'''Cryptozoology''' (from [[Greek language|Greek]] κρυπτός, ''kruptos'', "hidden" + [[zoology]]; literally, "study of hidden animals") is the study of and search for animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogues. It consists of two primary fields of research:
'''Cryptozoology''' (from [[Greek language|Greek]] κρυπτός, ''kruptos'', "hidden" + [[zoology]]; literally, "study of hidden animals") is the study of and search for animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogues. It consists of two primary fields of research:
* The search for living examples of animals taxonomically identified through fossil records, but which are believed to be extinct.
* The search for living examples of animals taxonomically identified through fossil records, but which are believed to be extinct.
Cryptozoology (from Greek κρυπτός, kruptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals") is the study of and search for animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogues. It consists of two primary fields of research:
The search for living examples of animals taxonomically identified through fossil records, but which are believed to be extinct.
The search for animals that fall outside of taxonomic records due to a lack of empirical evidence, but for which anecdotal evidence exists in the form of myths, legends, or undocumented sightings.[1]
Those involved in cryptozoological study are known as cryptozoologists; the animals that they study are often referred to as "cryptids", a term coined by John Wall in 1983.[2] Cryptozoology has seen very little attention from the mainstream scientific community.
Overview
Invention of the term "cryptozoology" is often attributed to zoologistBernard Heuvelmans. But in his book, In the Wake of Sea Serpents, Heuvelmans attributes coinage of the term to the late Scottish explorer and adventurer Ivan T. Sanderson.[3] Heuvelmans' 1955 book, On the Track of Unknown Animals, traces the scholarly origins of the discipline to Anthonid Cornelis Oudemans[4] and his 1892 study, The Great Sea Serpent. Heuvelmans argued that cryptozoology should be undertaken with scientific rigor, but with an open-minded, interdisciplinary approach. He also stressed that attention should be given to local, urban and folkloric sources regarding such creatures, arguing that while often layered in unlikely and fantastic elements, folktales can have small grains of truth and important information regarding these organisms. Loren Coleman, a modern popularizer of cryptozoology, has chronicled the history and personalities of cryptozoology in his books.[5]
Another notable book on the subject is Willy Ley's Exotic Zoology (1959). Ley was best known for his writings on rocketry and related topics, but he was trained in paleontology, and did write a number of books about animals. Ley's collection Exotic Zoology is of some interest to cryptozoology, as he discusses the Yeti and sea serpents, as well as relict dinosaurs. The book's first section ("Myth?") entertains the possibility that some legendary creatures (like the sirrush, the unicorn or the cyclops) might be based on actual animals, through misinterpretation of the animals and/or their remains. Perhaps the most rigorously scientific analyses of cryptids can be found in the works of British zoologist and cryptozoologist Dr. Karl Shuker, who has published 12 books and countless articles on numerous cryptozoological subjects since the mid-1980s.
Mainstream science and cryptozoology
Discoveries of previously unknown animals are often subject to great attention, but cryptozoology per se has seen relatively little interest from mainstream scientists. As historian Mike Dash[6] notes, few scientists doubt there are thousands of unknown animals, particularly invertebrates, awaiting discovery. However, as Dash notes, cryptozoologists are largely uninterested in researching and cataloging newly-discovered species of antsorbeetles, instead focusing their efforts towards "more elusive" creatures that have often defied decades of work aimed at confirming their existence.
The majority of mainstream criticism of cryptozoology is directed towards the search for megafauna cryptids such as Bigfoot, the Yeren, and the Loch Ness Monster which appear often in popular culture, but for which there is little or no scientific support. Scientists argue that mega-fauna cryptids are unlikely to exist undetected in great enough numbers to maintain a breeding population,[7] and are unlikely to be able to survive in their reported habitats due to issues of climate and food supply.[8]
As such, cryptozoology has never been embraced by the scientific community. Most experts on the matter consider the Bigfoot legend to be a combination of folklore and hoaxes [9] and cryptozoology is considered to be a pseudoscience by mainstream zoologists and biologists.[10][11] Noted objections to cryptozoology include unreliable eyewitness accounts, lack of scientific and physical evidence, and over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation.[9]
Cryptozoologists argue that much of the planet remains unexplored, especially deep oceans, and that therefore, cryptozoological claims about oceanic cryptids should be given more credence. By plotting the discovery rate of new species, C. G. M. Paxton[12] estimated that as many as 47 large oceanic species remain undiscovered. The discoveries of the Coelacanth and the megamouth shark are examples of how deep-sea animals can remain undetected for years.
Supporters
Cryptozoology supporters have claimed that in the early days of Western exploration of the world, many native tales of unknown animals initially dismissed as superstition by Western scientists, were later proven to have a basis in biological fact,[2] and that many unfamiliar animals, when initially reported, were considered hoaxes, delusions or misidentifications:[2] the platypus, giant squid, okapi, mountain gorilla, grizzly-polar bear hybrid and Komodo dragon are but a few creatures whose existence was denied by reputable scientists, who initially refused to consider the evidence seriously.
