Meet the Capacabra! Secrets of 'weird' mummified creature with human-like hands probed by scientists
A mysterious creature with human-like hands found mummified in a historic building is being probed by scientists – and nobody's quite sure what it is.
The mummy, dubbed the Capacabra, was found at Michigan State University in the US city of East Lansing, during renovations of Cook-Seevers Hall.
And though it's since become a mascot for the university's Campus Archaeology Program (CAP), the creature's true identity remains unknown.
Now PHD student Jerielle Cartales, who earned her master's degree at Scotland's University of Dundee, is working to solve the mystery.
She said: 'It is roughly the size of a small cat, and it's got a very long, skinny tail, which goes hand in hand with cat-like features.
'But it has very, like, almost human hands. There's five fingers, and nails, and everything – it looks almost humanoid.
'It is covered with a very thin layer of tissue, but it is all super thin – it feels like old parchment paper.
'It has its nose and its ears still, but they're very dried out.
'It's very dusty, dry, and weird.'
The creature has been compared with the mythical chupacabra – a bloodsucking cryptid from American folklore.
Hence the 'capacabra' nickname, with its nod to the CAP initials.
And just like its notorious namesake, the animal is shrouded in mystery.
Even its age is unknown at this point, though it can't predate 1889 – when the building was constructed.
'The creature is very mummified', said Ms Cartales, who studies forensic anthropology.
'So the interesting thing is that it could have been there for a month, it could have been there for 50 years, we don't really know.
'Theoretically, I guess we could try radiocarbon dating it, but the building itself isn't old enough for it to be worth it.'
The creature has been compared with the mythical chupacabra – a bloodsucking cryptid from American folklore. It has also become the unofficial mascot for the university's Campus Archaeology Program (CAP), earning it the nickname 'the capacabra'
Theories about the animal's true identity have varied.
After the remains were discovered in 2018, one expert tentatively suggested it could be an opossum.
'I didn't think so,'Ms Cartales said.
'And so we were throwing out a bunch of ideas about what it could be.
'We were throwing out like 'maybe it's a dog, maybe it's a cat,' but raccoon didn't even make the list.
'And now, that's my very strong hunch.'
The mummy has now been X-rayed and its skeleton compared with other known species.
Using a textbook, leading candidates like dog, cat, and rat were quickly ruled out.
Raccoon was a good match, but without a dental comparison it's hard to be sure.
Ms Cartales said: 'A raccoon has the same general cranium shape, and the same with the snout shape.
'But the osteology text doesn't have any good images of dentition for the raccoon because their example was edentulous [lacking teeth].
'So I'm trying to find an example of a raccoon I can use for dentition [identification of an animal by its teeth].
'That's the next step.'
Shethinks the creature may have entered the building through an air duct, got trapped, and become mummified over time.
She said: 'Mummification happens in very dry environments.
'If it was found next to an air duct, which seems to me like the most accessible point for an animal to get in from the outside, then that would be a pretty regular supply of warm, dry air, especially in the colder months.
'So, to me, that's the most likely explanation.
'And then during the summer, it gets very hot here, and it's humid.
'But if you're protected by a building, and especially in some sort of duct system, then it really would just be dry, hot conditions, which is pretty perfect for mummification.'
For now, Ms Cartales thinks a raccoon is a best candidate.
She added: 'I'm a scientist, I'm never going to say 100 per cent on anything.
'I would say at this point, I'm about 75 per cent sure that it's a raccoon, but I need to finish the rest of my analysis.'
HOW DO BODIES BECOME NATURALLY MUMMIFIED?
Natural mummification is defined as the process by which the skin and organs of a deceased person or animal are preserved, without the introduction of chemicals by humans.
It is rare, and only happens in specific situations.
These include: extreme cold, arid conditions, or a lack of oxygen.
Naturally preserved mummies have been found deposited in deserts, buried in oxygen-poor peat bogs, and frozen in glaciers.
Some ancient societies accidentally encouraged this process, as they would paint the bodies and cover the deceased person's face in a mask.
This provided an impervious layer which allowed the process to take place.
Throughout the UK, bogs provide the perfect environment for this to happen.
Tollund Man, discovered in Denmark in 1950, is one of the best studied examples of a 'bog body'.
