Implications Of Cryptid Discovery

[Tunn11]

I was musing about the implications of discovery and verification of various cryptids and the biological and wider implications of such a discovery and wondering which would have the most impact and be the most newsworthy to the mainstream media.

I would guess a living hominid/hominim would have biological and religious and legal implications and if it were to be a well known cryptid like a Yeti orBigfoot would be a huge story not to mention making all the “Red necks chase bigfoot” and “Bigfoot ate my hamster” programmes needing a re think.

Finding a living representative of a long presumed extinct group such as non avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs or marine reptiles would be of biological importance and make headlines, more so if it were to be a fierce large example.

Living mammoths, sabretooth cats etc. would get coverage in the press as would any sort offearsome sea creature, megalodon or the next instalment of ever larger squid. The Mongolian Death Worm maybe because of its name.

After that would there be a lot of interest? Coelacanths are fairly well known but monoplacophorans aren't. Would a Waitoreke arouse much interest even though potentially an important discovery of a monotreme or other primitive mammal? Or theTatzelwurm? I'd guess a Thylacene would make more copy despite being a welcome but perhaps unremarkable biological discovery.

Any more ideas on what cryptid discovery would make the headlines?

As an aside I'm always surprised that there isn't a more general interest in cryptozoology outside of the woo stuff. I've ordered various books from local bookshops and quite often have the staff tell me that they look interesting, or that they've been looking through it. I think the serious side of the subject is getting buried under all the sensationalist nonsense and given the interest in wildlife programmes there is a market out there for the more serious cryptozoological material.

 

[oldrover]

I'd guess a Thylacene would make more copy despite being a welcome but perhaps unremarkable biological discovery

An unremarkable discovery? Really?

 

[Sharon Hill]

I was musing about the implications of discovery and verification of various cryptids and the biological and wider implications of such a discovery and wondering which would have the most impact and be the most newsworthy to the mainstream media.

I would guess a living hominid/hominim would have biological and religious and legal implications and if it were to be a well known cryptid like a Yeti orBigfoot would be a huge story not to mention making all the “Red necks chase bigfoot” and “Bigfoot ate my hamster” programmes needing a re think.

Finding a living representative of a long presumed extinct group such as non avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs or marine reptiles would be of biological importance and make headlines, more so if it were to be a fierce large example.

Living mammoths, sabretooth cats etc. would get coverage in the press as would any sort offearsome sea creature, megalodon or the next instalment of ever larger squid. The Mongolian Death Worm maybe because of its name.

After that would there be a lot of interest? Coelacanths are fairly well known but monoplacophorans aren't. Would a Waitoreke arouse much interest even though potentially an important discovery of a monotreme or other primitive mammal? Or theTatzelwurm? I'd guess a Thylacene would make more copy despite being a welcome but perhaps unremarkable biological discovery.

Any more ideas on what cryptid discovery would make the headlines?

As an aside I'm always surprised that there isn't a more general interest in cryptozoology outside of the woo stuff. I've ordered various books from local bookshops and quite often have the staff tell me that they look interesting, or that they've been looking through it. I think the serious side of the subject is getting buried under all the sensationalist nonsense and given the interest in wildlife programmes there is a market out there for the more serious cryptozoological material.

Cryptids are a remarkably complex subject, starting with the questions what is a 'cryptid'? and what constitutes a discovery of one?

The coelacanth was not a cryptid. It was named this post hoc. No one was looking for it. It had no legendary status. Like many "hidden" creatures, there was certainly a colonialist spin on what constitutes a "mystery" animal. The creature was "hidden" from Western ideas of zoology? That's narrow and contrived. It hasn't held up. For traditional "cryptid" examples looking backwards, when people looked for the mystery creature, they rather quickly found it, unlike today's struggles to bag a Bigfoot.

What would a discovery look like unless it was really the body of a new creature that was certain to fit the description. (A thylacine would be a good example.) Bigfoot, Nessie, etc. all clearly have more than one potential animal as an explanation, probably none of those candidates are new species.

Cryptozoology fans have a habit of getting really excited about new animal species that are found but none of them are legendary so as to be considered a cryptid - they just are new species, which are found fairly regularly. They don't lend support for the existence of other infamous cryptids in any way.

