Oarfish? Strange, Spanish fish carcass has been identified.

Oarfish? No. A rotting fish carcass on a Spanish beach has been identified as a shark, not an oarfish.

A mysterious dead fish found on a Spanish beach has been identified as a shark, not an oarfish.

A fish carcass rotting on a Spanish beach has been identified as a deceased shark – not a washed-up oarfish, or a mutant animal, or a sea monster – according to an ichthyologist quoted by NBC News.

The remains of a long animal with barely-there flesh and scales, all tinged with a metallic sheen acquired from cooking in a beach’s hot, summer sand, were found last week on Luis Siret Beach in Villaricos, a coastal village in eastern Spain. Photos of the allegedly stinking fish were purveyed in the Spanish press and with them flurried speculation about the weird fish’s origins.

What was the strange, dead thing? Maybe it was a sea monster, wrested from its deep sea lair, some readers ventured on Twitter. Or maybe it was a mutant, the unfortunate lab product of a Frankenstein hermit fiddling with test tubes and beakers and DNA somewhere on the Spanish coast, probably in a castle lacking in light fixtures? Either way, the corpse made for good storytelling.

The best explanation, for a while, was that the deceased was an oarfish, an up-to-20-foot-long animal that inspired the tales sailors told on suspenseful nights about sea monsters biding their time in the black waters under their bumping and lurching ships. Earlier this summer, an ROV some 200 feet deep in the Gulf of Mexico filmed an oarfish doing a slow, underwater dance for the camera, like a blithe goddess with time to spare. Blue and glittering, the real-life fish did a convincing job at masquerading as something not quite of this world.

But now, Dean Grubbs, an ichthyologist at Florida State, has confirmed that the fish is not a sea monster, not a mutant, and not the hybrid of the two, the oarfish.

Instead, it is – or was – a shark, he said, presumably anti-climatically. In fact, in an unfortunate downgrade, the errant bones that looked like horns severed from a dethroned monster king have turned out to be pectoral bones from a shark’s behind.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.