The man, who lived in the fourth century BC, was so well-preserved that he was initially mistaken for a recent murder victim.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
How bubble-blowing whales could aid the hunt for aliens
Humpback whales have been observed creating bubble rings during friendly interactions with humans, suggesting a possible form of communication. Researchers analysed 12 incidents involving 11 whales and 39 bubble rings, categorising the whales by age and noting their non-aggressive behaviour. The whales often exhibited inquisitive behaviour towards boats and swimmers, blowing bubble rings in their direction. In most cases, the ring-blowing whale was alone, suggesting the intended recipient was not another whale. Scientists believe studying these whale interactions could provide insights into non-human intelligence and help refine methods for detecting extraterrestrial life.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘Win-win': new maps reveal best opportunities for global reforestation
New maps have revealed the best 'win-win' opportunities across the world to regrow forests and tackle the climate crisis, without harming people or wildlife. The places range from the eastern US and western Canada, to Brazil and Columbia, and across Europe, adding up to 195 million hectares (482 million acres). If reforested, this would remove 2.2bn tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, about the same as all the nations in the European Union. Previous maps have suggested much larger areas have the potential for regrowing trees but were criticised for including important ecosystems like savannahs and not considering the impact on the millions of people who live in or depend on forests. The researchers behind the new maps built on previous work but employed a deliberately conservative approach in order to shine a spotlight on those places with the highest potential and the fewest problems. They focused only on dense, closed-canopy forests and excluded areas that had suffered recent wildfires. The result was a map showing 195 million hectares of reforestation opportunity, an area equivalent to the size of Mexico but up to 90% smaller than previous maps. They provided further options that, for example, avoid the risk of social conflict with forest peoples, which reduced the potential CO2 removal to 1.5bn tonnes a year. Reforestation opportunity maps are crucial because regrowing trees is the largest and cheapest option for taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, but tree initiatives need to focus on the most suitable areas to maximise their impact. 'Reforestation is not a substitute for cutting fossil fuel emissions, but even if we were to drive down emissions tomorrow, we still need to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere,' said Dr Susan Cook-Patton, at The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and a senior author of the new study, published in the journal Nature Communications. 'Many, many years of evolution have gone into trees figuring out how to suck CO2 from the atmosphere and lock it into carbon stores, so it's ready to scale now.' 'As the number of climate-fuelled disasters stack up worldwide, it's increasingly obvious that we can't waste time on well-meaning but hazily-understood interventions,' she said. 'We must fast-track our focus toward the places with greatest benefits for people and nature and the fewest downsides, the places most likely to be win-win. This study will help leaders and investors do just that.' Prof Simon Lewis, at University College London and not part of the study team, said: 'There have been a series of well-known studies of global reforestation potential that have come up with wildly high numbers. This new study is the antidote to such hyperbole. New forests in the lowest risk areas globally would remove about 5% of humans' CO2 emissions each year – important, but not a silver bullet.' The options the scientists created beyond their 195mHa base map prioritised three broad criteria: avoiding social conflicts, improving biodiversity and water quality, and highlighting places where governments already had reforestation goals, making action more politically possible. 'There's always a set of values or motivations that goes into the way you produce the map, and the answer that you get,' said Kurt Fesenmyer, also at TNC and lead author of the new analysis. The area of land that met every criteria was small – 15mHa – so the researchers hope governments and NGOs will use their interactive maps to highlight the most suitable solutions in their own countries. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion The focus on social conflicts was crucial, as almost 100 million people live in the 195mHa area. 'Previous studies often failed to address how reforestation could have negative effects on human well-being, especially for poor people living in the remote rural areas often targeted for reforestation,' says Dr Forrest Fleischman, at the University of Minnesota and a co-author of the study. 'These negative effects are more likely when people lack secure land rights, are highly dependent on natural resources for food and fuel, and live in countries where political rights are not respected,' he said. Removing such places from the map cut the area of reforestation opportunity by about a third but the remaining land would still remove about 1.5bn tonnes of CO2 a year. These regions were particularly focused in the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, as well as Brazil, which is hosting the UN's Cop30 climate summit in November. Lewis said the approach taken in the new study made sense: 'Who wants to see the natural grasslands like the Serengeti covered in trees and not lions, elephants and other wildlife? And planting trees in places that burn isn't going to store carbon long-term, and so of course these areas should be excluded.' However, he added: 'The most conservative map removes potential forest restoration across almost all of Africa and Southeast Asia, due to fears of [land rights] conflict. This risks perpetuating poverty, if investments in nature avoid poor countries with limited governance. Plans to invest in nature to improve local livelihoods and also benefit the climate and biodiversity should be seized, as these often go hand-in-hand.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Something in the water: how kelp is helping Maine's mussels boom
