Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Psuedoscience?

I'm not going to tolerate any advancement of the idea that cryptozoology is pseudoscience. Some cryptozoologists focus only on stories about mythical animals, which puts them more into an anthropology field or something like that. Are you willing to say that people who study mythology are involved in pseudoscience?

The people in this field who make discoveries (of which there are many) cannot have their findings discounted like they found them "by accident" like an alchemist. They are employing scientific method.

There is more than one discipline under the heading of "cryptozoology" and I believe I have made this clear to the reader. if you disagree, then fix that part, don't degrade the entire rest of the article by discounting it at the end by calling it pseudoscience.

[edit] Okapi & Platypus

Okapi wasn't disbelieved by Western scientists, they just hadn't heard of it. (The platypus, on the other hand, was first thought to be a fraud by Europeans who were sent stuffed specimens.) Oh, and can you identify yourself if you write long entries that start "I'm not going to tolerate". --Vicki Rosenzweig

This isn't exactly true; initial reports of the okapi were dismissed by the vast majority of scientists as nothing more than native folklore; even the few who took it seriously as a real animal believed it was a species of primitive horse. Another good example is the Mountain Gorilla, the existence of which was utterly ridiculed (natives called it the 'great forest ogre'). 80.255 07:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Date added

Okay. anyway, I just added a date I found on a net site, I don't know who said it was disbelieved. I just thought a date was in order, and I found one. I clarified the point on pseupdoscience a little better. if you call yourself a cryptozoologist because you study mythological animals, then that would be cultural anthropology, not a pseudoscience. if you are a fortean, you don't even call youself a scientist (although this would make the logos root rather misleading.) --Alan D

[edit] coelacanth

"coelacanth, a prehistoric fish." Huh? All fish species existed before humans started keeping historical records (except maybe a few that split since then). How about "living fossil"? --phma

[edit] Parasychology?

Often it is considered more akin to parapsychology due to the willingness of its proponents to tackle such issues as the loch ness monster or bigfoot.

This statement is a non-sequitur. Parapsychology may very well be a controversial subject, but it has absolutely nothing to do with nessie or bigfoot. Personally I consider parapsychology somewhat more credible than cryptozoology, but I am content to have these subjects considered in separate articles without innuendo about the agenda of others. Eclecticology, Sunday, June 30, 2002

What about the new mystery ape that has recently been photographed, captured and had its mitochondrial DNA analyzed? Seems to be a third species of chimp; a few people have suggested it may be descended from a weird Gorilla-chimp hybrid. It seems to be a previously unknown species of chimp. This topic should be discussed in our articles on Ape, Chimpanzee and Cryptozoology. (Of course, the text should not be identical in each article.) RK 04:20, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Bondo Mystery Ape

CNN article: Seeking answers to big 'mystery ape'

Leaky Foundation intro on Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species?

National Geographic news: Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species?

[edit] 'Cryptid': slang or not

The majority of the significant Google hits for 'cryptid' being a slang term are site that quote Wikipedia. A significantly greater number of sites use cryptid directly and seriously, ie. not as a slang word. Tomorrow I will be re-doing my edits that 80.255 reverted, unless I can be proven wrong. - UtherSRG 14:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's two separate questions (and two sets of reverts) to deal with here. Firstly, the wording of this main article. I tend to agree that you are right and 80.255 is wrong here. The fact that a word has not yet made it into the dictionary doesn't make it slang - it just makes it new. I can't see any reason why 'cryptid' should necessarily be flagged up as 'slang' in this article.