The landscape of cryptids today is extremely broad and includes all mysterious, spooky, scary and uncanny sentient things that people like to tell stories about. Often, they are clearly fantastical creatures (chupacabra, mothman, jackalope, etc.) Even mythical - the Pukwudgie and LaLorona were listed as cryptids in a recent popularity contest. https://www.axios.com/2023/10/31/halloween-2023-mythical-creatures-cryptid-bracket-winner

So, it's not surprising that this field isn't taken seriously. It's now about mythical creatures. There is nothing zoological here. I'd argue that after the name was coined in 1983, (and many zoologists would argue even back to Heuvelmans' ideas) there has never been a certifiable "cryptid" discovered. But there is a LOT here culturally, which, to me, is endlessly fascinating. We are definitely in a time of post-cryptid cryptozoology - where these creature claims are best studied by historians, folklorists, sociologists, and anthropologists, not biologists.

 

[PeteByrdie]

An unremarkable discovery? Really?

It wouldn't be unremarkable to us, but I think Tunn11 just means it's not a species unknown to science, or even one that's been extinct for very long. Scientifically, in many respects, the discovery of a surviving population of thylacines would be less remarkable perhaps than the discovery of living coelacanths was. Although I'd love them to be discovered, of more interest to me wouldn't be what more we could learn about them, fascinating though that might be, so much as how the heck they've remained undiscovered for the last 80-odd years.

 

[Mikefule]

Cryptids are a remarkably complex subject, starting with the questions what is a 'cryptid'? and what constitutes a discovery of one?

Yes, it's all too easy to dive into a debate without defining terms. That way, you get nowhere.

"Cryptid" can be used to mean at least the following:

• Things that many of us would count as "a bit woo". (They would require a complete new branch of physics to explain their existence)
• Mythological creatures (e.g. mermaids)
• Relict populations of recently extinct species (e.g. thylacine)
• Relict populations of long extinct species (e.g. pterosaurs)
• Unlikely but not completely impossible unknown species (e.g. bigfoot, yeti, etc.)

The term "cryptid" is used so widely that we have probably reached the stage where a new range of agreed labels is needed.

The effect of the actual discovery of a cryptid, or unequivocal proof of their existence, would depend very much on which category it fell into.

Actual proof of a trans-dimensional zoomorphic creature would fundamentally change our understanding of the way the universe works.

Discovery of a small but viable population of panthers on Dartmoor would be a matter of general interest. It would no doubt provoke an argument about capture, extermination, or conservation.

Discovery of bigfoot would cause enormous excitement because the idea of bigfoot is widely known, and the creature might be thought of as charismatic. It is already easier to get support for conservation of charismatic megafauna (elephants, rhinos) than it is for uncharismatic or small species, especially if they are perceived as unpleasant. (Try raising money for conservation of an endangered species of venomous snake.)

As Bigfoot (as widely understood) is closely related to humans, proof of its existence would raise all sorts of ethical and religious debate.

Discovery of a previously unknown type of sea serpent would probably flash across the headlines for a day and then be forgotten. I'd be interested, but for most people it would be just another marine creature that would not affect their day to day lives or their understanding of the world.

 

[Sid]

"Cryptid" can be used to mean at least the following:

• Things that many of us would count as "a bit woo". (They would require a complete new branch of physics to explain their existence)
• Mythological creatures (e.g. mermaids)
• Relict populations of recently extinct species (e.g. thylacine)
• Relict populations of long extinct species (e.g. pterosaurs)
• Unlikely but not completely impossible unknown species (e.g. bigfoot, yeti, etc.)
• Could also mean something that crept out of the crypt!

 

[PeteByrdie]

Yes, it's all too easy to dive into a debate without defining terms. That way, you get nowhere.

"Cryptid" can be used to mean at least the following:

• Things that many of us would count as "a bit woo". (They would require a complete new branch of physics to explain their existence)
• Mythological creatures (e.g. mermaids)
• Relict populations of recently extinct species (e.g. thylacine)
• Relict populations of long extinct species (e.g. pterosaurs)
• Unlikely but not completely impossible unknown species (e.g. bigfoot, yeti, etc.)

The term "cryptid" is used so widely that we have probably reached the stage where a new range of agreed labels is needed.

The effect of the actual discovery of a cryptid, or unequivocal proof of their existence, would depend very much on which category it fell into.

Actual proof of a trans-dimensional zoomorphic creature would fundamentally change our understanding of the way the universe works.

