Cryptozoology forums > Debates > Cryptozoological debates > view thread
Subject: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: mysticete posted Mon, Jan 22 2007, 10:37am 
It occurred to me, on the way home from the grocery store, that from an early age, many of us here were ingrained with all the "sucess" stories of cryptozoology. Of course, nearly every general cryptid book has chapter on the Giant Squid. Gorillas, Okapi, and Coelacanths guess star in many other books, if only the intro.

However, it occurred to me that these really are not cryptozoological sucess stories as we understand them. Many of these animals were discovered early this century or last century, when contrary to modern thoughts, great discoveries were still being made in zoology, and many areas of the world still remained unexplored. In addition, all of these animals were discovered through normal avenues of zoological research. No Maverick cryptozoologists tracked them down (indeed, cryptozoology was not coined as a science until sometime around 1955). Sure, scientists have followed up reports of weird animals, but many of these were located within a few years of reports of the rumors (IE, Vu Quong Ox).

Of course, many new important species have been, and are being discovered. However, many are small (that new rodent of ancient lineage from SE Asia), previously unheard of (new species of beaked whale), or are the result of taxonomic splits based on molecular data (Snubfin Dolphin).

The only "sucess stories" in cryptozoology are perhaps eastern cougars, which have received a sort of informal degree of acceptance, A giant gecko from New Zealand (likely recently extinct, but know from native legends before discovery of a mislabled specimen)and perhaps the still controversial Ivory-billed Woodpecker (which, funny enough, has largely been ignored by cryptozoology in favor of less plausible hominids and lake monsters)

So honestly, what exactly has cryptozoology accomplished.
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: Sarcastic Skeptic posted Mon, Jan 22 2007, 12:54pm 
it allows this to happen.
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: Road Less Traveled posted Tue, Jan 23 2007, 2:23am 
I would say the Bili Ape was a cryptozoological success. There were legends and reports of a mystery ape which were not taken seriously for quite some time.
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: mysticete posted Tue, Jan 23 2007, 5:45am 
On the other hand...all evidence seems to support the idea that the Bili Ape is just a normal Chimpanzee with some unusual behaviors. Also, while a newly discovered population is a big deal in conservation circles, it's not exactly in an unexpected location.
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: dorje posted Tue, Jan 23 2007, 6:04am 
On the other hand, when your dealig with unusial behaviors in a group of chimpanzees, you are very likely dealing with culture, and a new, previously unknown culture would be a very interesting discovery and I think could be chalked up as a success for cryptozoology.
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: Road Less Traveled posted Tue, Jan 23 2007, 6:33am 
It's not just behavior that is different. From the article I linked above:

The Bili Ape has been reported to walk upright, bipedally, at times, with the looks of a giant chimpanzee. Their footprints, which range from 28 to 34 centimeters, are longer than the largest common chimp and gorilla footprints, which average 26 cm and 29 cm, respectively.

and

Bili Ape skulls have the prominent brow ridge and sagittal crest of a robust great ape, or gorilla, but other morphological measurements are more like those of chimpanzees. However, chimpanzee skulls are 190 to 210 millimetres long, but four of five Bili Ape skulls measured more than 220 millimetres, well beyond the end of the normal chimpanzee range.
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: mysticete posted Tue, Jan 23 2007, 10:49am 
One morphological character (sagittal crest) does not a species make. The other characteristics might very well be cultural or diet related. Genetic evidence puts them firmly in a known subspecies of common chimp Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: _where_strides_the_behemoth_ posted Wed, Jan 31 2007, 8:04am 
Yes but you could argue that the schweinfurthii classification is a complete waste of time i.e. there is one species which inlcudes chimps, bili apes, and bonobos, and maybe even us. Considering what most biologists dealing with insects, plants, molluscs, etc. consider species based on genetic variation, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii is a joke.

There's a reason why we seperate the bonobos from the chimps, the lowland gorillas from the highland gorillas, and all of them from us: because these animals are important to us. They are our closest living relatives and we learn about our own species from them. Thus any new population of chimps is highly regarded as a new discovery. The Bili ape is a new great ape discovered in this millenium. The behavioral, cultural, and physical attributes of the population are enough for us to say that.
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: mysticete posted Tue, Feb 6 2007, 8:40am 
Defining species is always tricky. However, I hardly think biologists consider defining species upon genetic variation as a joke. Granted...there is no benchmark level of distinction, but if a molecular analysis finds that all the samples of the billi ape fall within and particularly scattered among the P.t. schweinfurthii I think it is reasonable to say that on genetic grounds they are not a new species.