Being in a dictionary or not does not imply that any given word is or isn't a slang term. However, words like 'cryptid' are obviously coined informally with little regard for etymological norms, and I don't believe that, at the current time, this word is suitable for formal contexts. "Cryptid" is never used in scientific papers or reports describing cryptozoological phenomena, and it is at that standard of accuracy and respectability that an encyclopaedia should be aiming. If, in a few years from now, "cryptid" becomes an acceptable word used by the scientific establishment, then I would consider its use acceptable in an encyclopaedia. 80.255 15:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I mentioned nothing about a dictionary. Please explain how you think the coinage of "cryptid" is outside of the realm of allowable usage for an encyclopedia. To wit, the "-id" ending is often used particularly in the scientific realm to form colloquialistic nouns for which there are yet no common terms. This is how "cryptid" is used, encompassing the possible animals covered in the realm of cryptozoology. (Although I'd bet it would work for the possible plants in cryptobotany as well.) Even better, though, is that cryptozoology is not a full science, although aspects of it may be science. As such, why should the term 'cryptid' be in scientific literature before we use it? - UtherSRG 17:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You did indeed mention nothing about a dictionary, and my comments were in reply to ALargeElk, not you! "Cryptid" is outside the realm of allowable encyclopaedia usage because it is not an acceptable word in scientific circles. When 'cryptozoological' discoveries are made, they become strictly matters of science; though you may not consider all those who call themselves 'cryptozoologists' to be 'fully scientists' (and in some cases I would certainly agree), zoology is a matter of science and the vocabulary used to describe any zoological matter, be it proven or not, should be to the same standard of scientific rigour. It is only when the vocabulary fails us that we should resort to coined slang terms to describe essentially scientific matters. 80.255 07:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Except that the creatures in question do not exist or can not be proven to exist by scientific means throws water on your cry for scientism as a rationale. Even http://www.cryptozoology.com uses the word cryptid, boldly ad proudly. - UtherSRG 11:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whether you think they exist or not is irrelevant, and is soley your POV. Cryptozoology is concerned with investigating reported creatures in a scientific fashion. At least some of these creature probably do not exist; nonetheless, reports of them do, and such reports are delt with scientifically in order to ascertain the truth. On the other hand, some new species have been uncovered due to the efforts of cryptozoologists, so to dismiss all as ficticious is clearly nonsense. Cryptozoologists (at the 'sensible end - excluding amateur crackpots and the like) base their researches on the scientific method; when new species are discovered, or evidence is found that is significant in either the case for or against such species' existence, these are documented in scientific journals, like any other branch of science. The word cryptid is never used in such reports.

As for cryptozoology.com - it is not a scientific sight, nor does it represent anything that professional cryptozoologists make known to the wider scientific community. It is a website, and anyone could have bought the domain. Informal use of a slang term on an informal website run by amateurs is hardly supprising, is it? Type the word "fuck" into google and you'll notice that it gets 33 million results - yet I hardly think it should form part of the descriptive vocubulary of an encyclopaedia simply on the ground of widespread "bold and proud" usage! Likewise "cryptid" (lack of vulgarity notwithstanding). 80.255 14:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've had a go as my own attempt at resolving this, by deleting the first mention of the term and clarifying where the dispute lies with the second one. (Stands back and waits for flak) --ALargeElk 15:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The second question is on the naming of the articles for the individual cryptids. For most of them, there's no problem - you can name an article Yeti and not worry beyond that. The problem comes with ambiguous words, such as 'Thunderbird'. Should the article we're dealing be named Thunderbird (animal) or Thunderbird (cryptid)? Here, I would argue for a third option. 'Thunderbird (animal)' is no use for disambiguation, as the mythological creature is also an animal. I don't believe that 'Thunderbird (cryptid)' is a helpful title, as the word 'cryptid' isn't well enough known yet. How about naming the article Thunderbird (cryptozoology), along the lines of Rod (cryptozoology)? --ALargeElk 14:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion, ALargeElk. Tannin 15:04, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A very good solution; praise be! Well done Elk. 80.255 15:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I've taked care of Almas (cryptid) and Almas (animal) in like manner. - UtherSRG 15:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the essay on C. Megalodon survival by Ben. S. Roesch that is linked to in the main text of the article really shouldn't be there, as it is focused solely on disproving the possibility of C. Megalodon's continued existence past paleontologically accepted norms, to the point where the author is making as many assumptions and offering up the same amount of 'Probablies' 'Maybies' and 'Surelies' as the people in the accounts he spends more time discrediting than actually discussing. It was an interesting article, but most definitely not within Wikipedia's NPOV standards.

