Cryptozoology

[JAStewart]

I was watching Tremors II the other day and then I went onto the wikipedia page upon which I ended up on the page for the creatures in the movie, and linked from that page was the Mongolian Death Worm. It got me thinking... have any animals, previously thought of as Cryptozoology been discovered to be actual animals?

I would imagine not because most of the cryptozoolgical animals have some supernatural/unreal feature.

 

[TheDoLittle]

Either the lowland or mountain gorilla were thought to be a myth until the early 20th century. I also seem to vaguely remember Sir David Attenborough doing a show on wildlife of Madagascar, and stated Darwin (or one of his protege's, I can't remember exactly) predicted the existence of a bird because of the shape of one of it's more unusual flowers. The bird was thought a myth until someone saw one and was able to get photographs

 

[Loss Leader]

If you want, you can label the near-worldwide belief in dragons as cryptozoology. They turned out to be the result of trying to interpret dinosaur fossils a couple thousand years before the development of the scientific method.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

If you want, you can label the near-worldwide belief in dragons as cryptozoology. They turned out to be the result of trying to interpret dinosaur fossils a couple thousand years before the development of the scientific method.

and its believed the cyclops may be a result of misinterpreting an elephant skull

the kraken may have been a giant sqid



is this really a conspiracy theory?

 

[Correa Neto]

I tend to say no. Cryptozoologists will frequently try to pull coelacanths, gorillas, giant squids and even giant pandas and okapis to back the "animals-once-thought-to-be-a-myth-untill-someone-proved-to-close-minded-mainstream-scientists-that-they-were-real" line. Every one of these claims have major holes. The major one is that when they say something like "science ignored Hanno's tale on gorillas from 500BC untill the XIX century" they ignore that fact that before the renaissance, the very existence of "science as we know it, Jim" was at least debatable.

 

[JohnWS]

Interesting thoughts on the coelacanth issue IMHO:

An example of this is the suggestion that a small sauropod dinosaur lives in the tropical jungles of central Africa. The majority of evidence backing up this claim is anecdotal in nature; are we to believe, based on stories by a few natives and missionaries, that there is a dinosaur living in the Congo? Critically speaking, we definitely should not. There is much more evidence---hard evidence---that all dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Some cryptozoologists would counter this with the coelacanth analogy---if it survived that long without any fossils to show for it, then why not dinosaurs? Research on this subject would show us that the coelacanth is really a pointless analogy; it survived in an area of poor fossilization (the deep-sea), and has a very fragile, inconspicuous skeleton compared to those of dinosaurs (and thus wouldn't fossilize as well or be readily noticed). Furthermore, coelacanths on a whole were already becoming rare in the fossil record by the end of the Cretaceous, when they supposedly disappeared, whereas dinosaurs are very prominent in rocks of that age. Most importantly, it has been revealed recently that post-Cretaceous coelacanth fossils are known (Darren Naish, pers. comm.). Basically, it is ridiculous to compare the geological record of a fish to that of a dinosaur, because they are such different creatures. Yet many cryptozoologists make this error---among others---time and time again.

From - A Critical Approach to Cryptozoology

 

[TMiguel]

I would imagine not because most of the cryptozoolgical animals have some supernatural/unreal feature.

Cryptozoology is not just a “wishy washy” subject, of course “wishy washers” got a grip on this one to (like any other field of knowledge has it’s own crackpots).
Animals like the giant squid where actually found and documented, but I personally never knew about a “mythic” animal (who’s implications for his existence are just nonsense) ever to be found.
Beings like the lockness monster or the bigfoot (or whatever version of the bigfoot) are not remotely possible to exist due to environment studies of the location where people claim to have spot them, one of which is the biomass (which quantifies how big is the amount of animals and plants required to sustain a form of life in order to keep it’s population steady and reproducible). Most of the areas claimed for spotting are not even capable of sustaining a single individual, much less be big enough to keep the animals (which I mind remind you that they are not small animals either) unseen on a quick search.

 

[Starthinker]

But I don't think there was a myth or legend about the coelacanth. It not like there were sailor's tails about a dinosaur fish floating around. I think somebody just caught one by accident one day and it basically shocked everyone. I could be wrong. I just don't think the coelacanth really falls into the field of cryptozoology.