Never said the discovery wasn't important, just that I wouldn't consider it a cryptozoological sucess
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: _where_strides_the_behemoth_ posted Tue, Feb 6 2007, 1:03pm 
“biologists [hardly] consider defining species upon genetic variation as a joke.”

That’s true. I wasn’t talking about biologists in general, but a few biologists who are immersed in the systematics of heavily speciose clades (think Carex, Eleutherodactylus, Coleoptera, etc.). For them, observing our semantics over chimp subspecies would be laughable / something they could joke about. These are the kinds of biologists who propose chucking the subspecies classification entirely.

We’ve already established that the Bili apes were creatures of legend to local people (“lion killers”) before they were “discovered”, distinct species or not, in 2002, and previous to the “discovery” reports weren’t taken seriously by western science. Could you please define for me what modifications to the case of the Bili ape it would take for them to be considered cryptids? In which of the following scenarios is the Bili ape a cryptozoological success story? These are hypothetical made up facts, which we can add on to what we already know for sure about the Bili ape.

1. The Bili ape is a distinct subspecies.
2.The Bili ape is a distinct subspecies, but exists on a clear genetic gradation from normal schweinfurthii populations to the north. Extensive sampling shows gradual increase in size, rise of the saggital crest, slight changes in behavior, etc.
3. Despite genetic similarity declaring the Bili apes part of schweinfurthii, it is proved effectively impossible that Bili apes cross breed with any other chimps due to reproductive barriers falling anywhere between basic behavior traits and outright inviability.
4. The Bili ape is a distinct species.
5. The Bili ape is a distinct species, which can interbreed with all other chimps including bonobos and even readily hybridizes with humans.
6. The Bili ape is a distinct species, unrelated to any known great ape.
7. The Bili ape is in fact most closely related to humans, a descendant of Australopithecus.
8. The Bili ape is a fire breathing monster with venomous spines and tusks that feeds exclusively on lions.
9. The Bili ape is a tulpa generated by local people’s intense belief in the monster, which leaves physical evidence of its passing and shows up on photographs but yet is only an illusion.
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: mysticete posted Fri, Feb 9 2007, 4:11am 
I would say number 4 would cause the ape to fit my criteria (well, specifically, 4 and anything above)

I actually hate the use of subspecies. Most subspecies either should be erected as new species (Bell's Sage Sparrow, flicker subspecies, fox sparrows, ect), or discarded (Florida "panther")
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: CascadeCamaro posted Fri, Jan 26 2007, 1:57am 
I'm stated repeatedly that cryptozoologists have discovered NOTHING while real zoologists have made many wonderful discoveries.
And the saola was discovered within DAYS of first being heard of.
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: Gondwana posted Tue, Jan 30 2007, 5:34pm 
The job of cryptozoologists is to try to validate claims that animal X, Y, Z exists and is not just a legend. Which means, they should strive to gather evidence about the existence of such animals that will convince zoologists to have a closer look and actually invest some resources in finding the hitherto "legendary" animal.

That's why the discovery of the coelacanth was NOT a cryptozoological discovery, because no one said before that there were still some coelacanths living off the coas of the Comores. Likewise, the rediscovery of an animal that was dubbed extinct, or more generally speaking, the discovery of a new species (which happens EVERY day and is the staple of zoology and the allied branch of taxonomy), has NOTHING to do with cryptozoology - unless self-declared cryptozoologists had been arguing all along that there was indeed such an animal before it was confirmed (or rediscovered) by western science.

I say "western science" with a purpose, because very often these animals were a part of the life of the locals long before some PhD with a butterflynet came along to "discover" it. This is also why I have been arguing since my very first posts here that cryptozoology is not the science of "hidden" animals. Every animal is "hidden" before it is discovered; furthermore, "hidden" implies a voluntary act on the part of the animal and/or some conspiracy that aims to hide that animal, which is bonkers.

If anything, cryptozoology is the study of legendary (or allegedly existing) animals and the lore thereof.

So, what has cryptozoology accomplished? Nothing, because self-proclaimed cryptozoologists are making claims that they will most likely never be able to fulfil, for lack of proper education, training, objectivity, funding, etc. the list goes on..

The ultimate goal of cryptozoology should be to dissolve itself into the bigger realm of zoology. As things look today, this is not likely to happen, unless we get more and more people of the caliber of Meldrum who are willing to cope with the nonsense spouted by the fringe. It takes a lot of courage to do so.

Gondwana
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: _where_strides_the_behemoth_ posted Wed, Jan 31 2007, 7:50am 
The ceolocanth was known to the local fishermen previous to its discovery. They had been catching and eating them before to any scientific interest was there. Whether they were aware of what a lobe-finned fish represents or if that made it "legendary" in any way has no bearing on the cryptozoological aspect. The ceolocanth undergoes huge changes in depth on a daily basis. It lives "cryptically" and as such was not discovered until the eighties. What's more, any scientist would have told you before the discovery that you were nuts to think a lobe-finned fish still lived.

I think the ceolocanth set the stage for many species discoveries that were to come after it, cryptozoological or otherwise.

An animal doesn't have to be actively hiding to stay hidden. It could just be incidental to its lifestyle and habitat. That doesn't make it "non-cryptic". Cryptids walk a line between known and unknown. If people know about a species, yet science has not officially (re)discoverd it, I'd call that a cryptid. You can apply the same standard to things which have been declared extinct - if someone says they still live, and happens to be right, that's a cryptid. (of course the final level is the out of place animals - same story)

With so many other species discoveries they've been found upon the first attempt to find them, and otherwise had no meaning to people who may have been familiar with them previously. Those are not cryptids. However those are important discoveries for the study of biodiversity - probably more important than any cryptid discovery.
Subject: Coelacanth is the name actually . . .
From: Found_One posted Tue, Feb 6 2007, 12:27am 
"Many "emphasize" the point that, "The living coelacanth is not a living fossil in the very strict sense that members of the species L. chaumnae itself have never been found as a fossil. In fact, no other species assignable to the Genus Latimeria has been found as a fossil either. Latimeria and the Cretaceous fossil Genus Macropoma are quite closely related, and we could possibly include them in the same family. Beyond that, all fossil coelacanths belong to the order Coelacanthini."

I was going to find a picture to illustrate this point, but instead I found this statement which completely says what I was going to say, so I figured,"Why bother typing" . . .

In essence the Coelacanth is NOT a cryptid, just a decendent. Much in the same way many animals are similar to their ancestors.

F1- It's not a cryptid if it was never extinct.
Subject: Re: Coelacanth is the name actually . . .
From: _where_strides_the_behemoth_ posted Tue, Feb 6 2007, 1:01pm 
If it was extinct, it’s totally impossible that it ever exists on earth again. That’s the definition of extinct.

You guys are basically ruling out that cryptozoology make any species discoveries at all. In other words, “if it is a real animal, it’s not a cryptid.” Cryptozoology is just for those wackos who study chupacabra, Jersey devil, rods, dragons, and dinosaurs--things that stand no chance of being real.

I think we have to loosen up our definition if we are to have a field of study at all. You can argue for Gondwana’s view that CZ should strive to destroy itself, but you know when bigfoot is “discovered” (which I am certain it will be--the only cryptid I can develop any certainty for), all of sudden people will be all about “cryptozoology”: the new buzz word. Are we to tell them then that the entire field is a doomed science of hopeless speculation? This means that as soon as bigfoot is discovered--or any other cryptid for that matter--the field will immediately die.

Cryptozoology is predicated upon the concept that there are things left to discover on this planet. Presupposing that everything has been discovered is hard-lined skepticism--essentially saying we know everything there is to be known already. I don’t think anyone here agrees with that.
Subject: Re: Coelacanth is the name actually . . .
From: Found_One posted Mon, Feb 12 2007, 6:41pm 
"If it was extinct, it’s totally impossible that it ever exists on earth again. That’s the definition of extinct."