Hello. My name is Ben S. Roesch. I came across the above comments incidentally. I'm glad you found my article interesting but I would like to make a couple of points in response to your criticisms. First, of course I tried to show the unlikelihood of megalodon survival. That was my thesis. I evaluated the evidence and realized it was terrible and cannot be sensibly used to promote the idea that megalodon still survives. So, I wrote an article pointing this out. There is far better evidence for bigfoot's existence! Second, your point about me using lots of qualifiers illustrates the whole problem with the megalodon evidence (and, unfortunately, a lot of cryptozoological evidence)--it is so poor that one has to use a lot of qualifiers when evaluating it or risk sounding credulous. We're not talking about cause-and-effect experiments here! Do you promote credulous acceptance of shoddy evidence or a careful, qualified approach in cryptozoological research?

[edit] The Beast of Funen

I don't know who linked to that article, but it is definitely not NPOV and not even very informative, as it spends more time making fun of the reports than actually discussing them. If this was a joke, it was very poorly executed. I'd remove it myself, but I'm too scared of even removing trash from my favorite Wikipedia page without backup opinions. -Drago

-For the record, I didn't see Quetzacoatl listed anywhere on the page. As for the pseudoscience remark, cryptozoology is merely the study of animals that are rumored to exist, but for which no conclusive evidence exists. At some point nearly every animal on the planet would have existed under this category. It is, in the strictest sense, a science. You refer to the people who use pseudo-science and apply it to cryptozoology, giving it a bad reputation. The presence of these people does not make cryptozoology itself a pseudoscience. But you have a point. Things like elves, pixies, and their foreign counterparts, are not part of cryptozoology. Just because legend and cryptozoology often overlap does not make them the same thing, and I for one don't think the vast majority of articles listed under 'Little People' actually belong on the page. Drago 20:02, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

- Phlebas, you're an ignorant, bigoted prick.

[edit] Spiritual entities

Where are the angels, demons, djinn, devas, Tennin and so forth from religion and mythology? Is this the wrong page for them, or what? Sam Spade 21:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger?

Should these pages be merged?

Sam Spade 21:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly don't merge. Take a look at Draco's response in the above paragraph. While it is difficult to define the organisms appropriate for cryptozoology (this happens way too arbitrarily btw, i.e. not scientifically valid), there must be some occasional "reporting" and "credibility". Mythologies of nature-people (cfr. papoeas or pygmies...ebu gogo etc.) are looked at in a very different way as those of non-nature-people (the rest of the world, including your angels, djinnis etc.). There is also a huge difference between heathen, folk and urban mythology and religion (and Dungeons and Dragons). But then still... the Beast of Bodmin and Gévaudan, Nessie, giant cats in England etc. are western things. Kaboldermannikin ort whatnot are folk mythology but imho have no place in this list. Phlebas 13:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

So... where are we going to draw the line? Sam Spade 09:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Along these lines of making distinctions, should the fire bird be on this page? I had not heard of sightings of such. Just curious. PerlKnitter

[edit] Aquatic Ground Bat

umm... Aquatic Ground Bat??? That has to be a joke...

Amazingly enough, I got a hit for it:

 http://www.cryptozoology.com/gallery/display_picture.php?id=1992

Anyone got a 1979 National Geographic to check this against? PerlKnitter 12:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikis in the lists?

What is folk's opinions on having all those names in the lists wiki'ed? If there is an article on them I can understand that, but otherwise its a bunch of red links or ambiguous links. For example, Bessie is linked though Bessie is a disambiguation page with no article for Bessie (Lake Erie Monster) or whatever.

I can understand if the contributing editors to this page want to have the red links to remind folks that some articles haven't been written here. --Syrthiss 19:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition?

