Cryptozoology

Part of a Series on

Zoology

Animal diversity October 2007.jpg

Branches of Zoology

Anthropology · Anthrozoology
Apiology · Arachnology
Cetology · Conchology
Cryptozoology · Entomology
Ethology · Helminthology (Nematology)
Herpetology · Ichthyology
Malacology · Mammalogy
Myrmecology · Neuroethology Ornithology · Planktology
Paleozoology · Primatology

Notable Zoologists

Georges Cuvier · Charles Darwin
William Kirby · Carolus Linnaeus
Konrad Lorenz · Thomas Say
Alfred Russel Wallace · more...

History

pre-Darwin
post-Darwin

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 catalogs. It consists of two primary fields of research:

A subset of the first field is the search for "out of place animals," such as Phantom cats.

Those involved in cryptozoological study are known as "cryptozoologists"; the animals they study are often referred to as "cryptids", a term coined by John Wall in 1983.[2]

Because cryptozoologists do not typically follow the scientific method[3][4] and devote a substantial portion of their efforts to investigations of animals that most scientists believe are unlikely to exist,[5] cryptozoology has received little attention from the scientific community. In 2004, however, paleoanthropologist Henry Gee, a senior editor of the leading journal Nature argued that cryptozoology was of legitimate scientific value and could "come in from the cold."[6]

Contents

Overview

Invention of the term "cryptozoology" is often attributed to zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans, although Heuvelmans attributes coinage of the term to the late Scottish explorer and adventurer Ivan T. Sanderson.[7] Heuvelmans' 1955 book On the Track of Unknown Animals traces the scholarly origins of the discipline to Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans and his 1892 study, The Great Sea Serpent.[8] 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 undiscovered organisms. Loren Coleman, a modern popularizer of cryptozoology, has chronicled the history and personalities of cryptozoology in his books.[9]

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 wrote 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 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. Also notable is the work of British zoologist and cryptozoologist Karl Shuker, who has published 12 books and countless articles on numerous cryptozoological subjects since the mid-1980s.

Prominent cryptozoological organizations such as the the International Society for Cryptozoology and the Centre for Fortean Zoology have attempted to apply a degree of scientific rigour to their work.

Relationship with mainstream science

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 notes, few scientists doubt there are thousands of unknown animals, particularly invertebrates, awaiting discovery. [5] However, cryptozoologists are largely uninterested in researching and cataloguing newly-discovered species of ants or beetles, instead focusing their efforts towards "more elusive" creatures that have often defied decades of work aimed at confirming their existence.[5]

The majority of mainstream criticism of cryptozoology is directed towards the search for megafauna cryptids such as Bigfoot, the Yeti, 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,[10] and are unlikely to be able to survive in their reported habitats due to issues of climate and food supply.[11]

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,[12] and cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by mainstream zoologists and biologists.[13][14] Noted objections to cryptozoology include unreliable eyewitness accounts, lack of scientific and physical evidence, and over-reliance on confirmation (confirmation bias) rather than refutation.[12]

Defenders

Supporters often argue that cryptozoological evidence is evaluated not on its merits or failings, but rather based on opinions of researchers, or on prevailing paradigms or world views.[2] 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, suggesting a surviving population of gigantopithecines. However, their arguments regarding Bigfoot have largely been dismissed by other scientists. Another supposedly well-attested cryptid that was largely ignored by scientists was the Minnesota Iceman of the 1960s, purportedly an unidentified hominid corpse inspected by two cryptozoologists, Ivan T. Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans.[15]

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 phenomenon.[16][17][18]

Cryptozoology supporters have claimed that in the early days of Western exploration of the world, many native tales of local 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]

There are several species cited as examples for continuing cryptozoological efforts:

See also

Notes and references

  1. Simpson, George G. (1984-03-30) "Mammals and Cryptozoology", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, p1, V128#1
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Coleman, 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
  3. 3.0 3.1 Coleman, Loren; Huyghe, Patrick (April 1999). "Afterword". The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide. Trumbore, Harry. New York, New York: Avon Books. pp. 207. ISBN 0-380-80263-5. 
  4. 4.0 4.1 Coleman, Loren; Huyghe, Patrick (2003). The Field Guide to Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents, and Other Mystery Denizens of the Deep. Trumbore, Harry; Lee Rollins, Mark. New York, New York: Penguin Group. pp. 358. ISBN 1-58542-252-5. 
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Dash, Mike, Borderlands: The Ultimate Exploration of the Unknown, Overlook Press, 2000
  6. Gee, Henry. 2004. Nature. "Flores, God and Cryptozoology: The discovery poses thorny questions about the uniqueness of Homo sapiens."
  7. Heuvelmans, Bernard. In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents. New York: Hill and Wang, 1968.
  8. *Heuvelmans, Bernard. On The Track Of Unknown Animals.  :-(New York: Hill and Wang, 1959.
  9. Coleman, Loren. Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology. Fresno, California: Craven Street Books/Linden Press, 2002.
  10. Bigfoot hunting
  11. Sjögren, Bengt, Berömda vidunder, Settern, 1980, ISBN 91-7586-023-6 (Swedish)
  12. 12.0 12.1 Bigfoot and Other Ape-Human Creatures
  13. Stewart, Bruce G. 1995, 2005, 2007. "Pseudoscience: A Cultural Pathogen"
  14. Radford, Benjamin. 2007. "Sci Fi Investigates, Finds Only Pseudoscience."
  15. see Coleman and Clark, 1999
  16. Markotic, Vladimir and Krantz, Grover (eds) The Sasquatch and other unknown hominoids Calgary: Western Publishers, 1984
  17. Roderick and Krantz, Grover (eds)The Scientist looks at the Sasquatch II Sprague
  18. Napier, John Russel Bigfoot : the yeti and sasquatch in myth and reality New York: Dutton, 1973, c1972
  19. Roesch, Ben S. 1998. "A Critical Evaluation of the Supposed Contemporary Existence of Carcharodon megalodon." The Cryptozoology Review 3 (2): 14-24
  20. 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.
  21. http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bz050/megalodon.html
  22. Gee, Henry. 2004. Nature. "Flores, God and Cryptozoology: The discovery poses thorny questions about the uniqueness of Homo sapiens."

Further reading

External links