Discovery of a small but viable population of panthers on Dartmoor would be a matter of general interest. It would no doubt provoke an argument about capture, extermination, or conservation.

Discovery of bigfoot would cause enormous excitement because the idea of bigfoot is widely known, and the creature might be thought of as charismatic. It is already easier to get support for conservation of charismatic megafauna (elephants, rhinos) than it is for uncharismatic or small species, especially if they are perceived as unpleasant. (Try raising money for conservation of an endangered species of venomous snake.)

As Bigfoot (as widely understood) is closely related to humans, proof of its existence would raise all sorts of ethical and religious debate.

Discovery of a previously unknown type of sea serpent would probably flash across the headlines for a day and then be forgotten. I'd be interested, but for most people it would be just another marine creature that would not affect their day to day lives or their understanding of the world.

Perhaps one of the issues is that people interpret the same cryptic in different ways. Is bigfoot mythological? Is it a transdimensional being? It which case, you may as well call it a ghost, as 'transdimensional' might sound sciencey, but as things stand it's as good as saying supernatural. None of these things make it a cryptid to my mind. That it resembles (though not very closely) our prehistoric relatives, and something like it could once have existed, perhaps into recent times, makes it a cryptid to me. Other creatures, whether they come from local folklore or supposed sightings, or both, are cryptids to me only if they can be investigated as physical, non supernatural animals. Any suggestion they have a non physical nature is purely a spiritual pursuit. Obviously, if a being is a part of folklore but there is no reason to think it's a real creature, such as continued sightings, then it's an anthropological study, not a cryptozoological one.

Unfortunately, as Sharon Hill notes, the history of the search for cryptids and the actual discovery of previously unknown animals in recent times doesn't have much of an overlap. As much as I really do appreciate the work of the likes of Richard Freeman - and I do, it's easy for armchair cryptozoologists to poopoo the probable existence of reported mystery animals, but that doesn't get us very far unless someone puts their boots on and goes looking - the reality is newly discovered animals are usually preceded by no clue they had existed, and quests for reputed unknown animals seem to yield nothing more than more reports and no actual proof.

To answer the actual question; society is quite resilient. News reports of extraordinary things are often only news for a short while. If transdimensional beings, or ghosts for that matter, are found, science will be in a tizzy as it usually is, but I doubt it'll have a huge immediate impact on our daily lives. The discovery of a new species of 'human' might cause more conflict between those who wish to exploit their habitat and those who want to preserve it. Just about anything else will bother the new sites for a few days then we'll absorb and get on with our lives.

 

[oldrover]

It wouldn't be unremarkable to us, but I think Tunn11 just means it's not a species unknown to science, or even one that's been extinct for very long. Scientifically, in many respects, the discovery of a surviving population of thylacines would be less remarkable perhaps than the discovery of living coelacanths was. Although I'd love them to be discovered, of more interest to me wouldn't be what more we could learn about them, fascinating though that might be, so much as how the heck they've remained undiscovered for the last 80-odd years.

I'm afraid I'm one of the people who know just how little we know about them, so it'd be the opposite with me, but I see what you mean. With its recent extinction date I think people mistake the thylacine for a fairly open case, I'd say it's just the opposite. They were so rare and disappeared so recently that it isn't difficult to plot their decline, based on what's now known I'd argue that they would be an extremely surprising survivor. Other people's interpretation varies though, but I don't think they're looking at the right evidence.

 

[Tunn11]

An unremarkable discovery? Really?

As @PeteByrdie says I meant unremarkable biologically in that we know they existed. (I'd love some to be found) there are plenty of "Lazarus" species that have been deemed extinct and then turned up without a lot of general media fuss. The Coelacanth is always trotted out as "proof" that this can happen, but there are plenty of other examples. Why does Old Fourlegs get the press?

I should have defined "cryptid" a term I'm not keen on anyway, to mean an actual living biological creature rather than interdimensional, phantom, etc. "beasties." The proof of their existence probably would make headlines.

Taking @Sharon Hill 's point there don't seem to be many creatures rumoured to exist for a long period that have been found ( but weren't the Congo Peacock. Okapi and Mountain Gorilla found after following up local stories, feathers, bits of hide , etc.) but one definition that I saw was: "An animal known to the locals but unknown to (Western) science." For instance didn't the CFZ prove the existence of Martens in Cornwall recently (Couldn't find the reference) reported by locals but denied by the mainstream.

