• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Has cryptozoology ever ...

bosskR

bosskR

Thunder Lyger
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
233
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
Has modern cryptozoology ever discussed an undiscovered animal that was later discovered?

What newly discovered animal species were discussed by cryptozoologists before they became ”known to science”?

Every time some zoologist describes a new species of mouse of frog the crypto-people latch onto this as validation of what they’re doing, even though it seems to me that they deal either with creatures that recently went extinct or with stuff of fantasy or the supernatural.
 
The bulk of what passes for cryptozoology seems to be market driven bunk, consider how popular a site or book dealing with undiscovered "mice or frogs" would be compared to one about Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster, not many sales to the pop culture market there, (and I'm not trying to sound smug there because I love much of it without taking it seriously) so there'd be no motivation for most to discuss such things except when as you say they're used to support their case.

But I dont think it'd be fair to tar them all with the same brush, to answer your question, you'd have to tune out the commercial dim of goatsuckers mothmen and Mokele mbembes to hear what all the cryptozoologists were discussing, for example that pretty 6ft stripey monitor from the Philliipines? may well have come up.
 
didn't charles darwin base his ideal of some animals on characteristics of plant life that may be consumed or used by a specific type of animal or insect?
 
bosskR said:
Has modern cryptozoology ever discussed an undiscovered animal that was later discovered?
Click to expand...
Not to my knowledge. A number of big land animal species have been identified by science recently, notably ungulates in South-East Asia (although some have been disputed), pygmy chimpanzee, forest elephant in Africa. But they were previously not discussed by cryptozoologists.

The closest that could come to satisfy this critierion are the gorilla-like chimpanzees recently identified, that could account for a number of unidentified ape sightings (read it in a recent FT issue, don't remember which one). But it is only a subspecies, in fact more probably a variation of a known subspecies.
 
There was the Coelacanth, though i don't know if it's existence was speculated at or alleged by unconfirmed sightings prior to it being discovered not to be extinct, or if it was simply presumed extinct and then discovered not to be.

i.e. it may not have been a cryptid prior to being discovered to still exist.
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
There was the Coelacanth, though i don't know if it's existence was speculated at or alleged
Click to expand...
If you don’t know, why did you reply about it?
 
oldrover said:
The bulk of what passes for cryptozoology seems to be market driven bunk, consider how popular a site or book dealing with undiscovered "mice or frogs" would be
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. I have a delightful book about "The Smaller Mystery Carnivores of the Westcountry", though – pine martens, stoats, weasels and stuff ... but I guess that was not a big seller and at any rate it’s just about animals that are speculated not to have gone extinct in a particular area. Karl Shuker in his ”extraordinary animals” discusses a lot of ordinary animals (though he also has a chapter on ”the unmentionables”, which includes medieval-style dragons) ... so this stuff is out there.

... for example that pretty 6ft stripey monitor from the Philliipines? may well have come up.
Click to expand...
May well have ... but you’re not saying it did. I’m guessing it didn’t. :)
 
It depends where you draw the line on "modern".

For instance, weren't gorillas were considered to be mythical until the mid nineteenth century?
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
Edited for content.
Click to expand...
Very wise, but TBH I'd have taken a sympathetic view..
Philo_T said:
For instance, weren't gorillas were considered to be mythical until the mid nineteenth century?
Click to expand...
Yep. Unfortunately, the attitude that zoology is only "official" when conducted in western universities, and that until people in white lab coats have a specimen on the slab then an animal can't possibly exist is still rather prevalent.

I'm sure we've mentioned before, probably in the context of Monster Hunter / Destination Truth, the risible BBC series "X Creatures" in which Chris Packham visited locations of cryptozoo interest for an afternoon or so and declared specified cryptids not to exist, principally as he hadn't seen them. Unfortunately, that is a very real reflection of much mainstream scientific thought. This isn't the fault of science itself in the slightest - it's all down to scientific cliques, who guard their own theories and conclusions vehemently, and any sign of dissent or query can be dealt with quite ruthlessly.
 
It goes in a circle : all animals from this list were identified by Western zoology before the birth of cryptozoology.

They put forward the oft-repeated assertion that the giant squid was the Kraken of old scandinavian lore. I read Heuvelmans classic book on giant cephalopods, where he relates how norwegian fishers exactly depicted the Kraken. Despite that Heuvelmans supported this identification, his book shows that the legendary Kraken had nothing to do with a giant squid.
 
