June 24, 2009
A Look At Cryptozoology
by Revenant
I like Cryptozoology. There, I said it. It's now out in the open. You see, as a skeptic, I am in the minority. Many big-name skeptics will write how cryptozoology is pseudoscience, then take an intellectual bazooka and blow it into smithereens. I'm not going to do that. First, I much prefer a sniper rifle. Second, I do find cryptozoology to be both useful and entertaining. I'm not saying that I don't have a few problems with it, which I shall address shortly, but I do think that there is a place for it. Let's start with a bit of background first.
Cryptozoology is defined as "the study of hidden animals." Depending upon the cryptozoologist, that definition covers a few categories. The two big ones are animals which are unknown to science and animals thought to be extinct but supposedly aren't. Some may include "misplaced" animals (such as Jaguars in England or Kangaroo sightings in Illinois). And then some on the fringe may include the more…fantastic, such as the Werewolf yet most seem to be getting away from this sort of thing. I'll address the categories, but before I do, I'd like to discuss that definition.
I find the definition of "the study of hidden animals" to be misleading. The typical cryptozoologist is not interested in all of the "hidden" animals, only the megafauna variety, which is to say large. This thought struck me as I was watching an episode of MonsterQuest dealing with the mysterious "glowing pterosaurs" of New Guinea. The episode followed a group of men through the jungles of New Guinea for something that has the wingspan of a small plane. Shockingly, at the end of the show, they came up empty. But as I watched the show, I kept thinking…how many unknown insects did they step on while looking for their pterosaurs? How many new and cool varieties of frogs or lizards or birds did they walk right by? It is said that New Guinea is teaming with new species just waiting to be discovered…yet, these people who "study hidden animals" couldn't find a single one. Why? Because finding a new frog isn't sensational. It won't make headlines. You can't write story upon story about a four ounce frog that is terrorizing a small village in New Guinea. I believe that it would be a bit more accurate if the definition of cryptozoology was "the study of large and sensational hidden animals." Own up and call it what it really is.
Speaking of large and sensational hidden animals, we'll hit the first category. It has all the big names; Bigfoot, Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster, Champ, etc. These have been talked about to death, so I'll discuss a lesser known. In the forums, we discussed the "Shunka Warak'in." Supposedly, it is a sort of hybrid wolf with the striping of a hyena. The only evidence of such a creature is a few sightings in the late 1800's and a curious stuffed creature that still needs to be examined. And…that's it. There is no fossil record of this animal ever having existed. And so goes this category. Skeptics repeat "there is not enough validated evidence to support your claims" like a mantra, and really, so they should. I won't drone on about needing evidence or what constitutes viable evidence. That's been talked about to death as well. Yet, I had to throw it in. It's like talking about baseball…you have to mention steriods. And I'll tell you one thing…that Shunka Warak'in is definitely getting an asterisk by its name…
To strengthen their case for sensational discoveries, they often throw out the example of the Mountain Gorilla. For years, to western science it was only a rumor or a myth. It literally took decades for the Mountain Gorilla to be verified by scientists in 1902. I cannot argue this. It is a fact. However…using it to demonstrate the possibility of a Bigfoot type creature on the other side of Pike's Peak in Colorado in the year 2009 is stretching things just a bit. Even they must concede that point.
The other big category are the animals that are thought to be extinct, yet there seems to be some kind of question about it. This is a tricky one. Their favorite example is the Coelacanth. A fish thought to be extinct for about 65,000,000 years and it was found. Twice. In different locations. It's a very cool story and an amazing species of fish. Yet, this is another problem that I have with cryptozoology and I want to be as delicate as possible. Cryptozoologists seem to "claim" things such as the Coelacanth. Yet, cryptozoologists had nothing to do with that discovery or the indentification. In fact, I've been having a very hard time finding any discovery or indentification made solely by a cryptozoologist. I've read about "The Minnesota Iceman" which strikes me as dubious at best. Some also point out the Megamouth Shark, yet again…not discovered or identified by a cryptozoologist. So, I must be missing something. I mean, there has to be one…right? If anyone can point to one, I would love to hear about it. And I'm not being antagonistic either. I really wish to know.