I suppose anything big and potentially frightening is going to make the headlines but I think we tend to forget the stories leading to discoveries and generally just get the story of the Okapi being discovered in 1901 although stories first circulated about it in the West in 1887.

The longer the gap between rumour and "scientific discovery" the less the chance of anything being found (either because it doesn't exist or it has gone extinct) But what is the longest gap between rumour and discovery? Given other factors like intelligence, habitat, size, noticeability, etc. how long before we should reasonably conclude that a given cryptid doesn't exist at least as a physical animal?

Looking at the classics I'd say that the Nandi bear, Non avian Dinosaurs, Tatzelwurm, Waitoreke, Plesiosaurs (Although maybe not a mammal shaped like one) Pterosaurs and large Lemurs are non starters. Mammoths, Sabre toothed cats, Queeensland Tigers and Mngwa are getting less and less likely and I'd add bigfoot but for the Patterson Gimlin film.........

 

[PeteByrdie]

But what is the longest gap between rumour and discovery? Given other factors like intelligence, habitat, size, noticeability, etc. how long before we should reasonably conclude that a given cryptid doesn't exist at least as a physical animal?

Well, the proposition that a given cryptid exists is essentially unfalsifiable, which is one of the reasons I don't think of cryptozoology as a science. It involves scientific processes. You can prove that some hairs belong to a bear, or perhaps even that they belong to an unknown hominid (perhaps), but if they belong to a bear, that doesn't mean there is no unknown hominid. We should perhaps never conclude that a cryptid doesn't exist (although I am guilty of largely concluding that almost all cryptids don't exist).

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Cryptids are a remarkably complex subject, starting with the questions what is a 'cryptid'? and what constitutes a discovery of one?

The coelacanth was not a cryptid. It was named this post hoc. No one was looking for it. It had no legendary status. Like many "hidden" creatures, there was certainly a colonialist spin on what constitutes a "mystery" animal. The creature was "hidden" from Western ideas of zoology? That's narrow and contrived. It hasn't held up. For traditional "cryptid" examples looking backwards, when people looked for the mystery creature, they rather quickly found it, unlike today's struggles to bag a Bigfoot.

Not sure I fully agree with that argument.
For example, imagine if an extant ichthyosaur were to be found. Would it not qualify as a cryptid if, say, a tribe on a remote Pacific island already knew about it?

 

[PeteByrdie]

Not sure I fully agree with that argument.
For example, imagine if an extant ichthyosaur were to be found. Would it not qualify as a cryptid if, say, a tribe on a remote Pacific island already knew about it?

I had the same thought, and I find that interesting. You can describe a cryptid as being a creature known of by local cultures but undescribed by the scientific community, and you can say it's functionally irrelevant whether the wider world knows of its rumoured existence. But the reality is, once a creature is discovered and described it's no longer a cryptid, if it ever was, and if it failed to be heard of and sought for before being officially discovered by anyone other than locals who knew of its existence, it's missed its window of opportunity to ever be a cryptid.

 

[Sharon Hill]

Not sure I fully agree with that argument.
For example, imagine if an extant ichthyosaur were to be found. Would it not qualify as a cryptid if, say, a tribe on a remote Pacific island already knew about it?

This is very problematic. A methodology should be clear about what it is attempting to accomplish. If we can't define a cryptid (and it was never operationally defined), it's not a useful idea. My opinion has evolved to conclude that cryptozoology was not ever useful as explained by Heuvelmans and the ISC in the first place. There is nothing for these cryptozoologists to do that non cryptid specialized zoologists wouldn't already do - except to take established legends very literally.

The idea of being ethnoknown is extremely tricky to establish. It's a very slippery idea to ask what did the indigenous people know and when did they know it, as well as how they perceive the creature as "real". Like I alluded to initially, white Western guys came in and declared that a native community's special animal must represent an unidentified zoological creature (that they could subsequently find and describe). First, that's not a legitimate conclusion to make in modern times, and, secondly, something that might qualify as that has not happened since very early 20th century (when science and exploration of areas was still very new)*. It does seem like the more legends that accrue for a cryptid, the less likely it seems to actually exist as a discrete animal. (Nessie, Bigfoot, Yeti, chupacabra, dogman, mothman, etc.)