 

[my_wan]

It's cool to hold out hope for that really really long shot. It's delusional to believe it to be so.

 

[paximperium]

Either the lowland or mountain gorilla were thought to be a myth until the early 20th century. I also seem to vaguely remember Sir David Attenborough doing a show on wildlife of Madagascar, and stated Darwin (or one of his protege's, I can't remember exactly) predicted the existence of a bird because of the shape of one of it's more unusual flowers. The bird was thought a myth until someone saw one and was able to get photographs

No. These creatures were found by actual scientists.

No Cryptozoologists have ever found any of the animals they claim exist.
While Cryptozoologist go about and waste their time, real zoologists are actually finding creatures that has never been seen by any humans before.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I can only find the mountain gorilla as a good example. Not really a Bigfoot or Nessie type discovery, just a different type of gorilla where gorillas are. That was confirmed by scientists 106 years ago. Anything since then, any claims of relevance seem to be just actual scientists finding species thought to have been extinct.

In the 1800s cryptozoology made some sense. If no scientists have explored a location and the locals say there is some weird creature, you should listen to them.

But now, almost every area of the planet where man has been has been explored. No major “folklore” creatures have been discovered in 106 years. (I say “major” only because I think there was a bird found in the past several years in Indonesia that the locals reported but no scientists had previously found. The scientists believed that the bird was there and went looking for it and found it.) Cryptozoologists have not discovered or contributed anything.

 

[Starthinker]

I sometimes visit cryptozoology.com and went back after reading this thread. A fellow named Hawkwolf made some nice posts in this thread, http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/topic_view_thread.php?tid=2&pid=611068 .

Sorry Scott, but comparing the Giant Squid to "Bigfoot" goes beyond apples and oranges.

Giant squid bodies have been well documented since the 19th century. Over 100 carcasses have been examined by scientists. Its larval form has been captured. The animal has been photograped and filmed by expeditions setting out to do exactly that. That visual evidence is clear, with no "Blobsquids" requiring circles and arrows. The only difficulty in obtaining hard data on either the Giant or Collosal squid has been the extreme envirnoment they live in and the sheer size of the world's oceans.

Now, as to other "cryptozoological success stories", what might those be?

The Giant Panda? Well known to the Chinese, only a "cryptid" in the West, and when western scientists went looking for it, they soon came back with live specimens.The Komodo Dragon? The Mountain Gorilla? The Okapi? Again, once somebody decided to go look for it, specimens were brought back.

Or perhaps you refer to the coelacanth, which was discovered purely by chance in a fish market? There was no search, no legend to track down. To the locals they were simply a big deepwater fish they caught from time to time.

The closest thing I can think of a "cryptozoological success story" is the search for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, and the jury still seems to be out on that one.

Now, let's take a look at "hairy hominids" in North America. We still have no better photographic evidence than the PG film. In the centuries since European settlers first came here, we don't have a single body to show for it. In that same time, the Passenger Pigeon was driven to extinction, the mountain lion virtually exterminated over half the continent, huge herds of bison wiped out, wolves driven to the brink, grizzlies greatly reduced in habitat, and most importantly, smart, "woods-wise" populations of our own species wiped out or clinging by the barest of threads to existance.

In that time, technology has increased incredibly. We can use satellites to fix our positions accurately. Fairly cheap, readily available devices remove the shield of darkness. DNA testing allows small samples of mammoth hair stored for years at room temperature to be sequenced. One of an estimated 500 wolverines in the "Lower 48" is caught on a trail camera in California, where it wasn't thought to exist. .

But in the years since the PG film, what we mainly have is hoaxes and beef jerky commercials. There are a few bits of evidence that turn up from time to time to keep us interested, or that are hard to simply dismiss as hoaxes. Those tend to get lost in the "noise" of silliness like 4 foot long "tracks" or the stupidity of the recent events from Georgia.

And further along:

"However, in answer to your second point: Mountain Gorilla (unconfirmed until the beginning of the 19th century), Bili Ape AKA "Ngoloko"(2004 but known before that albeit not "scientifically" confirmed), Okapi, Vu Quag Ox, Laos Rock Rat, Komodo Dragon (1917), and Megamouth Shark (1971), to name a few I can readily recall. Most of these are larger than a bread box and are, indeed, of human size."