Another animal in this category is the Thylacine (also known as the Tasmanian Tiger). It has always been one of my favorite animals. You can find some motion picture footage of them here. The last known one died in the Hobart Zoo on Sept. 7, 1936. It is definitely the poster-child, well…poster-animal for conservation. You see, official protection of the animal didn't begin until July 10, 1936…59 days before it died. I don't blame Australia or hold a grudge. I mean, it was a long time ago and they did give us Elle Macpherson…which I shall always be eternally grateful for. It also taught us a valuable lesson. One in which we are currently facing with many animals. For example, the Florida Panther only has an estimated 50-70 adults left in the world. What will those numbers look like in a hundred years? I guess that falls upon us, doesn't it?
The misplaced animal category…I just don't care. Sure, it's curious. Yet, one animal being on the loose somewhere, well, if I don't live there, I don't care. If a cryptozoologist claims that there is a breeding population of something where they "shouldn't" be, well, we need better proof than a hazy picture and a couple of eye witness testimonies. But overall, and if you haven't guessed by now…I just don't care.
So, having taken my shots at cryptozoology, you may be asking yourself then why do I find it useful? Well, I'm glad you asked. They do take into account and maintain the views, stories, myths, and legends of other cultures and regions from around the world. From this, we can discover a great many things. How did that culture view their environment? What drove the same myth to be told for centuries? Has the myth changed and if so, why? In what manner was it told? The list goes on. I believe this to be valuable information. I also believe this to be an aspect that many skeptics do not acknowledge because, simply put, it lessons their argument against cryptozoology. One does not have to win every point in order to win an argument.
The other thing that I like about cryptozoology is that I have to admit, some them are very talented writers. They tell a great story. Whether true or not or whether you accept the evidence of not…it does make for interesting conversation. Just the premise sparks debate. It gets people talking and yes, sometimes yelling. But that's ok. You can only talk about the economy and the traffic for so long. Then you need a break. A little escapism. I think cryptozoology provides that. It adds a little magic, a little flavor to our lives. As Willy Wonka once said "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." And before someone jumps down my throat about that…I will agree that not all of it is nonsense. Some decent work is being done concerning a couple of cryptids. And as a skeptic, I am open to the possibility of certain creatures either existing or still in existence. But no cryptozoologist should ever step in between myself and a Willy Wonka quote…and I'm talking Gene Wilder here…not that Tim Burton/Johhny Depp crap.
So where is the future of cryptozoology headed? Two places; the oceans and the labs. If anything big is going to be found, odds are, it's coming from the water. Much of the ocean is unexplored. Who knows what is lurking down there? Hopefully…it's really big and very scary. I mean, who doesn't want that?
As for the labs…it's all about the cloning. Ten years ago, I would have probably had to explain what cloning was and the process involved. Today, no need really. We've come a long way in a short time. The best known example is Dolly, the cloned sheep from Scotland. There are many other programs under way or at least being looked at in a serious manner. Bringing the Thylacine back to life has been on the table for quite some time. (Although, secretly…everyone knows it's just a ruse to hide the reason behind the development of cloning…Elle Macpherson. I mean who doesn't want their own Elle? Seriously…) Of course, cloning a Thylacine brings up many ethical questions. I'm not even sure if they've addressed the issues of the loss of genetic diversity or habitat yet. Japanese scientists are even working on bringing back the Woolly Mammoth. Of course, bringing an ice age animal into a rapidly warming world is sort of cruel in a way, isn't it?
And before I go, I am going to take one last parting shot at cryptozoology and it's something that I brought up in the forums some time ago. Crypotzoologists seem to be very inclusive as to who may call themselves "cryptozoologists." Yet, there is really no defining criteria to be met in order to call one's self a cryptozoologist. Cryptozoology is not viewed as a branch of science. There are no degrees issued in cryptozoology. You do not need a license. You do not need a permit. The only commonality that they seem to have is that they write about issues pertaining to cryptozoology. So, if that is the case, then that suddenly makes me a cryptozoologist. And if you post to this article, that will make you a cryptozoologist as well. You can now add that to your list of fancy-schmancy titles. And who said that visiting a skeptical website wouldn't get you anything?
Filed under MonsterQuest, Posts by Revenant
 |
| ^ Please Support our Sponsor |
Comments on A Look At Cryptozoology »
Logisti @ 2:53 pm
"Crypotzoologists seem to be very inclusive as to who may call themselves "cryptozoologists." Yet, there is really no defining criteria to be met in order to call one's self a cryptozoologist."