*When they looked for that (okapi, for example), they found it relatively quickly. This does not match with the process of the most iconic cryptids.

 

[Mikefule]

Well, the proposition that a given cryptid exists is essentially unfalsifiable, which is one of the reasons I don't think of cryptozoology as a science. It involves scientific processes. You can prove that some hairs belong to a bear, or perhaps even that they belong to an unknown hominid (perhaps), but if they belong to a bear, that doesn't mean there is no unknown hominid. We should perhaps never conclude that a cryptid doesn't exist (although I am guilty of largely concluding that almost all cryptids don't exist).

This depends on what you mean by "unfalsifiable". At extreme levels of (im)probability, even the most robust scientific theories could conceivably be falsified. Scientists work according to conventions on what constitutes proof. For example 5 standard deviations from the average. There is always the remote possibility of new and unexpected observations overturning a "proven" theory.


You appear to be arguing along the general lines of "You can't prove it doesn't exist," which is a variant of "You can't prove a negative." (Ironically, "You can't prove a negative" is expressed as a negative.)

In fact almost every negative can be reworded as a positive, and vice versa.

Evidence is any fact that points towards or away from a provisional conclusion. Proof is a fact that establishes a definite conclusion.

The absence of evidence that would normally be expected to be available is itself a form of evidence.


If you tell me there is a lion on the lawn and I look out of the window and see no lion, that is not proof that there was no lion on the lawn. It could have moved in between you telling me it was there, and me looking.

However, if the lawn is covered in a crisp blanket of snow, and there are no lion footprints, that is going to weigh heavily in my scales as evidence that there was no lion there in the first place. The absence of the expected footprints is evidence.

If I then throw a joint of meat onto the lawn and no lion appears, and if I have heard no roar or growl, and if there has been no mention of lion sightings on local radio, and I live in a country where there are no wild lions and very few in captivity, and if a check of the map shows no zoos within 50 miles, and if a check of the newspaper and Google shows no circuses performing within 50 miles, then there is a complete absence of the various types of evidence that I would expect to be present.

Having considered several pieces of evidence that would be present if there were a lion on my lawn, and found none of that evidence, I would reach a confident conclusion that there was no lion.

Is that "proof" or is it "a confident conclusion based on a consideration of the (absence of) evidence"? I'd say that was hair splitting.

If someone then said it was "obviously" an interdimensional being that did not interact with the material world, hence the lack of evidence, I would put the onus on them to prove the credibility of interdimensional beings that are visible (they reflect photons which are part of the material world) but which do not interact with the material world.

On the other hand, if you told me that there was a dead jackrabbit on the lawn, and I looked out and I saw half a mangled jackrabbit on one side of the lawn, half a mangled jackrabbit on the other side, and a bloodied axe between them, I would say that was hare splitting.

 

[Sharon Hill]

Other creatures, whether they come from local folklore or supposed sightings, or both, are cryptids to me only if they can be investigated as physical, non supernatural animals. Any suggestion they have a non physical nature is purely a spiritual pursuit. Obviously, if a being is a part of folklore but there is no reason to think it's a real creature, such as continued sightings, then it's an anthropological study, not a cryptozoological one.

There are no gatekeepers for cryptozoology anymore. So cryptids are whatever popular society says they are. They are now walking pants, man-dogs, and sexualized winged humanoids. Can't do much about that except to go with it and have fun. It's all anthropological.

 

[Mikefule]

Not sure I fully agree with that argument.
For example, imagine if an extant ichthyosaur were to be found. Would it not qualify as a cryptid if, say, a tribe on a remote Pacific island already knew about it?

You make a valid point. Why should "western science" be the arbiter? Unless of course, the definition of cryptid is as precise as to include "... and not known to western science."

In your example, I would suggest that the answer would depend on what the remote tribe "knew".

"Our ancestors told tales of a great scaly dolphin-like fish that is a harbinger of death..." This is not "knowing about" the ichthyosaur. Their ancestors probably also told tales of the sun god crossing the heavens in his fiery canoe, but mythology is not "knowledge".

"Our fishermen often see a huge fish a bit like a dolphin, but green and scaly, but it is always in the distance. We've never caught one." This is a cryptid.

"Our fishermen often catch these and we eat them and use the bones to make jewellery. Look, there's a pile of their bones over there, and there are a couple of fresh dead ones in the bottom of that canoe." This is not a cryptid, just a species known to the locals, but not yet recorded by western science.

