The Cryptid Triptych Explained

 

At its core, I think this blog is an art and history blog. I tend to avoid calling my cetacean subjects “cryptids”, but cryptozoology is certainly an interest of mine, specifically as an interesting grey area between folklore and zoology (I took a whole one class on cultural anthropology in college, but the field still interests me). I was hesitant to post this here, but my desire to ramble about it won out, and in the end this is probably the best place to post it.

 

I enjoy categorizing things. I enjoy systems that explain abstract concepts. For a long time now, I’ve wanted to create a classification system for cryptids because I share the same gripes as others who feel like the layperson definition of “cryptid” is far too broad, or at least, encompasses a strange handful of fundamentally different creatures.

After a less successful attempt in 2024, I present The Cryptid Triptych.

For a more thorough explanation of these definitions, scroll down to the “To elaborate” section.

 

I had three main goals with this classification system: 

• I didn’t want it to be a taxonomy based on physical traits.
•  I wanted the definitions to directly contrast with each other.
• I didn’t want it to suggest I or anyone else is the central authority on cryptids.

Regarding the first point, it is INCREDIBLY tempting to attack cryptid classification like conventional animal taxonomy. It’s just fun to do. It’s been done many times before (a well-known example is Heuvelmans’ system of sea monster classification) and it’s been taken on as both an earnest and creative endeavour by many people online. But I never liked it as a form of actual cryptid classification. It doesn’t address the issues I have with the Windigo being placed alongside bigfoot and the thylacine. Most attempts at cryptid taxonomies that I’ve seen rely on the animals’ physical traits, since descriptions are all we have in most cases. The resulting taxonomies are very Aristotelian. I’m sure there’s use cases for trait-only classification systems, but they are very literally skin deep. They don’t support any deeper analysis.

My second goal was to have the definitions in each category directly contrast with each other, to make categorization easier. A creature cannot simultaneously have folkloric and secular origins, it will only fit into one of those.

As for my third criteria, there is no central authority on cryptids like there is for conventional animal taxonomy. For conventional taxonomy, that central authority is a big book called the ICZN. There is no ICCZN. (Fun Fact: any made-up scientific name you've ever seen applied to a cryptid is a nomen nudum.) I wanted my system to function independently. Anybody should be able to look at the chart and use it to decide where a cryptid lands without having to ask for my input. I had to sacrifice rigidity for this – different people may place cryptids in different spots – but I think the system is as useful as I could hope for it to be. If I try to get more rigid than this, I’ll probably just go mad trying to micromanage it.

I knew what I wanted to create would end up being a classification of folklore and concepts, not animals. I think the term might be “pragmatic classification” – the groups are formed by what each creature seeks to prove. I was familiar with the Aarne–Thompson–Uther Index, a catalogue of folktale types, so I knew at the very least something as nebulous as folklore had been categorized before in a way that had proven useful. Would this system give cryptids more credibility as animals? Absolutely not. If anything, it diminishes the credibility of many. But it clarifies their position relative to zoology and folklore.

 

To elaborate

I personally recommend basing the analysis of your chosen cryptid on either the earliest reports of the cryptid or the most accepted pop-culture portrayal of the cryptid. If you’re trying to build an argument, make your source material known (i.e. “the earliest reports of Nessie” or “the popular conception of bigfoot”). In animal taxonomy you use the oldest name given for the animal in writing or, occasionally, the best known name.

 

Mythical Creature

I got some protestations, but I feel like we need to keep mythical creatures in the conversation if we want to explain why they differ from other cryptids. Many of these creatures are considered cryptids by the general public.

Originates from a specific culture: The creature’s origin can easily be narrowed down to a culture more specific than “North America” or “Europe”. Some examples: Iroquois mythology, Celtic mythology, lumberjack folklore, internet horror, etc.

Is supernatural or symbolic in nature: Mythical creatures are often invented to play specific roles in stories, and their traits reflect these roles. (An excellent example of this is the Dahu.) Additionally, these traits are often too story-specific and evolutionarily improbable to simply be played off as natural selection.

Arguments for their existence rely on faith: The creature’s implied biology does not hold up to zoological scrutiny. Belief in this creature is dependent on belief in the religion they originated from or belief in the supernatural in general. For example, you will not be able to convince an atheist that angels exist if your argument relies on evidence (the Bible) that they don’t buy into.