Doesn't matter, we have made the mistake of deeming something extinct, and later finding out that the supposed animal, is not. Case and Point - Ivory-Billed Wood Pecker.

"You guys are basically ruling out that cryptozoology make any species discoveries at all. In other words, “if it is a real animal, it’s not a cryptid.” Cryptozoology is just for those wackos who study chupacabra, Jersey devil, rods, dragons, and dinosaurs--things that stand no chance of being real."

No, if a "New Species" is discovered that falls under the department of Biology and Zoology, not cryptozoology.

"I think we have to loosen up our definition if we are to have a field of study at all. You can argue for Gondwana’s view that CZ should strive to destroy itself, but you know when bigfoot is “discovered” (which I am certain it will be--the only cryptid I can develop any certainty for), all of sudden people will be all about “cryptozoology”: the new buzz word. Are we to tell them then that the entire field is a doomed science of hopeless speculation? This means that as soon as bigfoot is discovered--or any other cryptid for that matter--the field will immediately die."

Actually, it will make Bigfoot a biological entity, therefore either placing it in the section of science called Zoology, and/or Anthropology. It will be chalked up as a win for Cryptozoology, but ultimately, a scientific, biological discovery.

Cryptozoology is a subscience. It is a part of Zoology and Biology. Just as herpotology is, or botany.

"Cryptozoology is predicated upon the concept that there are things left to discover on this planet. Presupposing that everything has been discovered is hard-lined skepticism--essentially saying we know everything there is to be known already. I don’t think anyone here agrees with that."

I agree with you on that one, it a pretty obvious fact that we haven't learned or found out even a percentage of the things there are to learn in this universe, or more locally, the planet. It is also obvious, as with the discovery of some 10 new biological entities a month (likely more), that we haven't discovered nearly all the biological entities on land, let alone the ones in water, or elsewhere. But these discoveries are not Cryptozoological, unless the animals are thought to be extinct, or are thrown aside by modern science, as folklore or "tails of natives" and such.

F1 - Human cryptid.
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: mysticete posted Tue, Feb 6 2007, 8:47am 
as Gondwana stated...every new species is not a cryptid. Cryptozoology especially deals with the recording of evidence, sighting, and folklore that allude to a new or OOP animal to western science. In the case of the Coelacanth there were not stories and sightings reported to western scientists for years before scientific verification of a body. Similarly, when they describe a new species of salamander, or someone speculates that some regional variant of a known species may be a new species, there is no reason to consider it a cryptid. Similarly, if an animal is known by locals, but not the scientific or cryptozoological community, it is not a cryptid, it's just a new discovery
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: Found_One posted Mon, Feb 12 2007, 6:15pm 
"In the case of the Coelacanth there were not stories and sightings reported to western scientists for years before scientific verification of a body."

But there also was no fossil evidence of the coelacanth of modern type. So this is a completely divergent type, a new fish. So it is a new discovery, not the discovery of a once dead animal.

If Coelacanth is a cryptid, than so is any new species of frog, or fish, or worm even. As we have fossil evidence of now extinct species that seem "similar" to the ones we newly found. Which would be wrong. They are just a new type of frog.

Modern Coelacanth is just a new found type of fish, that is related to Coelacanth. Much as modern animals of many types are related to many animals of many types from prehistoric times.

F1 - My dog is a cryptid.
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: ABWorsham posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 10:18am 
Mysticete ask some very valid questions. My faith in Cryptozoology's poster children, Sasquatch, Lake monsters, etc, have been shakened.

I have been a member of the Teas Bigfoot Research organization. This group has held yearly conferneces the past few years. Well these meetings are now nearly impossible to host.

Maybe the Patterson Film was a hoak! I hope not! but prehaps it is!

I want to believe in Cryptozoology's favorite animals. I just need more facts. Lets all unite.
Subject: Re: Cryptozoological "Sucess Stories"
From: Crypticlover posted Wed, Jul 11 2007, 6:29am 
You have brought up a very good point. These aren't actualy cryptozoologists that have made the discoveries, but all of these newly discovered animals have something in common: there have been sightings of them and/or the people who lived in that area akaknowlaged them. Pardon my spelling. Still they wern't considered real species untill there was hard proof that they exsisted for the scientists.


Close Window