My personal criteria is this: If you are a bona-fide zoologist who happens to be researching creatures not currently accepted by scientific consensus as currently existing, then you're a cryptozoologist. If the second part is true, but not the first part, then you're an enthusiast, hobbyist, whatever, but to my mind no zoology = no cryptozoology.
(Report comment)
Nosfer @ 4:25 pm
"If you are a bona-fide zoologist "
Ah, but what is a bona-fide zoologist?
One can study animals as a hobby (and "to study" is all that must be met to garner the title of an 'ologist') So by definition, all one has to do to be a cryptozoologist is be a studier of the behavior, evolution, etc of animals, and in particular of animals not accepted as existing. To me, that is a bona-fide cryptozoologist.
(Report comment)
Stephen @ 7:58 pm
I am a cryptozoologist.
I search for hidden zoologists.
(Report comment)
J. @ 9:02 pm
I am more partial to "cryptozoology" than I am ghosts, so here's my thoughts on parts of this article.
"Cryptozoologists seem to "claim" things such as the Coelacanth. Yet, cryptozoologists had nothing to do with that discovery or the indentification."
I don't think cryptozoologists are claiming they had a hand in re-discovering the coelacanth or discovering the mountain gorilla. What I do think they are doing is pointing out that animals people think are extinct may not be and that discoveries of animals, even large ones, still happen. They use these examples of the coelacanth and mountain gorilla to say that anything is still possible in this world.
"Of course, cloning a Thylacine brings up many ethical questions."
I'll quote one of the guys that was working on cloning the Tasmanian Tiger, Mike Archer, when he said: "I think we played God when we exterminated that animal." The ethical dilemna has two sides to it, with the first one already having taken place long ago.
Not everyone agrees on using the term cryptozoology, even some of those involved in seeking out mystery animals.
Lastly, another thing that cryptzoology adds in addition to the magic and escapism is that almost anyone can go out and investigate these animals for themselves. Just like there is probably a haunted house not far from you, reports of unknown or out of place animals are probably nearer than to you than you think, and if you want, you can go investigate these mysteries for yourself.
Does that make you a cryptozoologist? Eh, who knows.
(Report comment)
Revenant @ 3:54 am
J.- Thank you for the link. It was a very refreshing point of view. I can't tell you the number of…"questionable"…articles that I read when preparing this piece. If only more would follow Mr. Hyde's example, then I believe that legimate scientists may not be so inclined to have such a "not even with a ten foot pole" type of attitude towards cryptozoology.
You also mentioned Professor Mike Archer. I know he was apart of the original project that began in 1999. Do you know if he is still associated with it? The recent material that I've read on the subject doesn't seem to mention him. And would you also happen to know on what basis he received a 2002 nomination for the Australian Skeptics Bent Spoon Award for "the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle."? I cannot seem to find what he had said or done to "earn" this nomination.
As for the ethical dilemma facing the Thylacine…there are many. The biggest, for me at least, is whether or not they will be able to reproduce in a viable manner. I am very uncertain of how they are going to get past the loss of genetic diversity. I mean, can you imagine if they go ahead a clone one without the ability to reproduce? The "wow" factor will wear off real quick when people learn that it's a singular oddity. Pictures of it just sitting there, alone in a zoo…I can't imagine what animal rights groups would do. And PETA? They would go ballistic. Cloning an extinct animal simply for our amusement and not being able to repopulate the species? Wow…they would go absolutely crazy…(although one may be able to make that case already…but…I'm not judging…)
As for the debate over what defines a cryptozoologist, well, as a cryptozoologist myself (and prove that I'm not) all I have to say is this; "It is what it is." (Hmmm…seems like I was channeling Jason from Ghost Hunters there for a second
)
(Report comment)
J. @ 4:08 pm
You're welcome.
According to the Thylacine Wikipedia article, in May 2005 Michael Archer announced that the project was being restarted by a group of interested universities and a research institute. It goes on to document some of the events in 2008 and 2009 from two different groups of researchers. So it appears work is still being done: "Their success suggests that it is feasible to sequence the complete thylacine nuclear genome from museum specimens. Their results were published in the journal Genome Research in 2009."
As for the Bent Spoon Awards, I don't know why he was nominated either, but his name is listed on this page in the 2002 section. Of course, on the flip side, he also won the Australian Skeptic of the year award in 1998.
It's not that big of a stretch to think that some Thylacine's managed to escape the attempts to kill them and are still alive and roaming about in small populations. Scientists need to think outside of the box on this one instead of doing the typical "Pretty much every scientists agrees it's extinct, so therefore it is and to search for surviving Thylacine's is nonsense." Remember the coelacanth!
Along with being a cryptozoologist, you could probably be a ghostologist too, if you wanted.
(Report comment)
alicat @ 7:32 pm
Revenant,
"How many unknown insects did they step on while looking for their pterosaurs? How many new and cool varieties of frogs or lizards or birds did they walk right by? It is said that New Guinea is teaming with new species just waiting to be discovered…yet, these people who "study hidden animals" couldn't find a single one."
Finding unknown species has always fascinated me. So your forum thread on the glowing Pterosaurs of New Guinea and then the mention of them in this post actually got me to thinking as well about what we pass by in order to get to that "big score". Here is an interesting diary that was kept by the BBC earlier this year when a group of international explorers and scientists went into the unexplored jungle of New Guinea and a follow-up article as well which I think you will find interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7861563.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7431589.stm
I've always been fascinated by the Thylacine, Loch Ness Monster and the Jaguars in England and would love to hear more on the Thylacine.
As far as cloning, I'm not a fan of it even if it brings you another Elle! Sorry but a close friend of mine has a friend in California who had their cat cloned. Not my cup of tea. Now I hear they cloned the 9/11 rescue dog. I just don't understand why people can't let go and have to cling. I love my animals and each one of them has a special place in my heart. Would I want one of them cloned? No and here's why. Even though that animal will supposedly have the same appearance, it doesn't guarantee anything else and I see no purpose for it other than to massage someone's ego when there are so many animals out there that need homes because people get carried away with whatever is in fashion at the time and then dump them in animal shelters when they are inconvenient. Cloning a wild animal with no guarantee of reproduction, why? So it can sit somewhere and be watched and tested and put on show for the world to see? Would this really teach us anything? I don't think so. So, I ask, how selfish can we be?
On this board so far I've become an author and now I'm a Cryptozoologist? Wow! I'm adding that to my resume as soon as possible.
(Report comment)
Revenant @ 2:53 am
J.- Thanks for the Genome Research article. I read it a while back. The concerning part is this line; "Our two sequences differ in only five nucleotides out of 15,452, hinting at a very low genetic diversity shortly before extinction." And that's exactly what I've been afraid of for years. How do we get around that? No clue. Also, here's a look at Penn State's work: http://rw.thylacine.psu.edu/
As for the Thylacine still being around…well, unforunately, I do not share your enthusiasm. Here's an interesting article:
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-29-2002-19404.asp
The quote that stands out: "We have been wanting to believe for a long time. Extensive searches have been carried out. Helicopters have been called in; infrared beams have been set across animal pads; flash cameras have been set up in remote areas; trackers have been sent out; wallaby carcasses have been dragged along behind four-wheel drives so that a scent will lure out the thylacine; illegal traps and snares have been carefully hidden with twigs and grass. Once the World Wildlife Fund ran a project; once Ted Turner offered a reward for evidence of its existence. As late as 1982 a national parks and wildlife service ranger reported a sighting, prompting an extensive government-funded search which proved futile. Untold hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on the quest."
So it's not as if they haven't been looking. In fact, I can't think of a more sought after extinct animal. I want it to be around, just like you said. But…I just don't think it is. Finding a supposedly extinct fish in an ocean is one thing…finding a breeding population of mammals on land amongst massive searches is quite another. I really, really want to be wrong though…
(Report comment)
Revenant @ 5:45 am
Alicat- First and foremost, you leave Elle out of this. She is a gift. A treasure. *sighs as he thinks about Elle for a moment* I digress…
Thanks for the cool links on the BBC and New Guinea. This stood out to me; "Although it only accounts for less than 0.5% of the Earth's land cover, the heavily forested island nation is home to an estimated 6-7% of the planet's species." That is utterly amazing. As for the pterosaurs and the MonsterQuest episode, well, I wouldn't mind if everyone on the crew was a zoologist and were doing other things while "looking" for the reptile with a wingspan the size of a Cessna. But to have that be the main focus, it just seems like such a tragic waste of an opportunity to study what is right in front of them. Something that may not be around for long due to excessive logging in the area.
