Comment just submitted at the Frontiers of Zoology Yahoo Group: Dave Francazio asks: For the giant beaver, wouldnt the primary characteristic described be the tail? And although a beaver has a similarly shaped tail to a manatee, the texture and appearance are totally dissimilar. Dale Drinnon replies: You would think so, but as far as the scientific end of things goes, the shape of the tail in life is in dispute because the fleshy parts do not preserve as fossils.

As far as the reports go, descriptions are ambiguous. Some reports say 'a flat tail' but do not specify proportions. Free Download Film The Intimate Lover here.

As far as the Okanagon carcass goes, we have no really minute descriptions and some amateur naturalist looked in the dictionary and the closest approximation they could find was to the illustration of a manatee. That much was obviously not a very expert opinion and not based on a very careful comparison. So looking for an intelligent observation as to the texture of the tail would seem not to have occured to the person who said it resembled a manatee (and that statement is the one that made it into all of the books even though it sounds a fairly flimsy identification) Lake Okanagon IS in an area where the legendary 'Water bears' are reported. Best Wishes, Dale D. Dave and Dale, Round 2: Dave F. Said: Hmm, well I would expect an amateur naturalist to describe something as a beaver tail before calling it a manatee tail, especially if it was indeed more similar to a beaver tail. Flesh can sometimes be preserved in fossil, I was at the American Museum of Natural History and they had a edmontosaurus where much of the soft tissue was preserved: There are also skin impressions where there will be a fossil that shows the texture of the skin.

I don't know if such fossils exist for the giant beaver, but it would stand to reason it would have a textured tail like the beavers of today. It just seems really odd to me that in the sightings of a giant beaver, people wouldnt be like 'look a giant beaver!' And describe it as such. Replied: unfortunately the occurnce was in the WWI era and we only have retellings of the event, not directly in any kind of report by any amateur naturalist. But I'll check it over again. I think you're just expecting more than the person had the ability to offer.

You also caught me going out the door:I'll be away a few hours to get to some appointments. Best Wishes, Dale D. Dale D adds, after checking: I have looked up the information in Mary Moon's, Tim Dinsdale's, Ivan Sanderson's and Peter Costello's books in the sections that mention the carcass and all are agreed: the report is a FOAF report and only intermediary sources are named. The body was not recognisable beyond the fact that it had large tusks in its mouth, was covered in fur, had a round head and a flat tail, and it had clawed flippers. That seems to have been the published account which came to the hands of a reliable naturalist (Frank Buckland, who said the description came from a band of indians) and who told the FOAF report, giving the date of 1916 Roughly a decade later, some local Ogopogo enthusiasts started up a theory that Ogopogo was a manatee, citing other people's reports which sounded reminiscent of a manatee.