Their existence would imply that the supernatural exists: Self explanatory. To clarify, I’m going off of the dictionary definition of supernatural

 

Classic Cryptid

These are animals that I’ve seen cryptozoology fans refer to as “true cryptids”, albeit without a clear definition. This is my attempt at a definition.

Secular origins, often sensational: There’s no religion or belief system you need to believe in as a prerequisite to believe in this cryptid. Their stories often come from newspapers and interviews and are usually framed as candid encounters, not stories with a moral lesson. (That said, I suppose you could make the argument that most modern cryptid tales fulfill the same purpose as a bogeyman story.)

Traits conflict with accepted biology, evolution, or extinction: Bigfoot would drastically change our current understanding of the primate family tree. Nessie would prove that a lake as small as Loch Ness could support a breeding population of cow-sized aquatic animals, or perhaps prove that plesiosaurs survived for millions of years without leaving any evidence in the fossil record, and possibly also have centuries-long lifespans. These animals have a lot to answer for, scientifically speaking.

Arguments for their existence selectively use zoological facts: Cryptozoologists like to cite zoology but often suffer from confirmation bias, cherry-picking their arguments. They may also take issue with arguments that use zoological facts against the existence of cryptids.

Also includes long-extinct species (pre-Holocene, >11,700ya): In the case of extinct animal cryptids, I felt the need to include an approximate Plausibility Threshold, and that threshold is the Holocene, about 11,700 years ago. The Holocene marks when the planet’s environment changed significantly, exiting the last ice age. Much of the megafauna outside of Africa also went extinct around the beginning of the Holocene. This covers cases like Nessie and Congolese dinosaurs, as well as potentially mammoths and ground sloths.

Their existence would imply that our accepted model of biology needs significant revision: Their existence would rock the zoological, phylogenetic and evolutionary boats significantly. These animals would probably make headlines in non-science outlets and spark heated debates within the field.

 

Unaccepted species

Again, I have seen some cryptid fans argue that these should not be considered crypids for unspecified reasons.

Scientific or unsensational origins: These new species claims often don’t make headlines outside of zoology. If a non-scientist is making the claim, the animal described is mundane enough to be taken seriously.

No supernatural qualities: Their anatomy and behaviour generally conforms to what we know is possible in the animal kingdom.

Arguments for their existence are purely zoological: Self explanatory.

Also includes recently extinct species (post-Holocene, <11,700ya) and misplaced extant species: We know these animals exist or have existed, just not where/when proponents claim. This covers cases like the dodo, thylacine, and British big cats.

Its existence would imply that a new species exists within our current model of biology: If confirmed, this species could be slotted into the phylogenetic tree without shaking the branches too much.

 

Concerning aliens

I’m apparently an outlier among cryptid fans because I have no issue with considering aliens to be cryptids. I feel like distinguishing aliens from other animals in this case would be totally arbitrary. Aliens can land anywhere on the triptych, it all comes down to how grounded the arguments are relative to legitimate astrobiology research.

• Aliens with supernatural powers or lore, like lizard people, would fall under Mythical Beings.
• Most alien and UFO sightings, like the Flatwoods Monster and Betty and Barney Hill encounter, would fall under Classic Cryptid.
• The Wow! Signal, interpreted as evidence of extraterrestrial communication, might fall under Unaccepted Species (the intelligent alien species being suggested is unaccepted)

 

The effect of bias

The chart I created is merely a tool for analysis, it accommodates arguments.

Personal opinion can affect where the cryptid lands, which is important to keep in mind. A hard skeptic will categorize bigfoot with unicorns and leprechauns. Someone interested in cryptozoology as a whole will recognize that bigfoot lands somewhere between folklore and zoology. A cryptozoologist dedicated to the bigfoot cause will pursue bigfoot evidence under the assumption that it’s a real animal. I tried wording my definitions to avoid ambiguity, but if you’re bullheaded in favour of your own opinion, confirmation bias will win out either way.

The most arguments I received when I first posted this chart online were about the middle “Classic Cryptid” category, which I admit has the weakest definition. I got feedback that the middle category was redundant, but I don’t think it is. Things like Bigfoot and Nessie do not fit cleanly into either folklore or unaccepted species, and forcing them into either would be misrepresenting the nature of these creature stories, so some middle ground in necessary in my opinion.