Supporters often argue[2] that cryptozoological evidence is evaluated not on its merits or failings, but rather based on ad hominem opinions of researchers, or on prevailing paradigmsorworld views. For example, biological anthropologists Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum have cited what they perceive to be ample physical evidence in support of the existence of Bigfoot. Yet despite the fact that Krantz and Meldrum are recognized experts in their field, their arguments regarding Bigfoot have largely been dismissed by other scientists. Another supposedly well-attested cryptid that was largely ignored by scientists was the so-called Minnesota Iceman of the 1960s,[13] purportedly an unidentified hominid corpse inspected by two cryptologists, Ivan T. Sanderson and Bernard Huevelmans, who offered detailed descriptions and photos of the creature; despite their efforts towards evangelizing the case, very few scientists expressed an interest. Skeptics of cryptozoology counter[citation needed] that their skepticism regarding the subject prevents an unwarranted flood of misidentified animal sightings attributed to cryptids.
Evidence of cryptids
Supporters claim that as in legitimate scientific fields, cryptozoologists are often responsible for disproving their own objects of study. For example, some cryptozoologists have collected evidence that disputes the validity of some facets of the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon.[14][15][16]
There are several animals cited as examples for continuing cryptozoological efforts:
The coelacanth, a "living fossil" which represents an order of fish believed to have been extinct for 65 million years, was identified from a specimen found in a fishing net in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. According to Dash,[6] the Coelacanth is a good case for paying close attention to natives' knowledge of animals: though the fish's survival was a complete surprise to outsiders, it was so well known to locals that natives commonly used the fish's rough scales as a sort of sandpaper.
The 1976 discovery of the previously unknown megamouth shark off Oahu, Hawaii, has been cited by cryptozoologists to support the existence of other purported marine cryptids. Zoologist Ben S. Roesch agrees the discovery of megamouth proves "the oceans have a lot of secrets left to reveal," but simultaneously cautions against applying the "megamouth analogy" too broadly to hypothetical creatures, as the megamouth avoided discovery due to specific behavioral adaptations that would not fit most other cryptids.[17]
The 2003 discovery of the fossil remains of the "Hobbit"-like Homo floresiensis, thought to be a descendant of later Homo erectus, was cited by paleontologist Henry Gee of the journal Nature, as possible evidence that humanoid cryptids like the orang pendek and Yeti were "founded on grains of truth." Additionally, Gee declared, "cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold."[18]
^Simpson, George G. (1984-03-30) "Mammals and Cryptozoology", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, p1, V128#1
^ abcdColeman, Loren and Clark, Jerome.Cryptozoology A to Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras, and Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature. New York: Fireside/Simon and Schuster, 1999
^Heuvelmans, Bernard. In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents. New York: Hill and Wang, 1968.
^*Heuvelmans, Bernard. On The Track Of Unknown Animals. :-(New York: Hill and Wang, 1959.
^Coleman, Loren. Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology. Fresno, California: Craven Street Books/Linden Press, 2002.
^ abDash, Mike, Borderlands: The Ultimate Exploration of the Unknown, Overlook Press, 2000
^Paxton, C. G. M. 1998. A cumulative species description curve for large open water marine animals. Journal of the Marine Biologists Association, U.K. 78, 1389-1391.
^see Coleman and Clark, 1999, and the Minnesota Iceman page for more information
^Markotic, Vladimir and Krantz, Grover (eds) The Sasquatch and other unknown hominoids Calgary: Western Publishers, 1984
^Roderick and Krantz, Grover (eds)The Scientist looks at the Sasquatch II Sprague
^ Napier, John Russel Bigfoot : the yeti and sasquatch in myth and reality New York: Dutton, 1973, c1972
^Roesch, Ben S. 1998. "A Critical Evaluation of the Supposed Contemporary Existence of Carcharodon megalodon." The Cryptozoology Review 3 (2): 14-24
Coleman, Loren. "Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America". New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003.
Coleman, Loren. "Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology". Fresno: Linden Press, 2002.
Coleman, Loren and Jerome Clark. "Cryptozoology: A to Z". New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.
Eberhart, George M. Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology. 2 vols. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2002.
Newton, Michael. Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide to Hidden Animals and Their Pursuers. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, 2005.
Radford, Benjamin and Joe Nickell. "Lake Monster Mysteries: Investigating the World's Most Elusive Creatures." Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2006.
Shuker, Karl. In Search of Prehistoric Survivors. London: Blandford, 1995.
Shuker, Karl. From Flying Toads To Snakes With Wings. St. Paul, Minnesota: Llewellyn, 1997.
Shuker, Karl. The Beasts That Hide From Man: Seeking the World's Last Undiscovered Animals. New York: Paraview Press, 2003.
Weidensaul, Scott. The Ghost with Trembling Wings: Science, Wishful Thinking, and the Search for Lost Species. New York: North Point Press, 2002.
External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Cryptozoology.