 

[Kondoru]

Look at the fuss over the Ivory billed woodpecker.

 

[Tunn11]

Perhaps the problem is how other zoologists and funding bodies will view a zoologist looking for a yeti. There is a supposition that it doesn't exist and looking is a waste of time.
"Can I have a grant to film and observe Snow Leopards?"
"Yes, it will be difficult but worthwhile, off you go."
"Can I have a grant to look for a Yeti?"
" Oh grow up."
Hence zoologists and cryptozoologists

 

[PeteByrdie]

This depends on what you mean by "unfalsifiable". At extreme levels of (im)probability, even the most robust scientific theories could conceivably be falsified. Scientists work according to conventions on what constitutes proof. For example 5 standard deviations from the average. There is always the remote possibility of new and unexpected observations overturning a "proven" theory.


You appear to be arguing along the general lines of "You can't prove it doesn't exist," which is a variant of "You can't prove a negative." (Ironically, "You can't prove a negative" is expressed as a negative.)

In fact almost every negative can be reworded as a positive, and vice versa.

Evidence is any fact that points towards or away from a provisional conclusion. Proof is a fact that establishes a definite conclusion.

The absence of evidence that would normally be expected to be available is itself a form of evidence.


If you tell me there is a lion on the lawn and I look out of the window and see no lion, that is not proof that there was no lion on the lawn. It could have moved in between you telling me it was there, and me looking.

However, if the lawn is covered in a crisp blanket of snow, and there are no lion footprints, that is going to weigh heavily in my scales as evidence that there was no lion there in the first place. The absence of the expected footprints is evidence.

If I then throw a joint of meat onto the lawn and no lion appears, and if I have heard no roar or growl, and if there has been no mention of lion sightings on local radio, and I live in a country where there are no wild lions and very few in captivity, and if a check of the map shows no zoos within 50 miles, and if a check of the newspaper and Google shows no circuses performing within 50 miles, then there is a complete absence of the various types of evidence that I would expect to be present.

Having considered several pieces of evidence that would be present if there were a lion on my lawn, and found none of that evidence, I would reach a confident conclusion that there was no lion.

Is that "proof" or is it "a confident conclusion based on a consideration of the (absence of) evidence"? I'd say that was hair splitting.

If someone then said it was "obviously" an interdimensional being that did not interact with the material world, hence the lack of evidence, I would put the onus on them to prove the credibility of interdimensional beings that are visible (they reflect photons which are part of the material world) but which do not interact with the material world.

On the other hand, if you told me that there was a dead jackrabbit on the lawn, and I looked out and I saw half a mangled jackrabbit on one side of the lawn, half a mangled jackrabbit on the other side, and a bloodied axe between them, I would say that was hare splitting.

I agree with all this, and it's why I mostly don't think much of the chances we'll be discovering any cryptids.

There are no gatekeepers for cryptozoology anymore. So cryptids are whatever popular society says they are. They are now walking pants, man-dogs, and sexualized winged humanoids. Can't do much about that except to go with it and have fun. It's all anthropological.

I'm becoming a curmudgeonly sort and I'll stick to my old fashioned definition of cryptid, not these newfangled definitions the kids are using these days.

 

[Mikefule]

I agree with all this, and it's why I mostly don't think much of the chances we'll be discovering any cryptids.

I'm becoming a curmudgeonly sort and I'll stick to my old fashioned definition of cryptid, not these newfangled definitions the kids are using these days.

When a word is used to mean a very broad spread of fundamentally different things, it no longer has a definition.

In the normal course of events, outside of a legal, technical or academic context, definitions develop or evolve, and important distinctions are lost (e.g. anticipate now used to mean expect.) I think "cryptid" has degraded to the stage of being almost a useless word if it is not given some additional context.

Without further qualification, cryptid now means little more than "any creature that some people claim to believe may exist, but which is not recognised by science."

 

[oldrover]

As @PeteByrdie says I meant unremarkable biologically in that we know they existed.

I understand, thanks.

 

[Tunn11]

I get the impression that most new discoveries are from expeditions whose primary purpose is something else. Expeditions like those funded by the CFZ don't have the funding and so have to rely to some extent on luck. With ample funding for time and equipment they would probably achieve a lot more.