Cryptozoology is the study of rumored animals that are presumed (at least by the researcher) to exist, but for which conclusive proof does not yet exist, or for animals which are generally considered extinct, but are occasionally reported.

Doesn't it also include the study of animals known to be extant, but reported outside their known range - alien big cats, for example?

[edit] Beckjord comment

Who is the admin for this page? I want to be able to submit edits and not find them all gone the next day.

I am a major, well-known cryptozoologist, and curator of a CZ museum

Jon-Erik Beckjord

beckjord Beckjord 21:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist for people to present their own opinions. See the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Furthermore, Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, so your changes very well may disappear right away -- that's the whole point of this place. If you are doing things that violate policies, as apparently you are from the edits I have seen, your edits will be undone, regardless of how important you think you are (and a quick Google search shows you to be far more famous for causing trouble than for making valuable contributions to anything). Go to the Community Portal link on the left and learn how this place works. DreamGuy 07:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sorting

is it possible an expert on the subject resort the list into animals that might possibly exist (living tasmanian tigers, hobbit humans, giant sloths, chupacabra etc) from mythical and folklorish animals (goatman, lizardman, devil bird etc.) --Phil 18:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It is basically only a matter of opinion as to whether some cryptids are more likely than others. What can be done, however, is to remove some creatures which clearly are not a genuine unknown species. I would highly suggest removing the cabbit, hyote, squitten, winged cats, and the jackalope since they are merely deformed animals of a known species. And yes, rabbits with horn like growths due to disease have existed, but are certainly not cryptids. Other than that, the list is fine (though a bit short). Cameron 00:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adding and deleting cryptids

There have been a lot of additions to the list of cryptids, but a great portion of them are questionable. If there is no mention of any possible sightings in the link, I think that is grounds for deletion, at least temporarily. Also, I think that some folklore-type animals are deletable because their "types" are already being covered (Wendigo-->Bigfoot, Behemoth-->Living Dinosaurs, etc). Currently I am considering the deletion of: Humanzee, Unicorn/Elasmotherium, Leviathan, Passenger pigeon, Hoop Snake, Dodo, Carolina Parakeet, Elephant Bird, Harpagornis, Great auk, Drop bear, Behemoth. If anybody has any reasons why these should be considered cryptids and should remain on the list, please discuss it here and please don't start any revert wars. Cameron 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Leviathan, Behemoth, and Unicorn can probably go, since they're mythological or biblical creatures not rumored to actually exist, but the others aren't so obvious. Humanzee should stay because people argue their existance, and recently extinct animals like the dodo, passenger pigeon, elephant bird, etc. still may have hidden populations, like less recently extinct animals such as the dinosaurs in the list are rumored to have. Folklorish animals like the hoop snake and drop bear may have their place here, too, because sometimes they are found to have some basis of truth and actually exist, as I found with the Purple Kangaroo. A little checking into the background of each animal should be done before deleting it, and if it doesn't have an article, you can request or write one for it. --Coyoty 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well here are my reasons for why those "cryptids" should not be on the list. The "humanzee" is a hypothetical creature made from two known creatures, and is not consistent with the usual meaning of "cryptid". Several of the extinct animals (Elephant Bird, Harpagornis, Seriema) are known from no sightings whatsoever and are not present on any of the cryptid lists, which I think is certainly sufficient grounds for deletion. There have been proposals for late surviving passenger pigeons, carolina parakeets, dodos, and great auks, but I have not seen it proposed for them to survive to the modern day. I suppose "just to be safe" they should be kept on the list. The drop bear and hoop snakes are fairly folklorish animals (about on the same level as the wild haggis) and the fact that they aren't mentioned on two extremely extensive cryptid lists is grounds for deletion for me. The purple kangaroo is more of a "forgotten" animal, and since it is a real animal with a valid scientific name (Petrogale purpureicollis) now it shouldn't be on a list of unknown animals either. Cameron 06:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some distinction made between extinct known animals that are thought by some to still exist and animals whose existance has never been proved? Penismightierthanthesword 22:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, do you think putting a note in parentheses would be appropriate, or should another category be established? Cameron 15:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Any edits by User:202.152.162.215 should be suspect. This person notoriously adds nonsense information and nonexistant categories to articles. --Coyoty 02:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:70.226.159.194 is yet another another vandal and I would also recommend reverting anything he/she does in the future. Cameron 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Results?

