What type of evidence primarily supports the 1932 Bathysphaera sighting versus the 75kg specimen report?
Answer
Visual sighting vs. trapping event testimony
The text highlights a critical difference in the evidentiary basis for the two main claims regarding giant dragonfish. The account concerning *Bathysphaera intacta* is exclusively a visual sighting, reported from inside a bathysphere at an extreme depth, offering no physical proof. Conversely, the report concerning the 75-kilogram specimen is linked specifically to a documented trapping event where geoduck was used as bait, implying a capture rather than just an observation. This distinction is key: one relies on historical testimony of an ephemeral visual encounter, while the other is tied to the result of a specific capture attempt, though the status of that catch remains unverified.
Related Questions
When was the Bathysphaera intacta Giant Dragonfish allegedly observed?What vessel was utilized during the 1932 observation of the Giant Dragonfish?What staggering depth was cited for the single observation of Bathysphaera intacta?What feature characterizes established deep-sea dragonfish like those in the Stomiidae family?How does the reputed size of Bathysphaera intacta compare to known Stomiidae measurements?What specific weight, associated with a trapping event and geoduck bait, is sometimes attributed to a Giant Dragon Fish?The 640-meter depth recorded for Bathysphaera is near the boundary of which two ocean zones?What type of evidence primarily supports the 1932 Bathysphaera sighting versus the 75kg specimen report?What crucial element is missing for the 1932 Bathysphaera sighting to gain formal taxonomic classification?Reaching 75 kilograms in the aphotic zone suggests what ecological strategy for the alleged Giant Dragon Fish?