archives
2 min read
Dark open water

The giant squid was accepted from carcasses in the nineteenth century and first photographed alive in 2004.

Architeuthis dux reaches at least thirteen metres including tentacles. It has the largest eyes of any known animal, roughly the size of dinner plates. It lives in deep ocean worldwide and it was, for most of recorded history, a monster story.

It is now filmed, tagged and studied. How that happened is worth following step by step, because the sequence is exactly the one a genuine cryptid would follow.

The stages

Illustration

First, accounts. Sailors reported enormous cephalopods, and the kraken of Scandinavian tradition is generally taken to reflect them. These were not believed, and by the standards of the time they should not have been.

Then, parts. Beaks and sucker-scarred whale skin indicated something very large that sperm whales were eating. Indirect, but physical.

Then carcasses. From the nineteenth century, specimens washed ashore or were caught, particularly off Newfoundland and New Zealand. The animal was formally described. It was real, and known only dead.

Then, in September 2004, Japanese researchers Tsunemi Kubodera and Kyoichi Mori photographed a live giant squid at depth, using a baited camera rig on a line. In 2012 a crewed submersible filmed one.

Why it took so long

Because of where it lives. Deep, dark, mobile, and averse to the noise and light of a research vessel. The 2004 success came from a rig designed around that: unmanned, quiet, waiting.

That is the general lesson about deep-ocean animals. Absence of observation reflects the difficulty of observing, not the rarity of the animal — and the deep sea is the one environment where the cryptozoological argument is genuinely strong.

What it means for the cryptid argument

It cuts both ways and both should be stated.

In its favour: a large animal of legend turned out to be real, and the legend was closer to the truth than the scepticism was.

Against: it was accepted on carcasses, in the nineteenth century, without anyone needing to see one alive. If a large unknown animal exists in a given environment, bodies turn up. That is the argument that bites hardest on terrestrial cryptids in populated regions.

Where the frontier actually is

Not in forests. The plausible unknowns are marine, small, or both — and the discovery rate for new marine species remains high every year.

A cryptozoology that focused on deep-water invertebrates rather than on large land mammals would have a considerably better strike rate, and would be doing science.

Join the discussion

Still open on this one:

  1. 01

    How many large deep-sea species remain undescribed?

    Unknown, and the discovery rate suggests the answer is not small. This is where the cryptozoological instinct is most justified and least applied.

Join the discussion

Be the first to comment

Sources

Open them and check for yourself. Where a record is public, it is linked.

  1. Natural History Museum collections

    Natural History Museum, London

  2. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

    International Union for Conservation of Nature

0 comments