• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Griffon Washes Up Onto Long Island Beach

technoextreme said:
....
Wait a second a quick search on wikipedia would show you that this would actually be as amazing as having an actual griffon. Sea otters are not native to the eastern coast. Raccoon it is. It could be a dead skunk. Anyone have a picture of a partially decayed corpse of a skunk?
Click to expand...
OK, I refine that to river otter.
River otter have disappeared or are rare through most of their range. River otters do well in Alaska and most of Canada, in the Pacific Northwest, the Great Lakes and most states along the Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico. The good news is that Nebraska, New York and Indiana are re-introducing otters.
Click to expand...

This link has a map of their range,

....

OK, scrub that, the ears don't match.

Reconsideration in progress.....
 
skeptigirl said:
The feet are hidden in the sand.

And the skull was identified as a boar on the page I got it from. I'm not vouching for the accuracy of the site.
Click to expand...

Boars lack the upwards protruding lower canines, have a longer skull, and the canines don't interlock. Peccaries' lower incisors don't jut as far forward, and their zygomatic arch overhangs the the little foramen above the premolars.

And the foot is reasonably visible in the first shot.

I agree that a bulldog or pit bull terrier identification is problematic. Where did all the incisors go? How do we account for the large lower canines?

Since there are multiple pictures of this, an outright photoshop is unlikely. If these photos are all of the same remains, however, I'm pretty sure it's some sort of dog for the following reasons:

-The latter set of photos shows fur, albeit sloughing off with decay. It's a mammal.

-The structure of the reproductive organs is not consistent with a metatherian or monotreme. It's a placental mammal.

-The fore right paw is visible in the the first photo. The animal is not an ungulate.

-The pointed premolars are a pretty strong indication that this is a member of the carnivora.

-The limb proportions seen in psiloads other two photos indicate that the animal is digitigrade, so it's not a bear or racoon.

-The aspect ratio of the body is too short to be a mustelid.

-The short tail is not consistent with a feline.

-The relative length of the front and rear legs indicates that it is not a hyena.

-Domestic dogs are common.

Exactly what breed of dog it is is debatable, but I would be terribly surprised to find out that it isn't some sort of domestic dog.
 
Psiload said:
Pretty obviously a dog when you see it from a different angle.
Click to expand...

Not only that, it is obviously a Pit Bull. Anyone who has owned one recognizes the telltale signs with out effort.

The upper jaw is shaved off, leading to the beak like appearance in the one photo. The lower canines are unmistakable. As are the clipped ears.
 
skeptigirl said:
Pit bull skull is concaved and this one at least does not match.
Click to expand...

After briefly searching the web for pictures of pit bulls, I have changed my opinion. There is no such thing as a pit bull. The dogs in the pictures I found varied so much in form and features that there must be dozens of types of dogs called "pit bulls".

Anyway, the dead thing was an overfed dog.
 
Modified said:
Anyway, the dead thing was an overfed dog.
Click to expand...
Most corpses bloat up to unimaginable messes so I don't get how you can get that it was a fat dog out of that mess.:p
After briefly searching the web for pictures of pit bulls, I have changed my opinion. There is no such thing as a pit bull. The dogs in the pictures I found varied so much in form and features that there must be dozens of types of dogs called "pit bulls".
Click to expand...
Correct. Though technically there are several breeds of dogs that are classified as pit bulls. There are others that are typically thrown in.
 
Last edited:
The skull of the monster (dog) is missing the incisive bone. That is the bone that holds the upper incisors. Here is a diagram of a dog skull. In addition the upper teeth are missing which is what gives it a beak like appearance.
 
Last edited:
Dogdoctor said:
The skull of the monster (dog) is missing the incisive bone. ...In addition the upper teeth are missing which is what gives it a beak like appearance.
Click to expand...

That is what I said!

The cut ears are the real clue. Combine that unmistakable skull with the clipped ears, it's a pit bulldog.
 
Dogdoctor said:
The skull of the monster (dog) is missing the incisive bone. That is the bone that holds the upper incisors. Here is a diagram of a dog skull. In addition the upper teeth are missing which is what gives it a beak like appearance.
Click to expand...

I am not sure whether the premaxilla is gone or whether the teeth just fell out.
 
neutrino_cannon said:
I am not sure whether the premaxilla is gone or whether the teeth just fell out.
Click to expand...

If those other pictures are the same animal it's missing along with maybe some of the maxillary bone. The premaxilla (incisive bone) can be dislodged from the maxilla easier than the rest of the bones in dogs (in my experience) Of course seeing it in real life would make it much easier to tell but it looks like maybe the outer wall of the maxillary sinus is gone too. You can see where the canine tooth was and that area should be not visible in an intact skull.
 
skeptigirl said:
The feet are hidden in the sand.

And the skull was identified as a boar on the page I got it from. I'm not vouching for the accuracy of the site. Looking at the numerous skulls in the other link I posted, I'd say a lot of them look like a lot of them.

However, tis all moot. I have changed my assessment to sea otter. I am no longer suggesting boar.
Click to expand...

Your otter doesn't have the pointed molars that the subject does ..
 
Psiload said:
Pretty obviously a dog when you see it from a different angle.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/5425/monster1hg1.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/88/monster2gp2.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/6351/monster3ng2.jpg
Click to expand...

I'd say solved. Those pictures remove what mysteries there were:

- Single long tooth: No, two canines.
- Lack of ear openings: Flappy dog-ears cover them.
- Beak: No, obviously a canine cranium snout, with teeth missing.

The rest of the weird-looking features can be written away as natural variations withing dog-kind, plus the effects of bloating and decomposition.

RIP, Fido.

Hans
 
neutrino_cannon said:
Exactly what breed of dog it is is debatable, but I would be terribly surprised to find out that it isn't some sort of domestic dog.
Click to expand...
It could just be some mutt. No reason to assume that it must look like some particular pedigree.

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom