The Media Otter Know Better

[Update - May 31, 2010 - I heard back from leading Otter expert Dr. Hans Kruuk and here's what he had to say re: the identity of the animal in these photos:

Looking at the size of the hairs in relation to body, I'd say something like mink, agreeing with your identification. Otters also have a thin layer of very dense, dark grey under-fur, and in the picture I can see no sign of that.

If you take that observation and combine it with the findings of Dr. James Patton quoted over at Forgetomori.com:

“[The] mystery critter looks more like a mink than an otter to me (longer fingers, without any evidence of webbing).  It clearly was dead in the water for a prolonged period, hence the defurred face and head, and somewhat swollen appearance”, wrote Patton.

I think we have all the expert evidence converging on Mink as the identity of the mystery corpse of Canada.  However you don’t need to be an expert to know that a rotting dead animal, while monstrously odiferous, doesn’t have to be a monster in fact.]

They say what’s old is new.  Lately the cryptozoology world has been awash (pardon) with creatures found on beaches or near water.  These critters all share some common features.  First, they’re dead.  Second, they’re either hairless or nearly hairless.  Third, they’re photographed and the odd pictures are shared on the Internet.  Then the speculation storm washes all around us.

This is not new, mind.  The history of dead things washed up on shore is long and disgusting.  From a dead shark posing as a plesiosaur to a dead raccoon posing as a mutant experiment these photos apparently capture the imagination of viewers, and that’s all it takes to make good news copy.

This week’s corpse-célèbre washed up near the town of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Ontario and was discovered by a couple of  nurses who photographed it and then shared the photos.  The animal is said to be less than a foot long, with a rat-like tail.

Canadian Mustelid Corpse - Top View

(Read on to find the solution!)

The face of this Mustelid has become bald from decomposition.

However, it is unclear whether the whole animal is less than a foot, or the main part of it – and then the tail is additional length.  Nor is it clear whether that is an estimate or whether actual measurements were made.  It’s no giant, to be sure.

Speculation about the animal has been rampant, but we can tell a few things about it before attempting an identification.

First, it is a mammal.  It has hair and is built along the lines of an otter.

It isn’t very large, based on the eyewitness accounts.

There have been some ridiculous speculative remarks made about the animal.  Claims that it is a kind of baby sea-monster, a chupacabras, or a lab experiment have been posted on message boards around the net.

A more reasonable idea is that it is yet another normal dead animal with the hair worn off as part of the decomposition process.  There are many aquatic mammals that could fit the bill here. Over at Cryptomundo Loren Coleman’s suggesting it might be a muskrat or a river otter.

A muskrat, with its rodent teeth and rat-like tail.

I don’t think the skull matches up with the muskrat very well.  They have very conspicuous rodent dentition.

A muskrat has very large rodent teeth, not canines like the corpse.

The body shape certainly looks like a river otter and the dentition matches better.

A nice illustration showing an otter's skull in situ under a fur outline.

But otters are long animals, sometimes getting as big as three or four feet in length.  Unless this was a pup, I’d say it is too small to be an otter.  But is almost certainly in the same family, Mustelidae.

My money is on a smaller animal that looks a lot like an otter. I think this animal is probably a decomposing mink. The mink only gets to be one to two feet in length, but has many matching characteristics to our fur-challenged friend here.  Take a look and see what you think?  I’m sending off the photos to an Otter specialist I know to see if I can get a positive ID, but I see enough matching details to feel pretty comfortable, assuming the size estimates provided by the witnesses are correct.

I think the stink is from a mink.

If history has taught me anything about cryptid corpses it is that the cryptozoology community usually digs in to find out what they are while the general public sits around and guesses whatever comes to mind or fits their folkloric impressions.   Already I’m hearing stories from the local in the area where the animal was found that this is an animal spoken of in Native American lore, and a bad omen to boot.  Yet it seem clear that what this really represents is a common animal that has been rendered uncommonly ugly by decomposition.  The naked face, the white eyes, the teeth – simply put, this animal is un-fur-get-able.