Interestingly, I got some replies from bigfoot die-hards and they all attempted to downplay how biologically exceptional a bigfoot discovery would be in order to fit bigfoot into the Unaccepted Species category. In a world where new Homo species discoveries regularly make headlines in non-science media, I don’t think a new giant ape species could be quietly slipped into our current phylogenetic tree without sparking debates.

 

More rambling, about faith and cryptids

I think my whole desire to create a classification system started with Wendigoon (YouTuber). I was a big fan during his come up but I didn’t like the bizarre, seemingly random assortment of creatures that he considered cryptids, and I wanted to investigate why. Now that I’ve got my chart to where I want it, I understand why – we are drawn to cryptids for different reasons. He was clearly drawn to cryptids because of the supernatural element. I’m drawn to them because of the human element. A die-hard bigfooter likely falls somewhere between this, drawn to the idea that there might be something slightly beyond belief out there.

There was a line in Hunting Monsters that Darren Naish brought up in passing, that those who already believe in the supernatural (gods, religion) are more inclined to believe in cryptids. Their baseline for what is believable, their bar for entry, is higher than that of an atheist. I couldn’t find studies that examined this idea, but this concept makes sense to me. A couple months ago on r/cryptozoology I posted a photo of a Young Earth Creationist book that presented the Zuiyo Maru carcass as possible evidence of a late-surviving plesiosaur, a conclusion it implied using weasel words. I bought this book as an adult out of curiosity, but a surprising number of commenters mentioned that they had the book as a kid. While they might be more skeptical now, these people (all members of r/cryptozoology) were nonetheless raised in environments where Young Earth Creationist theories were accepted. The line about religious people being more likely to believe in cryptids came back to me.

If you are faith-inclined, my system probably comes across as killjoy and maybe a bit hostile. I’ve been fascinated by religion as a human invention for a long time; analyzing it from an outsider perspective is easy for me because I am an outsider. If you’re an insider, a believer, it’s probably difficult and uncomfortable to put your own worldview under glass like that, which is understandable.

I don’t see my system endearing itself to those who actually believe in cryptids, but it satisfies my desire to figure out why we believe (or at least want to believe) in cryptids.

 

In conclusion,

This system may get tweaked and refined in future. I welcome feedback, particularly from those interested in cultural anthropology and similar subjects.

 

Acknowledgments

My definitions are my own, but the following helped me arrive at them:

• Hunting Monsters by Darren Naish
• The Native Bigfoot, video by Trey the Explainer
• Can We Be Good Without God? Biology, Behavior, and the Need to Believe by Robert Buckman
• Truthisscarier’s original cryptid classification
•  The comments that I got on both Twitter and Reddit (AKA the poor man's peer review process) which helped me revise the system

 

 

 

 

Alula Whale

Disclaimer: In this article I mention some "valid subspecies" of cetaceans named in recent decades. I acknowledge that their validity may still be contentious to some folks in the field. I call them valid for the sake of brevity and to illustrate the fact that these types of cetaceans have been confirmed to exist - if not as subspecies, then at the very least as distinct regional types or colour morphs.

 

 

This large dolphin was seen by the author on several occasions in the eastern Gulf of Aden, north of the village Alula, west of Cape Guardafui which is the extreme NE point of Africa. Its appearance is quite different from any of the known species and it has therefore been given a separate paragraph.

Area: Eastern Gulf of Aden (Chart 7) to Socotra.

Sea temperature: 26 to 30° C.

Length: Estimated 20 to 24 feet (6-7 m).

Weight: Estimated about 4000 lbs (1800 kg).

Food: No records.

Teeth: No records.

Illustration: From life. The author and several other officers standing on 126 the bridge made sketches of the animal as it was swimming past in a flat calm sea. From these the painting was made. The colour was sepia brown and showed white starlike scars on the body. The dorsal fin, well above the surface was very prominent.

Special features: A rounded forehead, similar but not quite as round as in Globicephala (Pilot Whales). A little snout. The dorsal fin was estimated to be at least 2 feet high. At first encounter a school of 4 approached the ship head on and seeing the dorsal fins the author thought they were Orcinus orca (nr. 69). When they passed the ship at a distance of less than 50 yards just under the surface in the flat calm, clear sea, it was obvious that this was a different species. They were indifferent to the ship and neither changed course nor dived.

Speed: Cruising ± 4 knots.

Breath: Every 10 to 20 seconds.

