This lead to a long research effort uncovering all of the published accounts of the event, many of which made mention of specimens being sent to the Smithsonian. Wood was unsuccessful in getting the Smithsonian to cooperate, so the more influential Gennaro made a trip to the Smithsonian to collect the specimen and wrote:

There by the sink was a glass container about the size of a milk can. Inside it was a murky mixture of cheesecloth, formalin (and I think some alcohol), and half a dozen large white masses of tough fibrous material, each about as large as a good sized roast. We lifted them up with the cheesecloth, then took them out with forceps.

He noted that the material corresponded to Webb’s description. He was allowed to remove what he wanted with a dissecting knife with replaceable blades. The two pieces he removed were wrapped in cheesecloth, placed in a jar, and transported by himself to his laboratory.

Initial examination proved disappointing. There were no features such as suckers, identifiable skin structures, or muscular masses. He then viewed them through a microscope along with control specimen samples of known octopus and squid. He was disappointed to find no cellular fine structure. He expected highly differentiated cells of a mammal if it was from a whale or structures typical of a squid or octopus. Then he viewed his control samples. They also revealed little if any cellular structure. Differences of connective tissues were more striking. Octopus tissue was different from squid tissue and neither could be mistaken for mammalian tissue.

Using polarized light, Gennaro decide to compare connective tissues. His findings were as follows:

Now differences between the contemporary squid and octopus samples became very clear. In the octopus, broad bands of fibers passed along the plane of tissue and were separated by equally broad bands arranged in a perpendicular direction. In the squid there were narrower, but also relatively broad, bundles arranged in planes of the section, separated by thin partitions of perpendicular fibers….It seemed I had found the means to identify the mystery sample after all. I could distinguish between octopus and squid, and between them and mammals, which display a lacy network of connective tissue fibers….After seventy-five years, the moment of truth was at hand. Viewing section after section of the St. Augustine sample, we decided at once and beyond any doubt, that the sample was not whale blubber. Further, the connective tissue pattern was that of broad bands in the plane of the section with equally broad bands arranged perpendicularly, a structure similar to, if not identical with, that in my octopus sample….The evidence appears unmistakable that the St. Augustine sea monster was in fact an octopus, but the implications are fantastic.

We can agree with the assessment but should not be surprised that giant octopi have not been verified before. (For further scientific data and studies done on this subject between 1957-1995, see http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cryptozoo/floride/1971.htm , http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cryptozoo/floride/1986.htm , and http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cryptozoo/floride/1995.htm .) Perhaps the giant sucker marks on whales, particularly sperm whales, are not caused by giant squid, but rather by giant octopus, as they are more sluggish and are bottom dwellers. Where would these creatures be found? Wood’s investigations revolved around the Bahamas, where reported creatures known as the Lusca very clearly resemble that of giant octopi.

Interestingly enough, Wood had worked in the area in 1956, surveying possible sites for Marine Studios. At one point he recounted vague references to "giant scuttles." "Scuttle" is the Bahamian word for octopus. A reliable guide with whom he worked, named Duke, maintained that the scuttle’s arms were about seventy-five feet long. He also said they are not dangerous to fishermen unless they can grip the ocean floor and the boat at the same time. Additional information was received by George. J. Benjamin, who was intrigued by the great blue holes in the ocean floor around the Andros Islands. He nor his colleagues ever observed any octopi or squid on their investigations of the holes.

However, it seems that evidence presented, consisting not only of reports but also tissue samples, establishes that very large octopi exists somewhere in the Atlantic off the Florida coast. Whether these creatures explain the Lusca cannot be determined until deep diving exploration is carried out in the area.

It seems that other carcasses besides the now famous St. Augustine monster have been observed. In fact, many references can be found to unidentified sea creatures, dubbed globsters, that have washed ashore, some of which resemble the giant octopus. One such body found in Tasmania in August 1960 may have been another octopus. Unfortunately, the investigation that followed was worse than that for the St. Augustine carcass. The discovery was made by a rancher and two cowhands but did not reach the capital until months later. An aerial search located it and a four-man expedition was dispatched in March 1962 led by Bruce Mollison from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. They described the hairy carcass as having no eyes or bones and having creamy, rubbery skin. It was marked with what may have been gill slits. It was given headline treatment and even discussed in Parliament. A zoological team was sent by the government to investigate and returned the next day. Because of the time it had spent decomposing on the beach they said:

"…it is not possible to specifically identify it from our investigations so far. But our investigations lead us to believe that the so-called monster is a decomposing portion of a large marine animal. It is not inconsistent with blubber."

Mollison did not swallow their solution as easily as the press. He claimed they had to say it was ordinary to cover up the fact they were not fast enough to be able to investigate properly. What he saw was not part of a whale, he stated. Theories about the classification of the lump of flesh ranged from a thawed mammoth from Antarctic ice to a space-being. A.M. Clark from the University of Tasmania thought it might have been a giant ray.

Surprisingly, the same rancher who had first seen the Tasmanian globster stumbled across another carcass in 1970. He was in no way excited about it, remembering the ridicule he had gone through the first time. Hardly anyone rushed to investigate the carcass that could have put an end to the mystery of the 1960 carcass.

Other globsters include one that, in March 1965, washed up on the eastern shore of North Island in New Zealand. It was hairy, thirty feet long and eight feet tall. No other significant information was published. On Mangrove Bay beach in Bermuda in May 1988, tissue samples were taken of which laboratory results have yet to be released. Its discoverer, Teddy Tucker, described it as "three feet thick…very white and fibrous…with five arms or legs." Its flesh was extremely hard to cut even in the absence of bone. More recent globsters include that which was found on Four Mile Beach, Tasmania, in 1997. DNA testing was to be done but the results of those tests have never been published.

Marine biologists have turned their attention to those animals living in the unexplored ocean depths, where giant squid are believed to exist. Perhaps there is a bright future and possible discovery of the great octopus.