Have any animals which were labeled under cryptozoology turned out to be real? Any? At all? Real as in they exist now, as opposed to being extinct.

The onza cat was a creature (a strange puma) that was known from historical reports and had a book written on it by Robert E. Marshall in '61. However, I cannot find any references to Marshall being aware of cryptozoology, or anyone calling themself a cryptozoologist regarding this animal as a "cryptid" before its discovery in '86. Cryptozoologists often claim some discoveries as being successes despite them not being involved, such as the Vu Quang ox, the mountain gorilla, giant squid, coelacanth, et cetera. Long answer short: no. Cameron 15:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cryptozoological interest

I've created the subsections "Former cryptids", "Previously thought extinct", and "Discredited" under the "Noted cryptids" section for creatures that don't (or no longer) fit the strict definition of cryptids but are of cryptozoological interest. --Coyoty 02:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giant koala?

202.152.162.215, I can't find any reference to a giant koala sighting on the species' page, not can I find any reference to it on cryptid lists. Can you list any references to sightings of this creature? Cameron 16:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steller's Sea Cow

Has there been documentation that it still exists? I can't find anything on the web that there is. --Coyoty 19:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually have heard that referenced in a few books, namely Richard Ellis' Monsters of the Sea and Coleman/Huyghe's Field Guide to Sea Serpents (I mentioned it on the Sea Serpent page). There supposedly have been vague sightings not only off it's old territory as well, but also in the Arctic and Greenland. So I think it's definitely worth keeping. Cameron 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's worth keeping, but until there's confirmed evidence it's still around, its status is the same as the thylacine's, and shouldn't be under "Previously thought extinct". I'll move it. --Coyoty 15:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

D'oh, I screwed up. I was thinking of how steller's sea cow was basically a "prehistoric survivor" when it was found, sorry for misinterpreting the category there! Cameron 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Guinea

Some information about the recent "Lost world" found in the Foja Mountains where they found many new species of animals previously unknown or thought extinct. These discoveries would lend credit to the arguments of x% of the planet is still unexplored, unknown, and should be included in the corrosponding section of the article. National Public Radio did a story on it: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5193053

[edit] Was the giant squid part of Cryptozoology?

I'm wondering if it should be added to the former cryptids section.

[edit] Bold for Presumed Extinct Animals Not Visible

I'd like to suggest that you have a seperate section for animals that were known to have existed and are now presumed to be extinct. The "bold" is not visible through the hypertext and is therefore a bad way of distinguising those animals. Since these animals were known to have existed at one time, they should not be in the same category as animals who cannot definitively have been said to ever exist. Otherwise, viewers may get confused and think that these animals also cannot be definitively said to have existed.

I'd think it would be better just to write something befor or after the name such as ex.-Nintendonien 22:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New additions

I added Deinotherium and mammoth to the cryptids, since Bernard Heuvelmans covered them both in his "On the Track of Unknown Animals". (Danielos2). 16 feb 2006.

Heuvelmans did briefly mention it as a "water-lion" candidate, but he never seems to have mentioned it again (it wasn't on his cryptid list). I was under the impression that the reports were widely regarded as "saber toothed cats", so maybe if there is an article on their possible survival, the "elephant" theory could be mentioned. I'm very uneasy about putting up individual candidates for reports under the cryptid list, and I think that the different opinion would be better discussed under a native name, hence I deleted the "deinotherium". Cameron 14:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the "Purple Kangaroo" is not a former cryptid

I'll reiterate why this is not a former cryptid:

Cryptids are initially known from inconclusive evidence.
The first record of this species is an unintentional discovery by Le Souef. There is no indication that sightings ever took place before the discovery. His evidence was conclusive and unambiguous enough to name a new species (probably carcasses).
Nobody has ever expressed disbelief in this animal (neck pigment is present on other species), the only discussions over it were regarding which subspecies it belonged to, or if it should be its own species.