On a glimmering May morning, Tom Briggs pilots a 45ft aluminium barge through the waters of Casco Bay for one of the final days of the annual kelp harvest. Motoring past Clapboard Island, he points to a floating wooden platform where mussels have been seeded alongside ribbons of edible seaweed. 'This is our most productive mussel site,' says Briggs, the farm manager for Bangs Island Mussels, a Portland sea farm that grows, harvests and sells hundreds of thousands of pounds of shellfish and seaweed each year. 'When we come here, we get the biggest, fastest-growing mussels with the thickest shells and the best quality. To my mind, unscientifically, it's because of the kelp.' Zoe Benisek, oyster lead at Bangs Island Mussels, harvesting kelp. The seaweed changes water chemistry enough to lower the levels of carbon dioxide to nourish the mussels A growing body of science supports Briggs's intuition. The Gulf of Maine is uniquely vulnerable to ocean acidification, which can impede shell development in mussels, clams, oysters and lobster, threatening an industry that employs hundreds of people and generates $85m to $100m (£63m to £74m) annually. Atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is the main driver of declining ocean pH, increasing the acidity of the world's oceans by more than 40% since the preindustrial era and by more than 15% since 1985. Add carbon runoff from growing coastal communities, regular inflows of colder, more acidic water from Canada, and intense thermal stress – the Gulf of Maine is warming three times faster than the global average – and you're left with a delicate marine ecosystem and key economic resource under threat. Enter kelp. The streams of glistening, brownish-green seaweed that Bangs Island seeds on lines under frigid November skies and harvests in late spring are a natural answer to ocean acidification because they devour carbon dioxide. Sensors placed near kelp lines in Casco Bay over the past decade have shown that growing seaweed changes water chemistry enough to lower the levels of carbon dioxide in the immediate vicinity, nourishing nearby molluscs. 'We know that, in general, for shell builders, ocean acidification is bad, and we know that kelp do better in a high-CO2 environment,' says Susie Arnold, the senior ocean scientist at the Island Institute, a non-profit climate and community organisation in Rockland, Maine, and a pioneer of the Bangs Island water experiments. Working with the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, an independent Maine-based research organisation, Arnold and others began testing the water off Chebeague Island in 2015 'to see if we could detect a difference between water chemistry in the middle of all that kelp and far away from it', she says. 'We planted juvenile mussels inside and outside the kelp, and we were able to show that the mussels inside the kelp had a thicker shell. Now you see Bangs Island growing kelp around their mussels because they can make a profit on kelp and also buffer the mussels.' The Bangs Island crew harvesting kelp on their boat in the Gulf of Maine The CEO and co-owner of Bangs Island Mussels, Matt Moretti, studied marine biology in college and grad school, helped raise baby lobsters at the New England Aquarium, and worked on an oyster farm before buying the sea farm with his father in 2010. Within a year, they had started growing kelp alongside the mussels in an approach known as integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. 'Even before we started farming mussels, I was interested in that concept as an environmentally friendly way of farming, and of farming an ecosystem rather than a single species,' Moretti says from his bare-bones upstairs office in Bangs Island's warehouse on the Portland pier. As the kelp harvest grew, Moretti realised they needed a way to stabilise the seaweed, which didn't last long after it came out of the water. For a while they dried it themselves, hanging it in the warehouse and on the docks. Now, they sell the entire fresh seaweed catch to a local processor, which turns it into fermented foods such as kimchi, among other products. Gillian Prostko, chief science officer at Bangs Island Mussels. The harvested kelp is sold to a processor and turned into fermented foods such as kimchi 'We always suspected that there was this positive interaction between the mussels and kelp, and we suspected that because kelp photosynthesises, it sucks carbon out of the water, then therefore it must be good for the ocean and good for the mussels,' Moretti says. Bigelow's water testing has proven that 'we're having a positive impact'. Nichole Price, the director of Bigelow's Centre for Seafood Solutions, collaborated with Arnold on those early experiments and continues to monitor the water around Bangs Island mussel and kelp lines, an effort that has expanded to include water monitoring at seaweed farms from Alaska to Norway. In a paper published this year in the journal Nature Climate Change, Price, Arnold, and a host of co-authors documented yet another way in which seaweed farms can contribute to the health of the world's oceans: by trapping carbon at the bottom of the sea. 'When you harvest, you're not pulling up every last bit of seaweed,' Price says. 'We've been diving under farms during harvest, and you can see the bits and pieces that rain down. Then there's a culling process, the bits and pieces that get tossed over, and that's what this paper has measured: the unusable, unsellable parts of the harvest that end up on the sea floor.' Matt Moretti, founder of Bangs Island Mussels (left) and farm manager Tom Briggs Those discarded seaweed scraps can contribute to what is known as passive deposition of carbon. 'Fingers crossed, it gets covered with sediment fast enough that it's taken out of the global carbon cycle,' Price says. Given the environmental and financial benefits of growing kelp and shellfish together, you might think everyone would be doing it. But co-farming mussels and kelp at scale requires more than just planting and harvesting. With five boats, a plankton monitoring programme, and tanks on the ground floor of the warehouse where baby mussels from a nearby hatchery are carefully seeded on to lines before being placed in the ocean, Bangs Island is part farm, part science lab. Changes in mussel-spawning and seed-collection cycles in recent years have forced Moretti and his staff to pay much closer attention to the surrounding water and its inhabitants, from barnacles – a nuisance to shellfish farmers because they set on mussels – to the microscopic larvae of tunicates, pestilent sea squirts that seeded on nearly all of the farm's mussel lines several years ago, crowding out the shellfish and almost sinking the business. 'Conceptually, what we do is very simple: we grow mussels, harvest them, sell them,' Moretti said. 'But adding all the pieces together is a really big, complicated puzzle.' Today, Bangs Island harvests about 600,000lb (270,000kg) of mussels and 100,000lb of seaweed a year; last fall, they began farming oysters. The oysters, along with about half the mussels, grow in proximity to kelp. 'Climate change, ocean acidification, is a global problem. And when you try to think about it, like, what you can do? It's so daunting,' Moretti says. 'But when you think about us farming kelp in the ocean, it's really the only way we've ever been able to figure out to have a local-scale mitigation of this global problem. It's something we can do here that can help the waters around us that actually has a significant impact.' Kelp ready for harvesting in the Gulf of Maine