Mountain Gorilla ... first collected at the beginning of the 20th century. not the 19th, by essentially the first European explorer to enter their territory. No "cryptozoologists" involved. Also, gorillas in general had been known to science for over 50 years before that.

Laotian Rock Rat ... no history as a cryptid, found in a food market by someone who recognized there was something special about the little critter. In other words, pretty much the same story as the coelacanth. Note that within 10 years of the accidental discovery of the first specimen, we had video of a live one.

Okapi ... first sighted by Stanley in the 1870s (again, one of the first Western explorers to enter the territory). Specimens collected and classified in 1902. Specimen in zoo in 1918.

Vu Qang Ox ... again, well known to and hunted by the locals. No "cryptid" history. Described by zoologists shortly after their horns were brought to said zoologists attention in 1992. Not long after that, images of the living animal were published everywhere.

Komodo Dragon ... first brought to western attention in 1910. Described from a photo and skin in 1912. The first recorded expedition I could find that went to Komodo Island for the express purpose of obtaining specimens (1926) came back with 12 dead ones and 2 live ones.

Megamouth Shark ... completely unknown to science or even legend until the first one was discovered tangled in an anchor chain in 1976. Hard to be a "cryptid" when nobody even dreams you exist. Since the initial discovery, 41 specimens of what is presumed to be an extremely rare fish have been described to date.

Bili Ape ... seems to enter the literature in 1996. By 2006 DNA analysis had been done.

So, in summary, in the case of the Mountain Gorilla, Komodo Dragon, Okapi, and Bili Ape, not long after they were brought to western attention and someone went seriously looking for them, they found them. The Saola (Vu Quang Ox), Laotian Rock Rat, and Megamouth Shark were never cryptids to begin with, unless you want to claim that ANY undiscovered species is a cryptid.

In every case, no "cryptozoologists" were involved.

Now, by contrast, let's turn again to Bigfoot. How many years have people been looking for an animal which is supposedly distributed all across North America, and has been here long enough to have widespread native legends about it? 40 years? 50 years? That's a long time for little or no return, especially in contrast with your "cryptozoological success stories", which mostly involved people going to the area the reports came from, and coming back with a specimen,sometimes on the first try.

It's not all woo over there. Some very good points.

 

[Cuddles]

In the 1800s cryptozoology made some sense. If no scientists have explored a location and the locals say there is some weird creature, you should listen to them.

I think this is the big problem with comparing cryptozoology now with the past. It's similar to the comparison between modern and past alchemy. In the past, alchemy was a perfectly valid area of study. It often involved things considered rather wooish even at the time, but there were legitimate practices and findings. Of course, eventually the field split with the real science now being called chemistry and alchemy being relegated to just the woo. But this means that you can't just say "alchemy is woo", since it depends on when you're talking about.

It's the same for cryptozoology. In the past, even as late as the early 20th century, there were a lot of places that hadn't been thoroughly explored, and there were a lot of animals that weren't generally known, or even known at all. Things like rhinoceroses and gorillas were known only by a few vague descriptions by explorers. But the world has changed since then. There really isn't anywhere on Earth, apart from deep ocean trenches, that are as remote and hard to get to as places like central Africa and India used to be. And the trenches don't have lone explorers wandering around them and bringing back tales of what they've seen. Just as alchemy split into woo and legitimate science, so did zoology. Where there used to be a big mix of science, exploration and stories that may or may not have been based on fact, now there is just real science and wild stories, and really no overlap between the two.

The only real difference between alchemy and cryptozoology is that where alchemists managed to keep the original name and the scientists had to come up with a new one, it was zoologists that kept the name and cryptozoologists had to make up a new one.

 

[VulcanWay]

Personally, I think that there is a conspiracy to cover up leprechaun sightings. They're out there, people, and the cryptozoologists are trying to keep it under wraps so that they get all the gold themselves!!

((NOTE: I thought that was actually a funny post until for kicks I did a search and found this site...ugh!))

 

[TMiguel]

Personally, I think that there is a conspiracy to cover up leprechaun sightings. They're out there, people, and the cryptozoologists are trying to keep it under wraps so that they get all the gold themselves!!

((NOTE: I thought that was actually a funny post until for kicks I did a search and found this site...ugh!))