Schools: 4 to 8, usually 6.

Biotope: Deep coastal waters in Gulf of Aden.

Immatures: Not observed.

Notes: These dolphins were seen in the area during crossings in April, May, June and September, usually swimming just under the surface with the dorsal fin above the water. One duty officer reported he observed them chasing a school of smaller dolphins, who tried to escape. There is, however, a possibility that both species were chasing the same prey. Attack and devouring of live whales by predators in this area was witnessed by at least two colleagues of the author, who could not identify the species, however. One of the victims was a Sperm Whale.

-        Field Guide of Whales and Dolphins, 1971, pages 126-127 

 

 

Mörzer Bruyns' range map for the Alula Whale (the single dark rectangle above the horn of Africa, marked 70)

For me, the Alula Whale is one of the most compelling cases of “paper whales” for several key reasons I’ll expand on further down. I don’t necessarily want to feed into unfounded whale cryptid conspiracy theories, but there’s several interesting elements to this case that I’ve never seen brought up before.

 

The claim is bold – in the not so distant past of the 1960s (I’m guessing - the exact dates of the sightings are not given), a captain spotted what he believed to be a new, undocumented species of whale, and sketched and later painted what he saw. The whale was an Odontocete, the size and overall shape of a Killer Whale, but overall a sepia brown colour with star-like scars or spots. The whale was spotted in the Gulf of Aden, the gulf of sea right above the horn of Africa on its eastern coast. The whale was named after the Somali town of Alula (ah-LOO-lah) near where it was first spotted.

 

This claim was made by one Capt. Willem Fredrik Jacob Mörzer Bruyns, a Dutch naval captain born in 1913. WORTH NOTING: Bruyns also had a son with the exact same name as him, Willem Fredrik Jacob Mörzer Bruyns Jr. born 1943. I just want to clarify that cuz you’d assume a man with a name that unique would be easy to research but no, if you do additional research you have to be careful not to accidentally confuse him with his son. Also it appears Bruyns Jr. is the main editor on his own Wikipedia page which seems like a conflict of interest to me but I don’t feel the need to complain, a guy needs hobbies. From here on out I’ll call Bruyns Sr. “Mörzer Bruyns”.

 

 

Mörzer Bruyns was a well traveled captain, and in my opinion, a fairly skilled observationist and artist. The back cover of Field Guide of Whales and Dolphins offers a nice concise biography which I’ll just share verbatim:

“Willem Fredrik Jacob Mörzer Bruyns was born on the 21^st of Febuary, 1913, in Bussum, Netherlands, of a seafaring family. It was not surprising therefore that after High School he attended the Nautical College (Kweekschool voor de Zeevaart) in Amsterdam which he finished in 1931 and then joined the same company as his father and grandfather.

From his early youth he evinced the greatest interest in natural history, especially that of whales, dolphins and seabirds.

He joined The Royal Netherlands Navy in 1934 as a reserve officer. During World War II he served in H. Neth. M. Submarines in Great Britain and Australia and returned after an absence of eight years as a submarine commander. Afterwards he rejoined the Merchant Navy and was appointed captain in 1951.

In 1963 he was given command of the flagship of the company; several times he as had the honour of representing the Merchant Navy in an official capacity.

During his years at sea he has made such a reputation for himself as an authority on whales, dolphins and seabirds that specialists in this field from all over the world have turned to him for information.”

 

I can only assume publishing his own original illustrated guide on whales was merely a small side quest in an extremely fascinating career. Worth noting, however, despite all his practical experience, Mörzer Bruyns was not formally educated in biology. He admits this readily in the book’s introduction (p.7), which starts the field guide off somewhat unconventionally – “Although the contents are based on careful observation and information from many zoological publications, this guide makes no claim to be a scientific work. The author is no professional zoologist.” The book’s foreword is written by Peter Scott, then (1971) chairman and 1^st vice president of the WWF. Scott similarly notes

“As a professional sailor the author must be regarded as an amateur zoologist, but it seems likely that no other living man has so much first-hand experience of so many species of Cetaceans in the wild state. Writing from this basis of personal experience, Captain Mörzer Bruyns has made a number of new judgements about the relationships of the group which are somewhat unorthodox and may not be acceptable to all Cetologists, but which may well stimulate thought, discussion, and the further study which is so badly needed.”

