In search of the Orang-Pendek

[tipotep]

Maybe not magical, but certainly their abilities were exaggerated.

Here is the story of Paul du Chaillu who in the 1850s went to Africa and shot a lot of animals.

http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=books&MenuItem=display&author=chaillu&book=gorilla&story=wilderness

I wonder what this animal was? Paul du Chaillu was familiar with Chimps and Gorillas by this time in his adventures. Curious...

http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=books&MenuItem=display&author=chaillu&book=gorilla&story=bald

This too was supposedly a new ape. I wonder if anyone has ever positively IDed these apes in the story. Maybe they were just chimps?

http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=books&MenuItem=display&author=chaillu&book=gorilla&story=yet

Some nice information there DieChecker , i like the shoot first check later method they used back then .

TiP

[psyche101]

Maybe not magical, but certainly their abilities were exaggerated.

But this is what you said made it cryptid. I do believe you are just arguing that point for the sake of arguing.

Here is the story of Paul du Chaillu who in the 1850s went to Africa and shot a lot of animals.

http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=books&MenuItem=display&author=chaillu&book=gorilla&story=wilderness

I wonder what this animal was? Paul du Chaillu was familiar with Chimps and Gorillas by this time in his adventures. Curious...

http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=books&MenuItem=display&author=chaillu&book=gorilla&story=bald

This too was supposedly a new ape. I wonder if anyone has ever positively IDed these apes in the story. Maybe they were just chimps?

http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=books&MenuItem=display&author=chaillu&book=gorilla&story=yet

Chimps seem a perfectly reasonable explanation to me.

Consider Oliver:

Or it could be a disease or parasite like these unfortunate specimens:

in Mysore zoo (India I believe)

Or this female, suffering from the autoimmune disease Alopecia universalis resulting in baldness, sadly passed away

Or as per a description offered, Homo Sapiens do not seem to be alone with regards to suffering male pattern baldness:

These older fellows are pretty thin on top

I found it a little unsettling that he killed the old chimp after describing it.

Edited March 17, 2011 by psyche101

[Mattshark]

Maybe not magical, but certainly their abilities were exaggerated.

Here is the story of Paul du Chaillu who in the 1850s went to Africa and shot a lot of animals.

http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=books&MenuItem=display&author=chaillu&book=gorilla&story=wilderness

I wonder what this animal was? Paul du Chaillu was familiar with Chimps and Gorillas by this time in his adventures. Curious...

http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=books&MenuItem=display&author=chaillu&book=gorilla&story=bald

This too was supposedly a new ape. I wonder if anyone has ever positively IDed these apes in the story. Maybe they were just chimps?

http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=books&MenuItem=display&author=chaillu&book=gorilla&story=yet

But gorilla's were a known species in 1850 (Eastern gorilla was anyway, it is not like they are hugely different animals).

[Myles]

lol so saying he's sure it exists and stating his opinion makes him not credible? they have hair samples of a unidentified primate plus foot prints and hundreds of eye witness statements. sounds like some evidence to me. i mean orang pendek isn't a dragon or alien or the lochness monster its perfectly viable to believe that an undiscovered primate lives in the thousands of square miles of sumatran rain forest. we discover new species all the time. now whether its actually bipedal thats the big question.

Saying that there is NO doubt of its existance without having seen it or found solid evidence does make him not credible.

[bunji]

Saying that there is NO doubt of its existance without having seen it or found solid evidence does make him not credible.

getting caught in a hoax or blatantly lying makes someone not credible having faith isnt a sin. just sayin. by your definition every physicist and religious person in the world is not credible lol.

[Mattshark]

getting caught in a hoax or blatantly lying makes someone not credible having faith isnt a sin. just sayin. by your definition every physicist and religious person in the world is not credible lol.

Well I think you can make that argument regarding religion . Physics is entirely different and is based on demonstrable, repeatable evidence.

[Samael]

The mountain gorilla has been know since way before the 80's, both subspecies of the eastern gorilla were classified by 1914. It was never a cryptid.

Actually, ColoradoParanormal was basically right apart from the dates. Before it was officially discovered in 1902, reports of the mountain gorilla, which dated back as far as 1860, were thought to be native folklore about monsters and not taken seriously. It was only after Ewart Grogan encountered a skeleton of a giant ape in 1898 that the scientific community began to pay attention to the reports, although it still wasn't described until two were shot and one of them was sent to the AMNH. So yeah. It could be classified as having been a cryptid.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Samael

[Mattshark]

Actually, ColoradoParanormal was basically right apart from the dates. Before it was officially discovered in 1902, reports of the mountain gorilla, which dated back as far as 1860, were thought to be native folklore about monsters and not taken seriously. It was only after Ewart Grogan encountered a skeleton of a giant ape in 1898 that the scientific community began to pay attention to the reports, although it still wasn't described until two were shot and one of them was sent to the AMNH. So yeah. It could be classified as having been a cryptid.

