Talk:Steller's sea ape

Sea otter
Can't put this in the article as it is original research, but I am surprised no-one has suggested it might have been a sea otter. The sea otter's face looks much more like a dog than the fur seal does, it lives in the correct region, it is almost exactly the right size (whereas fur seals are a little too large, unless it was a juvenile), juggling with kelp is a very typical sea otter behaviour, its long whiskers are very prominent, and the described colouration is very typical.

Both the fur seal and the sea otter do not exactly match on the flippers, unless they were inexactly observed, but here we have a quandary: if Steller saw no forelimbs, how did he see it juggling? In every other respect the fur seal is a fair match but the sea otter is exact. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but he independently described both the Sea Otter and the Northern Fur Seal, as well a sea lion and a sea cow. The "explanations" section provides a good reason for a possible mis-identifiaction (and it is referenced too).  If you can provide a similar reference from a reliable source which mentions your "theory", feel free to add it to the article.  Astronaut (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They also killed hundreds of sea otters while surviving the winter on an island off Siberia, so they saw many many sea otters. What confuses me is Steller's  description of 'juggling' when he also suggests the animal lacked front limbs of any kind. I've only read a book about the voyage, not his translated notes/publications.  Large erect ears are unlike most marine mammals.  He was accurate with his other descriptions, it sure makes me wonder.--Paddling bear (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Beasts of the Sea
"Steller's 1742 governmental report made no mention of it, but he included a description of the creature in his De Bestiis Marinis (‘The Beasts of the Sea’)." -- DBM does not contain mention of the sea ape. That is only in his Journal of a Voyage .... Proyster (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the source, DBM did mention it. Bkatcher (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

AAH
What is the link with aquatic ape hypothesis (an alternative hypothesis of homonid evolution). Other than this being an ape and aquatic. That is not enough of a link that they are worthy of being linked like this. Nothing links this cryptid to homonid evolution.ZayZayEM (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fringe POV
This article gives undue weight to the cryptozoological viewpoint. WP:WEIGHT requires that we represent all significant viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"; the cryptozoological paragraph is supported only by fringe sources Newton and Eberhart. Even if we label the fringe view as such, it would need to be backed by RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 22:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you forgot "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space". This is a very niche topic about a cryptic creature, therefore we also have to present what cryptozoologists say (of course, we're still abiding to "must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view")  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Dlthwave on this one. Since the pseudoscience/subculture and its proponents rate deep on the fringe-o-meter, we really need a reliable source discussing cryptozoologist interest in this topic and its culture context to include it here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)