This sets the stage for an interesting field guide. If you’re like me and have read countless post-1990s cetacean field guides, you’re probably somewhat familiar with most of the roughly 90 currently accepted species of whales and dolphins. However, by my own count, Mörzer Bruyn’s book contains 27 unique unconfirmed species. Some of these species have been matched with previously unconfirmed/dismissed scientific names put forward by earlier scientists, while others, the ones with no scientific names, are based solely on Mörzer Bruyns’ own observations and occasionally the word of local fishermen and seafarers that Mörzer Bruyns spoke with. Among these is the Alula Whale, which remains unconfirmed. However, interestingly, a couple of Mörzer Bruyns’ misbegotten species HAVE been confirmed.

 

All the unique whales Bruyns mentioned in his book, some of which are now considered valid subspecies.

 

Where he got it right 

It would be easy to dismiss Capt. Bruyns as perhaps another Quoy & Gaimard, eager to describe new species but having descriptions so vague, imprecise and singular that the lack of evidence calls their worth into question, but many of Bruyns' whales do align with other reports, with the author himself seeking these corroborating reports out. However, while many of these resurrected names have not been considered much further in publications beyond Bruyns’ book, a couple have.

 

Mörzer Bruyns' illustration of the "Red Bellied Dolphin", Delphinus roseiventris

 

The Red Bellied Dolphin, described on page 67, is described as a small, 4ft long dolphin with overall dark grey colouration and, ironically, a yellowish belly. Bruyns paints it similarly based on dolphins he observed around Sulawesi (Celebes Island). He attaches the scientific name Delphinus roseiventris to it, a name+species first proposed by A. J. Wagner in 1846

In a 1999 paper, William F. Perrin resurrected this old name and confirmed that Mörzer Bruyns did identify, at the very least, a distinct subspecies – the Dwarf Spinner Dolphin, Stenella longirostris roseiventris.

The Dwarf Spinner Dolphin, Stenella longirostris roseiventris

It's interesting that we now have a photograph of this once dubious subspecies that we can use to gauge Bruyns’ margin of accuracy. And I know what this sounds like; I’m not suggesting that just because the Red Bellied Dolphin is real that the Alula Whale must also be real, I just want to give the author+artist credit where it’s due. 

Mörzer Bruyns also accurately illustrates the truei-type Dall's Porpoise, now considered a subspecies by some (Phocoenoides dalli truei), as well as the "Gulf of Panama Spotted Dolphin" and "Little Bottlenosed Dolphin", also now considered subspecies (Stenella attenuata graffmani and Tursiops truncatus nuuanu). The legitimacy of the "Speckled Dolphin", Sousa lentiginosa, and "Borneo White Dolphin", Sousa borneensis, are currently still under debate. I made a chart of all the unique species Mörzer Bruyns described in his book on the cryptid wiki.

 

Second sighting 

Another element that makes the Alula Whale compelling is that it has been reported a second time, several years later, by an unrelated observer. Most of the cases I cover are peculiar species only seen once, but in the case of the Alula Whale, an additional sighting arose in 1987, 16 years after the publishing of Mörzer Bruyns’ book.

On May 8, 1987, Mr. A. Tibbot, 2^nd Officer of the ship ACT 1, spotted what he identified as an Alula Whale at 2°09'00"S 62°28'00"E, at the point where the Arabian Sea transitions into the larger Indian Ocean. This sighting was reported in Volume 58 (April 1988) of TheMarine Observer. The singular whale in this sighting was described as dark brown with a prominent dorsal fin, but no star-shaped markings were mentioned. I can only assume Mr. Tibbot had a copy of Mörzer Bruyns’ field guide on hand that he used to identify the whale, and a footnote following the report notes that the Alula Whale “has not been recognized scientifically”.

 

The 1987 sighting

 

Scientific name

While Mörzer Bruyns occasionally reached back into history and resurrected old names that he thought corresponded with his sightings, he did not take the liberty of giving formal names to any of his own personal discoveries. He posits the possible genus of these individuals, but nothing beyond that, which is a lot more restraint than I would have shown if I had the opportunity to claim several new species.