So I think it would be somewhat dishonest to proclaim this a former cryptid since it implies that this is a sort of "victory" for cryptozoology, when it really isn't. It's fairly weak supporting evidence of the notion of large "megamonsters" still roaming about unnoticed, since this species is small and easy to confuse for others (and it was discovered 8 decades ago). I think that putting it in that category is really a stretch, and I think that there are better examples. Cameron 21:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

One example of what I would consider appropriate is the Lord Howe's Stick Insect. The species was widely assumed to be extinct, but there were reports of the creature and enigmatic droppings, and it was eventually re-discovered. The story is covered on page 6 of this issue of NABR. I'll try and find some more examples of what can fit into this category. Cameron 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity in criticisms?

Re. the statement in the article: "A cryptozoologist may propose that an interest in reports of animals does not entail belief, but a detractor might counter that accepting unsubstantiated sightings is itself a belief." -- It seems to me, from my (not very extensive) reading in other sources as well as from various comments in this discussion page, that "accepting" is an incorrect term. I think it is correct, as a general statement, that "accepting unsubstantiated sightings is itself a belief." But in this context, my understanding is that serious cryptozoologists do not "accept" unsubstantiated sightings; instead, they try to determine whether reported sightings can be substantiated by scientific methods. In other words, cryptozoologists keep an open mind, which is different from believing without corroborating evidence. So how about changing "accepting unsubstantiated sightings" to something like "accepting the possibility of unsubstantiated sightings"? --Which is a cumbersome phrase, I know. Does anyone else have any ideas, or am I parsing the text too closely? Z Wylld 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just changed it to "accepting unsubstatiated sightings without skepticism". I hope that makes it clearer. --Coyoty 15:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a way. I get what you mean, but actually I don't think "accepting without skepticism" makes sense, because one can't really accept something while being skeptical about it. Acceptance is based on either faith (or trust, if you will) or evidence (from research or some verifiable/corroborated experience). A skeptic doesn't accept something on faith, but will only credit evidence. So a serious cryptozoologist would proceed with healthy skepticism. Z Wylld 16:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that Pygmy elephant is notthe same as the extinct dwarf elephant. I reverted back that edit!--Danielos2 18:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown residences

I got most of them sorted out, but there are some which I'm not so sure of. I'm not sure what to do with the "humanzee", it doesn't really even seem to qualify as a "Cryptid" to me anyways, more or less just a theoretical creature. The Minnesota iceman should probably be left in this category, since there is discussion as to whether he came overseas or not. Moehau appears to be a place name in New Zealand, can anybody find references to the name being applied to a hominid?Cameron 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classification systems

On a somewhat related topic to the one above, what are people's feelings on talking about classification systems? A "neo-giant" is a propesed category by Sanderson/Hall/Coleman/Huyghe et cetera for hominids on multiple continents. Should cryptozoology on wikipedia discuss these classifications, or should we continue to write pages on local outcroppings of the phenomenon? On the "Sea Serpent" page I wrote up about all of the major classification systems, but the hominid coverage isn't as centralized and I think it could be a lot harder to do. Any ideas or suggestions?Cameron 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Most of this article consist of several long lists. The lists are great, but maybe it could be a good idea to move all those "notable cryptids" to a new separate article linked from this site. Then we could concentrate on giving more text-background to cryptozoology and the justifications and criticism of it in this article. What do you think? --Danielos2 21:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me, it definitely seems like the lists of cryptids can be very distracting. Out of curioustiy, do you think that we should start being a little more critical of what is a cryptid on the list? I mean, a lot of the separate listing (especially for hominids) appear to just be regional variations. Cameron 22:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/y/Talk%7ECryptozoology_Archive1_cad4.html"