As for cloning pets and such, like yourself, I don't understand it. I've had some great dogs throughout my life. Do I want to clone any of them? No. Why? Because just as you stated, there are plenty of great sheltered animals that need homes. A couple of months ago, I adopted a dog here in Denver. After all, I don't live all that far away from Pike's Peak and apparently there are many "Snow Beasts" there. I needed some protection.
From looking at the research concerning the cloning of the Thylacine, well, they have some huge hurdles to get over. I don't think any attempts are going to be made for quite some time. I have to believe that re-populating the species will be a very big priority. Whether they can achieve that, I don't know. Will they procede if they can't? Well, that is a very interesting question. I would like to think "no." Yet, that's going to have to be a bridge that we either cross or burn when we get to it…
Oh, and for other titles…try on "Paranormal Expert." See how that fits. I mean, by now, is there something about the paranormal that you aren't familiar with? And try on "Demonologist" as well. Sort of like the crytozoologist, the only commonality is that you read about it and write about it. Since you've read some of my posts about demonology and posted comments to them, you're also now a demonologist. And since you post on the forums a great deal, you have your pick between a "postologist" or a "forumologist." Well, time for me to walk the dog…hey, did I mention you were also a "dog-walkologist" as well? Man, your resume is getting longer and longer…
(Report comment)
Nosfer @ 8:26 am
Actually, I believe the correct term applied to studiers of dog-walking would be Kunikos-stoicheologist
(Report comment)
alicat @ 9:14 am
Revenant,
Thanks for the titles. I'll have to revise my resume and up my salary requirements as well as figure out how to answer those inevitable questions that will follow! Can I use you and Nosfer as my references?
(Report comment)
Revenant @ 4:35 am
Nosfer- "Actually, I believe the correct term applied to studiers of dog-walking would be Kunikos-stoicheologist."
Hmmm…Greek is, as the saying goes, Greek to me. Although, "Kunikos" translates to "dog-like." Since there is no question that, in fact, we are walking a dog and only a dog, wouldn't we use "Kuon" which simply means "dog?" Those couple of years of Latin that I took in high school certainly aren't helping me now…
Alicat- As along as your future employer refers to you as Alicat, then I would have no problems. Of course, I will be asking your future employer his or her positions upon Bigfoot, the K2 meter, possession of one's soul, and Roswell…just to get a feel of what you are getting yourself into…
(Report comment)
Nosfer @ 7:00 pm
Well, since this IS the cryptozoology thread, we have to maintain a little bit of uncertainty, especially when it comes to creatures that could be were-beasts
We only see it as a dog when we see it in dog form, but when we don't see it, do we really know what form it has taken?
(Report comment)
Revenant @ 3:05 am
Right you are, my friend. Here are several interesting canine cryptids to choose from:
The most famous are the Phantom Dogs. These are the rather large black dogs with eyes of fiery red. Often referred to as "Hellhounds" or "Black Dogs."
http://www.xprojectmagazine.com/archives/cryptozoology/phantomdogs.html
Looking for something a bit more uncommon? What about a Tatra Cave Dog?
http://www.strangeark.com/bfr/articles/cave-dogs.html
Or if you wish to go with the truly exotic…the Bear-Dog might be right up your alley.
http://www.newanimal.org/bdogs.htm
So many cryptids…so little time…
(Report comment)
Oubliette @ 7:10 pm
An excellent post by Revenant and one that really stimulates the imagination. I have always been interested in this field. Heck, I bought my first book on it back in the early '80s.
I'm catching up on posts here again but for the time being I'd just like to say that one of the biggest appeals of cryptozoology is that it is very possible that unknown species are still waiting to be discovered. Even the last 100 years has brought us animals that were just hinted at before.
It is tantalizing to think of what may be out there. Didn't an expert on the Amazon tell Josh Gates that 98% of the Amazon is basically unexplored? And I'm still pondering over whatever was making that huge sound and literally felling trees when DT went there to check out rumors of a Giant Sloth. And the Orang Pendek looks to be real.
If one were to ask me which I favored more–ghost investigation or cryptozoology, it would be difficult to come up with the answer. Both are very intriguing but in different ways. These areas are still orphans as far as most of the scientific community is concerned, and perhaps that also adds to their appeal.
Ah, to have an "independent income" and be able to travel the world in search of all sorts of strange creatures and hauntings. Sigh….
(Report comment)