Donald S. Heintzelman included the Alula Whale in his own field guide in 1981, A World Guide to Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises, where he gave it a scientific name – Orcinus mörzer-bruynsus. Cetologist Tom Jefferson, in his 2021 paper, amended this suggested name to Orcinus moerzerbruynsus, but claims the name is not available, listing the species alongside other synonyms for Orcinus orca (p.16). In a 2023 blog entry, Tyler Greenfield reassessed this name and came to the conclusion that the proper spelling of the name should be Orcinus morzerbruynsus, and that the name is available and would be the one used if the species turned out to be real.

I’d recommend reading Tyler’s own blog entry on this species for his full explanation

 

The Alula Whale at the top of a checklist in Heintzelman's field guide

Back to the whale itself

One thing I’d like to point out is how much the Alula Whale is compared to the Killer Whale. In all fairness, Mörzer Bruyns does this himself, categorizing it with the Killer Whale and alternatively calling it the Alula Killer. However, one detail artists often get wrong is the dorsal fin; Mörzer Bruyns describes the dorsal fin as prominent, but only 2ft high. He does not observe any obvious sexually dimorphic traits and does not posit that the species has any, such as the 6ft tall dorsal fin seen in male Killer Whales. All the observed Alula Whales appear to resemble female Killer Whales in terms of their silhouette and dorsal fin size.

Female Killer Whale

 

I’ve seen a few theories about the Alula Whale, none of which dig particularly deep, but one of the main theories is that the Alula Whales were just Killer Whales whose skin appears brown due to the buildup of diatoms, a condition often seen in the Type B Killer Whales of Antarctica. However, this happens specifically because Antarctic Killer Whales shed their skin more gradually than Killer Whales in warmer waters, allowing for the diatoms to build up. Killer Whales in the Arabian Sea would not face this problem. And Pilot Whales are also not a likely explanation, seeing as neither of the two species live near the Arabian Sea or Indian Ocean.

I have a new theory – Beaked Whales.

 

Cuvier’s Beaked Whale

 

Beaked Whales are admittedly my explanation for a couple of weird whale sightings, they’re easy to blame since their colouration is not well documented, highly variable, and the whales themselves are seldom spotted. But the description of a sepia brown whale with light spots fits very well with Cuvier’s Beaked Whale and Blaineville’s Beaked Whale. While not all Cuvier’s Beaked Whales are spotted, the images you can find of spotted ones look really damn close to Bruyns’ description and illustration of the Alula Whale. Cuvier’s Beaked Whales also reach a similar size as the Alula Whale.

The one hole in this theory is that Mörzer Bruyns’ book has an entry for Cuvier’s Beaked Whale, which he treats as entirely separate from the Alula Whale. However, Bruyns himself notes that “The brown colours occur mostly in the Indian Ocean and these were chosen for the illustration.” He also describes them as being similarly indifferent to ships.

 

Mörzer Bruyns' illustration of Cuvier's Beaked Whale

In conclusion, while he was not himself a zoologist, I feel like Capt. Mörzer Bruyns’ contribution to the world of whales should not be immediately disregarded. While catalogues of whale species have existed before this one, many were simply that – catalogues describing species but lacking any illustrations, or having very few, and not specifically tailored for use in the field or by laypeople. Bruyns did all the illustrations himself and presents them in colour at the end of the book, easy to skim through if a whale watcher were trying to identify a species. He also provides a series of range maps, illustrating the range of each species he mentions. The Alula Whale’s range is a tiny dark mark near the tip of the horn of Africa, confined to a couple sightings at the time. And while many of the species remain dubious, a few are still currently being debated, and might become recognized in the future. Cetaceans are an incredibly variable group of animals and their species have never been quite as distinct as modern field guides make them out to be, and while perhaps a polka-dotted Killer Whale is a bit far out, I feel like we should stay open to the idea that there may be many more species yet to be named.

 

Bonus stuff

The Alula Whale was technically the first whale I drew for this series back in January 2023, long before I started working on others, but I did this based on descriptions I found in wikis and I didn’t read the original source, so it’s anatomically all over the place and has that over-exaggerated dorsal fin. However, even back then I suspected that maybe the whale was a misidentified Beaked Whale of some sort, which influenced the design.

 

While looking into the Dwarf Spinner Dolphin for this article, I came across what is so far the only example I’ve seen of cetacean taxidermy (in the 1999 paper I linked to earlier). This was just really interesting to me because I’ve only ever seen models and skeletons of cetaceans in museums, which I assumed was because they probably didn’t make very flattering taxidermy mounts.

 

 Also, for those curious, the PC shortcut for ö is alt0246