If you want to be filmed looning about in the forests of Washington state banging on trees, shining lights about all night, yelling and hooting enough to scare any wildlife within a ten mile radius you stand a chance of getting TV money.

I'm guessing that if anyone does find a bigfoot it will be something like a long term study of Moose migration or Bear hibernation with long term funding sitting quietly in the woods that has a chance of capturing some footage or DNA or finds a body.

As for definitions, Unknown animals, acceping that we mean unknown to the global scientific community rather than to the person who just had one for lunch.

I think it was Ivan Sanderson who said, although others have said this since; that many cultures recognise spiritual and physical beings and are not insulted if asked which a creature is as they believe both to be equally real and valid. Not something we are used to in the West where such a question would probably be seen as an insult

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

"The idea of being ethnoknown is extremely tricky to establish. "

Sorry Sharon, but that's not even a word I've ever heard of until today (and apparently neither has Windows 11's spell-checker).
You appeared to be arguing that if a creature, unknown to western science, but possibly known elsewhere, makes an appearance, that disqualifies it from being described as a cryptid.
Whilst I personally don't believe any Sasquatches, Almas, Chupacabras, Mokele M'Bembes, Bunyips, Loup-garous, Ropens, Ogopogos, Dobhar-chús, Liuscas and many others are ever likely to be found, if they do, the fact that an indigenous word has been proffered for the creature's existence should not disqualify if from being regarded as a cryptid.
The Coelacanth - thought to have gone extinct many millions of years ago by the majority of the scientific community, absolutely should count as a cryptid.
Although a sceptic, I love to hear about any rare event that shakes up the scientific community and obliges it to reappraise its values (doesn't every Fortean?).
Pre-empting that possibility by employing the already "ethnoknown" get-out-of-jail-free card does seem a bit like a mitigation too far.

 

[Aether Blue]

Perhaps it's up to us on this board to craft a useful definition for "Cryptid?"

Also, I agree that ethnoknown creatures should qualify, provided that this knowledge includes a consistent description.

Finally, I wonder whether there might not be cryptic biological entities that dwell more or less openly in human society in much the same way that some beetles dwell openly among the ants whose stores they raid. Alternate species of hominids, perhaps even those specialized to prey on humans ("vampires"), could pass as humans themselves; while other sorts of creatures might disguise themselves as innocuous environmental items, like pants for example.

 

[Sharon Hill]

Look at the fuss over the Ivory billed woodpecker.

That also has strong political facets. So, it's even more complex.

 

[Sharon Hill]

"The idea of being ethnoknown is extremely tricky to establish. "

Sorry Sharon, but that's not even a word I've ever heard of until today (and apparently neither has Windows 11's spell-checker).
You appeared to be arguing that if a creature, unknown to western science, but possibly known elsewhere, makes an appearance, that disqualifies it from being described as a cryptid.
Whilst I personally don't believe any Sasquatches, Almas, Chupacabras, Mokele M'Bembes, Bunyips, Loup-garous, Ropens, Ogopogos, Dobhar-chús, Liuscas and many others are ever likely to be found, if they do, the fact that an indigenous word has been proffered for the creature's existence should not disqualify if from being regarded as a cryptid.
The Coelacanth - thought to have gone extinct many millions of years ago by the majority of the scientific community, absolutely should count as a cryptid.
Although a sceptic, I love to hear about any rare event that shakes up the scientific community and obliges it to reappraise its values (doesn't every Fortean?).
Pre-empting that possibility by employing the already "ethnoknown" get-out-of-jail-free card does seem a bit like a mitigation too far.

Ethnoknown is used by Chad Arment in Cryptozoology: Science and Speculation (2004), a fairly comprehensive collection of the scholarly ideas of the field even if it is deeply grumpy and insulting to those who don't toe the line established by Heuvelmans' et al. Ethnoknown is not a bad idea, it's just a privileged view and difficult to put into practice. It has been used in several other places to describe cryptids - it just means is known to the locals.

I'm not sure I said what you said I said. But clearly this all gets very confusing because cryptozoology was never well-defined and never had an established methodology. It failed as a zoological endeavor. That is why we see the plethora of non-zoological cryptids and the diluted-to-the-point-of-uselessness state of the word "cryptid".

Using local observations is an established means of seeking out new species. That's not new or special. So what makes cryptozoology different? I haven't been able to discern that. There is a field of ethno-zoology but I think that is more about humans and animals interact - I could be wrong about that.

