Scientists retract photo of ‘first goblin shark seen in the Med’ as it could actually show a TOY

Marine biologists have been forced to embarrassingly retract the so-called ‘first record of the goblin shark’ in the Mediterranean.

This came after social media users pointed out that the photo they posted could instead show a plastic toy instead.

A goblin shark replica was found online that bore a striking resemblance to the one in the scientists’ image.

Other experts also said the creature pictured didn’t have enough gills, had malformed fins and exhibited “unnatural stiffness.”

Now the original photo has been completely removed from the articlewith the authors admitting that the ‘available information was not sufficient’ to support their claim.

The team, from the University of Patras in Greece and the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, initially published their photo in Mediterranean marine science in May last year.

It was part of a larger body of evidence from 21 species first spotted in the Mediterranean.

The authors wrote that an unnamed citizen scientist spotted the dead shark in the image while walking on Anafi Island’s Klisidi Beach in August 2020.

They describe it as a goblin shark, Mitsukurina owstoni – a rare species that lives in rock formations at a depth of more than 100 meters.

The creature was spotted about 20 feet from shore and then placed on the rocks to take a single shot.

The scientists wrote that they’main external taxonomic characters’ that confirmed it was a goblin shark.

While there is no scale bar on the image, they added that it “was no longer than 80 cm,” so they thought it was a juvenile.

Since the authors have not observed or measured the specimen in the flesh, this is based on reports by Mr. Papadakis, or visual comparison with the rocks below.

Goblin sharks usually grow to be between 3 and 4 m in length, although specimens have been reported to be nearly double that.

The authors added that the finding suggests “that the species can reproduce in the Mediterranean’.

In November, after the paper had gone around, four scientists decided to do just that publish a formal comment disputing the evidence in the original article.

‘On close examination of this image and analysis of the morphological features of M. owstonidoubts arise about the authenticity of the image provided as a figure to support the record,” they wrote.

They then give 10 points of contention, including that the specimen in the photo lacks teeth and appears to have only four gill slits.

Its jaws also appeared to stick out in an “unnatural state,” but the creatures “distinct large teeth” are nowhere to be seen.

They wrote: ‘In general, the specimen depicted exhibits an unnatural stiffness when compared to the soft bodies of fresh as well as preserved specimens.’

They added that the copyright of the image belonged to someone named Giannis Papadakis, but it was not made clear whether he had discovered the specimen.

While the comment questions whether the image depicts a “natural specimen,” it doesn’t specifically reference allegations that it might actually show a plastic toy shark.

However, Facebook users have posted scathing side-to-sides of the photo in question and a Mitsukurina owstoni replica of the Italian manufacturer DeAgostini.

One of them commented: “Real animals don’t have a sewing line between the mouth and the belly… Change your mind”

Another added: ‘I can’t believe what I’ve just read… just can’t… it’s beyond me… Wipe the sand out of your eyes!!! This goddamn so-called half-ass goblin embryo is a plush!!!!!”

In January, the three scientists involved in publishing the image, Athanasios Anastasiadis, Evangelos Papadimitriou and Dr. Frithjof Küpper, revised their paper.

They said the shark was, in fact, probably about 7 inches (18 cm) long instead of 3 feet (80 cm).

Their explanation for the size was that it was an embryo and that the differences from known specimens indicated were due to malformations.

Newborn goblin sharks are believed to be about 82 cm long, the length of the smallest known specimen.

Scientists did not accept these explanations, and the trio of authors removed the image and revised explanation from the article altogether on March 20.

They said this was due to “continuing uncertainty” about the authenticity of the photographic evidence and the photographer’s information.

Despite this, Dr Küpper reiterated his claim that the shark in the image is ‘authentic’ The everyday beast.

The chair of marine biodiversity at the University of Aberdeen said: ‘While we have every reason to believe the find was authentic (several Mediterranean shark experts and [two] anonymous peer reviewers accepted and supported the publication of this article!), other colleagues sparked a completely unethical controversy, claiming that the specimen was a discarded plastic figurine.

“To prevent further damage and given that the specimen was not preserved by the citizen scientist in Anafi (Papadakis), we have decided to retract the article.”