If it sounds to stupid, probably some one already made it a serious work out of it.

 

[Dragoonster]

It's not all woo over there. Some very good points.

Indeed, but there's a bit of a problem with some of the thinking:

Vu Qang Ox ... again, well known to and hunted by the locals. No "cryptid" history. Described by zoologists shortly after their horns were brought to said zoologists attention in 1992. Not long after that, images of the living animal were published everywhere.

Something like that, only in retrospect could be dismissed from a crypto success because it was "well known to and hunted by the locals". I don't know much about that beast's history, but until zoologists brought back images/body parts evidence for its existence should properly be called anecdotal. And supporters of its existence properly called crypozoologists (even if they're zoologists)...unless we're going to now claim all anecdotal evidence of beasts not yet discovered are valid and the beasts are zoological certainties only awaiting discovery. [ETA: my logic here seems problematic too after reading it, but I'll leave it as is]

I haven't followed cryptozoology lately but it used to fascinate me. The biggest drama I can recall is the prolonged search for "mokele mbembe", a supposed dinosaur in...I think eastern Africa, or the Congo (?)

But it was a pretty serious team of self-described cryptos and at least a decent effort to find the thing. Started off displaying some "nessie" like photos from the large lake there. Had interviews with locals who when shown pictures of various beasts identified it as either a dino or a rhinocerous (no rhino is known to exist there). Then they had a brief expedition and several fly-bys of the lake, didn't find anything except some leavings I think. No conclusion reached.

Anyway the point is, if "zoologists" had done the above and discovered a new species or subspecies of rhino, why wouldn't that be a "victory" for cryptozoology? Or put another way...does cryptozoology have no wins because as soon as a species is verified or discovered (even after only local anecdotes as evidence), it becomes a zoology issue, and zoology win?

If nearly all zoologists doubt the current existence of the thylacine tiger, and it's discovered in the future, is that a win for cryptos who may have pored over dubious anecdotes or blurry photos trying to convince us that it still exists? Perhaps only if those anecdotes or photos are actually accurate...

Anyway here's my favorite cryptozoologist from when I was following it some (and reading Fortean Times), Karl Shuker. He seems pretty level-headed and realistic about its place in zoology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Shuker

 

[Floyt]

It's good fun! I can say that as a kid, finding this combination of my two main interests "animals" and "mysterious things" was liking striking the motherlode of summer reading. It's why I love King Kong and know more about the Pygmy Hippo than is healthy in this world or the next one.

This is one woo-tinged area where I ignore the fringe uglies and just bounce along for the splendour of the ride.

Also, camel-electrocuting Desert Earthworms of Death must be real if only because of narrative causality (as universal and much more personable than gravity )!

 

[Miss_Kitt]

I also seem to vaguely remember Sir David Attenborough doing a show on wildlife of Madagascar, and stated Darwin (or one of his protege's, I can't remember exactly) predicted the existence of a bird because of the shape of one of it's more unusual flowers. The bird was thought a myth until someone saw one and was able to get photographs

I believe you are thinking of a MOTH, not a bird, whose existance Darwin postulated due to the unusual shape and depth of the nectar receptacle. Only a really long, skinny tongue could reach in to lap that nectar--and, by doing so, also act as the pollinator. It was filmed by a "nightvision" camera by a zoology student (IIRC) and I've seen the footage. Pretty cool stuff.

I was fascinated by cryptozoology when I was a preteen/early teenager and I still have a fondness for the idea of previously dubious creatures turning up. I wonder if there are still believers in "tatzelwurm" in the Alps?

Also, cosmic coincidence time, as I write this post I am wearing a shirt with a picture of an okapi on it. My favorite "discovered" animal of the 20th century, and also my favorite animal. (They rock, go to the San Diego Wild Animal Park website and check 'em out!)

 

[Floyt]

I was fascinated by cryptozoology when I was a preteen/early teenager and I still have a fondness for the idea of previously dubious creatures turning up. I wonder if there are still believers in "tatzelwurm" in the Alps?

Sure, me! I don't think the existence of some kind of large alpine slow-worm is all that far-fetched, although the species may have bit the dolomite by now...

 

[paximperium]

I do wish to find a fifty foot gorilla on a tropical island with a strange fondness for human women and climbing high places one day...ahhh goals and dreams.