It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Giant Lungless "Worm" Found Living on Land

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

I kind of took that post to just mean that hey, since they just discovered this new type of worm that they did not think could even exist...then maybe there is something more to that other story. Since that 'worm' is mysterious and this one is a new anomaly...maybe, just maybe this means there are crazy new types of worms to be found. I am not saying that is correct, just what I thought the post was trying to say.


Primarily, this is not a worm, it is a caecilian. An amphibian. Closely related to frogs, newts, salamanders. Worms are invertebrates, earthworms are annelids, which are completely different.

So it's really not a worm at all. And it's not newly discovered. What they just discovered is a new species of this worm that is lungless. There is another known other species of lungless caecilian, too. This is only a new species discovery.

Not a worm. Not necessarily groundbreaking. Still cool, though.




posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Many cryptids are founded on pure speculation. Also, many reports of cryptids aka sightings are based on exaggerations of real species. So, let's say most worms in an area are around 8 inches. And a local community periodically sees "worms" (which may be caecilians, may be eyeless snakes, may be worms) that can be around a meter and a half, just under 5 feet, or even smaller than that, but significantly larger than 8 inches. What would the response of the community be?

"There is a GIANT WORM here!"

Since most worms are much smaller, one of a larger size would be considered giant.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Primarily, this is not a worm, it is a caecilian. An amphibian. Closely related to frogs, newts, salamanders. Worms are invertebrates, earthworms are annelids, which are completely different.


How do you know the deathworm is not really an amphibian? How do you know it is not a reptile? Seeing as how it probably does not even exist, it seems really pointless to attempt to correct me on why this 'not really a worm' could not be related to a fictional cryptid.


So it's really not a worm at all. And it's not newly discovered. What they just discovered is a new species of this worm that is lungless. There is another known other species of lungless caecilian, too. This is only a new species discovery.

Not a worm. Not necessarily groundbreaking. Still cool, though.


Ok well uh thanks for correcting me but if you were paying attention...I was just saying what I took a particular post to mean. I did not actually attempt to present ANY actual information that you need to refute. I am sorry if you feel the need to correct me but there are plenty of threads you could do that in. I was just interpreting another persons post because I felt it was being attacked on the basis of being misunderstood as to what they meant. If they want to correct me on my interpretation of their post, I can accept that. I am not sure what you are getting at but thanks all the same.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I wasn't sure if you were confused, I do apologize. And caecilians may not have anything to do with the cryptid, you are right. However, it seemed that you were confused over what a caecilian is. If not, I am sorry. There may be other members who think these amphibians are actually worms. Regardless of any link to cryptozoology, it is good to understand what these animals actually are, because they're super cool.

I have hypothesized previously in other threads in this forum that the death worm could be an amphibian. I have also hypothesized that it could be a reptile. If you had looked at the link to the thread that I posted, you can see some of my hypotheses and those of other members on the subject.

That is what cryptozoologists do. That is what cryptozoology is. Although YOU may feel that this organism cannot possibly exist, it is a fun hobby for us (and a livelihood for people like Loren Coleman) to conduct research and investigations to determine what these cryptids could possibly be.

And I would like to argue, as FSME of this forum, that "fictional cryptid" may be an oxymoron, because a cryptid may or may not exist. It seems you believe it may definitely not exist. This entire board is based on the idea that they might.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
I wasn't sure if you were confused, I do apologize. And caecilians may not have anything to do with the cryptid, you are right. However, it seemed that you were confused over what a caecilian is.


I can not be any more clear. I was stating what I thought another poster meant by a post since everyone responding to it seemed to be missing the point. That point would be that this is something that he theorized might also be linked to something else that just also happens to have been called a worm. I thought it was pretty simple since there is no real deathworm found anyway to say if it were really a worm or not.



new topics

top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join