serious

Squid, part 2.

If you're looking for an external link to the squid pic, use this one to the Guardian's site. It should be good for the rest of the week.

The photo's credited to Kate Bolstad. I think that should probably be Kat Bolstad.
Wow, if only you knew how relevent that was...one of our curator tools is called SQUID, I think I might send the team a pic! :)
I have the definive answer!

I e-mailed Mark Carwardine's office about it, and got this reply over the weekend.


I helped Mark Carwardine with Extreme Nature, and so I thought it was
probably easier for me to reply direct to you about your observation.

You are absolutely right: the picture is quite different from the dissection
shots. It's a model, and I hope the credit in the book will say that. I left
instructions for that to happen but haven't seen the actual book yet.

The picture was supplied by the office of the expert - Dr Steve O¹Shea - and
was taken by his assistant Kathrin Bolstad.

My understanding is that the model was made for a film (National Geographic,
I think - but I can't quite remember) but was based on knowledge gleaned
from the dissection of the juvenile.

This is what she said about the real one:
"Yes, it was amazing to see in person! By far the largest squid I had
ever imagined... the standard old 'giant' pales by comparison!"


So it seems to be a model, but a fairly anatomically accurate model. Incidentaly, the Times printed the picture this weekend in thier Saturday books suplement.
Excellent. And indeed defintive. Thanks.

Someone - inferis? - mailed the effects company and got another still out of them.

This week's Saturday Guardian magazine has a letter which said that it looked like a model, and their reply admitted that the caption describing it as a model got missed off.