Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I don't know about plagiarism, but the claims being made in the article sound hokey. Are there any references to back them up? What 'scientific journal' contains the juvenile caddy photos? Who did the 'three pairs of human hands' that supposedly held the specimens belong to? 20:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is a mess! I can't even help it! It looks like it was Plagarised! Can someone more experienced deal with this? --Gamingboy 19:39, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly plagarized.[edit]

Should I just delete it myself or is there a procedure for this?

Wandering Librarian

Where was this copied from if it was plagiarized? Before deleting, generally it is marked for deletion and sometimes a discussion about deletion will occur beforehand, to establish a consensus. If this indeed is plagiarization, I would be more than happy to rewrite it completely to solve the problem; and better yet, if I see a possible specimen next time I am out and about, I will be sure to snap a clear high resolution photo (if it exists). Nonprof. Frinkus 04:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Two centuries of documented surface sightings, independently by many pobservers, along 3000 miles of N. American Pacific coastal waters, a type specimen with a published 3-week curatorial record before its loss, 3 subsequent juvenile specimens-in-hand, and a sidescan sonar image of a large (14 m) animal on the bottom of Lake Okanagan scacely constitutes plagiarism. The original external morphological description (1995) meets all ICZN (1999) requirements for formal publication, in a refereed scientific journal, of a new zoological species, no life stage of which can be identified with a previously known animal species, living or fossil.


Since Caddy's been formally described and named, should he be given a taxobox?

Indeed not, as it is a nomen nudum. Pictures do not form a valid specimen — especially as they probably are of a squid tentacle :o).--MWAK 11:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That tentacle looks somewhat too long for a squid - giant squid are only supposed to have a maximum overall size of 13 meters. On another note, the Globster article mentions something about the evidence being destroyed by the scientific community, but this article says nothing about the 1937 incident. Shouldn't there be a mention? Esn 01:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There would have to be proof that it was deliberately destroyed. My personal suspicion (OR alert!) is that it was 'lost' after being exhibited in America, probably by someone who 'didn't believe in sea monsters'. Totnesmartin 15:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this whole article needs a do over, the whole thing is pretty much just 5 huge sentences.


I rewrote the whole article! Ornithomimus 15:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bat out of hell?[edit]

It seems to me that if most spacecrafts and space debris burn up at speeds of under the low 10s of thousands of km/hr in our upper atmosphere, which is considerably less dense than that of the lower atmosphere, it is unlikely that a biological entity of any type we know could survive speeds of anything even close to 100,000 km/hr. If air has the density of 1.2 kg/m cubed, and a rock burns to dust in our atmosphere before reaching the ground at say 20,000 km per hour, then it seems highly improbable that, on its own, a living creature could survive higher speeds under water, in which the density of matter is in theory 1000kg/m cubed (give or take some due to salt and mineral content).

To the editors[edit]

To all the editors of the Cadborosaurus Willsi page,

I am a college student taking part in a study connecting Psychology and Philosophy relating to supernatural phenomena. I chose this article to add pertinent information from reliable resources. Unfortunately, due to certain technical difficulties (and my own lack of Wikipedia knowledge), I was unable to post my planned edits. I hope that I can help add to this article by instead offering constructive criticism and other comments to help this article grow.

First off, what I notice (and what has been mentioned previously on the discussion page) is the lack of citing. There are numerous cases where information is vague and un-cited. While I appreciate the lack of documented accounts of "Caddy's" existence I think more research needs to be done (and cited) in the way of the eye-witness statements.

Next, a more noticeable (and more easily fixed) problem is the lack of organization. The information about "Caddy" (cited or not) would flow a lot easier if distinct categories or headings were placed in the article to better separate the information. For example, the current article could have the following headers (besides a starting paragraph): Appearance, Habitat, and Reported Sightings.

Coming from a slightly skeptical standpoint, the pictures shown on the article are slightly outdated and are of very low quality. With today's technology I would expect that higher quality photos or other visual/auditory examples would be accessible.

It is mentioned in the article that "Caddy" has been related to the Giant Oarfish(Regalecus glesne). For the article to remain a neutral standpoint, the similarities and differences between the two.

Also mentioned earlier on the discussion page is the possible scientific accuracy of "Caddy's" suggested speed. Has this been corrected? Proved true or false one way or the other?

More research needs to be done on recent sightings. With the huge amount of ocean traffic in the Pacific Northwest region from commercial fishing, cargo, and human transport, there is bound to be a more recent and better documented sighting of "Caddy". The problem that still arises is our ability to verify any of these claims.

Lastly, through my research into "Caddy" I noticed a lack of reliable sources, making meaningful edits to the page difficult. One book that was recommended to me was "Unsolved Mysteries of the Sea" by Lionel Fanthrope. The book was published by a reputable publisher, so the information could be easily integrated (by someone a bit more versed in the ways of Wikipedia than myself) into the article.

Though these are merely my opinions about the article, I hope that it was in any way helpful to the growth of the article!

-Agntmonkey and TSchmidt

Agntmonkey (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This should be moved to Cadborosaurus, as it is the common name, but also because binomials aren't used in titles when a genus is monotypic. In any case, such acceptance of the binomial, and therefore validity of the animal, is "fringe". FunkMonk (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 12 October 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cadborosaurus willsiCadborosaurus – Mainly known by the single name, the species name gives unwarranted scientific legitimacy. FunkMonk (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Per nom. Cadborosaurus is a more concise title (there is also WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA mentioned in the thread above this RM, but I'm not sure that really has bearing on this dubiously named "species") Plantdrew (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.