So what do you really consider to be cryptozoology? There was that expedition to Papua New Guinea recently where they found several new species, in an isolated volcanic crater. Do those people count as cryptozoologists or just zoologists?

I don´t think it´s wrong to say a species counts as new if it has not been described by science. It helps seperate the wheat from the chaff. Most societies will talk about both animals that exists and animals that don´t, without making a distinction. Using scientific methods will help you find which are which. Or to find out what that´s being said about those animals is actually true. Gorillas are a good example, the native people in the area had long known about them before they were studied by scientists. However the natives also believed gorillas to be meat-eaters who would steal their women and sit around their abandoned campfires.
 
I have always associated life on this planet, that has been discovered to be of zoology, that which is based on myth and yet to be discovered crypto meh
 
Xanatic_ said:
There was that expedition to Papua New Guinea recently where they found several new species, in an isolated volcanic crater. Do those people count as cryptozoologists or just zoologists?
Click to expand...
It’s not easy to answer, but I guess they self-identified as zoologists. :p Probably, it matters a bit what they do when they’re not on that expedition. Do they work in zoology, on known animals, or do they catalogue eyewitness reports of yowies?

If these animals were rumored to exist before the expedition, they might be claimed for cryptozoology ... but only, I think, if they were rumored to exist among people who saw themselves as cryptozoologists, not if they were thought to exist by zoologists who work in New Guinea.
 
jubecrew said:
BosskR is that repoid avatar your sporting?
Click to expand...
I’m Tony Blair and I’m really a shape-shifting lizard
 
Xanatic_ said:
Zoologists(or cryptozoologists, who decides?) have found a worm some thought was just a myth. It was reputed to spit at predators and grow up to three feet long.
Click to expand...
Be fair, it was a rare worm (not previously unknown) that was thought to be extinct since like 1980.
 
Xanatic_ said:
Well them cryptoguys also hunt the thylacine.
Click to expand...
And they haven’t exactly found it.

By the way, I once dreamt I got a postcard from Zoogz Rift with a picture of a thylacine that said THIS UGLY FUCKER HAS BEEN EXTERMINATED. It’s a nice dream to have had ...
 
Hmm. Well, there was the King Cheetah. But then that turned out not to be a new species at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah#King_cheetah

As previous posters have said, most cryptozoologists are only interested in really exotic and unlikely beasts, which is what makes them bad scientists. If they just wanted to discover new animals they could go hunt insects in an African rainforest and come back with several, but no - too mundane.
 
Untrue, i went after the deathworm a creature that is peobobly a new species of worm lizard and its only about two feet long.
In Indo-china i may have stumbled across a new secies of cave dwelling gnat (though despite my passing the info on to a gnat specialist no one has returned to the cave in queston for further study).
Jon Downes is higly intrested in a warm water lamprey he saw in Puerto Rico. Infact Jons main intrests are turtles, salamanders, small fish and inverts.
 
i went after the deathworm a creature that is peobobly a new species of worm lizard and its only about two feet long.
Click to expand...


just read a post by Rynner somewhere, about giant Paleozoic worms in Southern England. don't suppose that's got anything to do with the above mind, but it's a thought, if not a very good one.

I don't think it's a lizard, but because of the extreme unlikelihood someone would invent such a creature, this is the cryptid I'd put most money on.
 
Its higly unlikley to be a worm as the Gobi is far too dry. I listened to about two dozen eyewitness descriptions and most mentioned scales. The animals that fit the descriptions best are amphisibaenids (worm lizards) or sand boas.
 
Oh i don't know i think a new worm,m lizard is pretty cool. It would be the chunkiest worm lizard even if its death dealing powers are apochuphal (yes i know i've probobly spelt that wrong).
 
no I'm gutted, I wanted it to be a worm, for some reason I've always had a secret admiration for outsized worms.


apochuphal (yes i know i've probobly spelt that wrong).
Click to expand...

don't ask me, I'm still locked in mortal combat with 'likley' and 'necessarily'
 
Lads, google chrome has its own inbuilt spell checker! checks what I am writing here as soon as I type it! I would be lost without it.
 
which I would also be lost without too titch, but just once I'd like to type 'likely' without it being underlined in red.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top