The coelacanth had no substantive legend attached to it. No one was actively seeking it based on interesting tales and folklore. Was it known from testimonial evidence? Ehhh.... "known" is a wiggly word - context matters - it was a thing known to locals, just like many plants and animals. They sure didn't care if it had an official binomial name. Sure, it was a surprise when found, but so are many new species. So, I guess it qualifies as a cryptid if you use the term "hidden" meaning that it was hidden from scientists because they weren't fishing in the Indian Ocean. If that's the definition of a cryptid, it's not very useful and it's not different from regular zoology.

But you hit on an important point - the coelacanth is often used as a symbol to suggest that science is flawed - that the declaration that it was extinct was wrong. Cryptozoologists have a strong tendency to bad-talk science. Again, not a useful trait for a serious and scholarly field.

 

[Sharon Hill]

Perhaps it's up to us on this board to craft a useful definition for "Cryptid?"

Also, I agree that ethnoknown creatures should qualify, provided that this knowledge includes a consistent description.

Finally, I wonder whether there might not be cryptic biological entities that dwell more or less openly in human society in much the same way that some beetles dwell openly among the ants whose stores they raid. Alternate species of hominids, perhaps even those specialized to prey on humans ("vampires"), could pass as humans themselves; while other sorts of creatures might disguise themselves as innocuous environmental items, like pants for example.

It was up to the organization who said they would develop the field and serve as its gatekeepers. That's what scientific communities do - they set formal and informal rules, they judge worthwhile efforts and results and reject the not-so-good stuff, they act collectively to build a foundation which can then be further built upon. The ISC organization fell apart in the 1990s, maybe partly because it was a flawed premise to begin with. Then there were no gatekeepers, and the cryptids left the barn, so to speak. They evolved in the wilds of popular culture to become whatever society says they are. We can't stop language from changing. And it's not reasonable to lock oneself into a time period and refuse to acknowledge the changing world.

I've tried to come up with a definition of cryptids for the last many years and I don't have it yet. I don't think I ever will have it down. The 2023 definition is clearly "creatures that people say exist but have not had their existence definitively established" - it's broad, it has extremely fluid boundaries, and it's accurate.

 

[Aether Blue]

I've tried to come up with a definition of cryptids for the last many years and I don't have it yet. I don't think I ever will have it down. The 2023 definition is clearly "creatures that people say exist but have not had their existence definitively established" - it's broad, it has extremely fluid boundaries, and it's accurate.

Well, there you go! I think that's a perfectly serviceable definition that provides a category clearly distinct from "mythical," "extinct," and "known to exist."

The drama between true believers and denialist skeptics really doesn't interest me, though you're right that spitting in the scientific establishment's face doesn't help in getting available evidence properly examined. On the other side of the fence, I do wish more zoologists would follow Darren Naish's example in at least looking at the available evidence.

 

[PeteByrdie]

Perhaps a cryptid is that which is studied by cryptozoologists, a cryptozoologist being a person who studies cryptids.

 

[Tunn11]

Well, there you go! I think that's a perfectly serviceable definition that provides a category clearly distinct from "mythical," "extinct," and "known to exist."

Not sure, I think it depends on the definition of creature. Nobody it seems can ever be sure that something is extinct so ruling out extinct species would rule out searches for a lot of animals on the list. Mythical can be a minefield as well. Are mythical creatures an attempt to describe a real animal rarely seen and perhaps a bit frightening?

Perhaps it is a search for; a biological life form currently unrecognised as currently existing by the mainstream scientific community. The search could entail; expeditions, local accounts, historic accounts, museum specimens, photographic and pictoral portrayals.

The next stage, which IMO a lot of writers on the subject shy away from is to state that the subject in question seems to be a mythological, supernatural or even hoax animal with no basis in biological reality or based on mistaken attributes given to a known animal.

I too get fed up with the "mainstream scientists are always wrong" attitude adopted by many (and that applies to lots of Fortean subjects) but I also get fed up with some "authorities" who automatically dismiss any subject after only a cursory (if that) look at the subject.

I think the tragedy of ignoring these reports could be the establishment of the reality of some creature when it is too late to save it. An example may be the "Buru" of the Himalayas mentioned in Roy Mackal's Searching for Hidden Animals".