The eastern gorilla was already known at that point though, another gorilla wasn't a cryptid, an unknown animal is NOT a cryptid.

[Samael]

The eastern gorilla was already known at that point though, another gorilla wasn't a cryptid, an unknown animal is NOT a cryptid.

Well, how would you define a cryptid? It would fit my definition but since the word is kind of arbitrary... It does fall into one of the ten categories listed here imo, though (skip to page 24. It'll take you to page 22 for some reason but that's the right page).

[Mattshark]

Well, how would you define a cryptid? It would fit my definition but since the word is kind of arbitrary... It does fall into one of the ten categories listed here imo, though (skip to page 24. It'll take you to page 22 for some reason but that's the right page).

As a purported animal mythical animal. Very different from simply an undiscovered animal.

[aquatus1]

More specifically, a cryptid is an animal that is not simply hidden from people, but from its own environment as well. The defining trait of a cryptic is that it is invisible to the ecological niche where it comes from, and has no migration background to its location.

Mythical animals are usually defined by the role or purpose they played in defining heroes. They are generally only found in fables and legends, and are not considered to be real or even possible.

Out-of-place animals are real animals in locations foreign to their natural habitat. Assuming they exist, they can be considered to have been transported (as opposed to migrated). Generally speaking, they usually refer to populations, rather than one-shots, for instance the monkey colonies of the Everglades, or the camels in the Arizona (?) desert.

[Mattshark]

More specifically, a cryptid is an animal that is not simply hidden from people, but from its own environment as well. The defining trait of a cryptic is that it is invisible to the ecological niche where it comes from, and has no migration background to its location.

Mythical animals are usually defined by the role or purpose they played in defining heroes. They are generally only found in fables and legends, and are not considered to be real or even possible.

Out-of-place animals are real animals in locations foreign to their natural habitat. Assuming they exist, they can be considered to have been transported (as opposed to migrated). Generally speaking, they usually refer to populations, rather than one-shots, for instance the monkey colonies of the Everglades, or the camels in the Arizona (?) desert.

Myth was probably not the correct word (I was using it more colloquially than correctly).

[+DieChecker]

But this is what you said made it cryptid. I do believe you are just arguing that point for the sake of arguing.

Du Chaillu said that they were stronger then a lion and louder then any other animal, that elephants did not live in the region because the gorillas chased them off. That gorillas captured people and held them prisoners. Does that not sound unbelievable or magical, compared to what we know of gorillas today? The definition of magical would then be in play. Specifically the animal was attributed with properties that were practically impossible.

The greatest of these two monsters is called, Pongo, in their language: and the lesser is called, (167) Engeco. This Pongo is in all proportion like a man, but that he is more like a giant in stature; then a man: for he is very tall, and has a mans face, hollow eyed, with long hair upon his brows. His face and ears are without hair, and his hands also. His body is full of hair, but not very thick, and it is of a dunnish colour. He differs not from a man, but in his legs, for they have no calf. He goes always upon his legs, and carries his hands clasped on the nape of his neck, when he goes upon the ground. They sleep in the trees, and build shelters for the rain. They feed upon fruit that they find in the woods, and upon nuts, for they eat no kind of flesh. They cannot speak, and have no understanding more then a beast. The people of the country, when they travail in the woods, make fires where they sleep in the night; and in the morning, when they are gone, the Pongoes will come and sit about the fire, till it goes out: for they have no understanding to lay the wood together. They go many together, and kill many Negroes that travail in the woods. Many times they fall upon the elephants, which come to feed where they be, and so beat them with their clubbed fists, and pieces of wood, that they will run roaring away from them. Those Pongoes are never taken alive, because they are so strong, that ten men cannot hold one of them; but yet they take many of their young ones with poisoned arrows. The young Pongo hang on his mother's belly, with his hands fast clasped about her: so that, when the country people kill any of the females, they take the young one, which hangs fast upon his mother. When they die among themselves, they cover the dead with great heaps of boughs and wood, which is commonly found in the forests.

Andrew Battell

The Pongo would kill lots of the locals and beat down on elephants? Is that normal gorilla behavior? Would you say that this story is true to life, or embellished, or a repeat of local legend.

Chimps seem a perfectly reasonable explanation to me.

I agree these were probably chimps.

My point being that the date of the identification of the gorilla is historically pinned on these stories. But the stories themselves refer to animals that either are misidentified, or made up. Even though this fellow duChaillu shot a lot of gorillas, until one was brought back to "civilization" and science, it was to be regarded as just a story. And thus a crypto creature. A creature of rumor and legend.

But gorilla's were a known species in 1850 (Eastern gorilla was anyway, it is not like they are hugely different animals).

Here is a good summery of what I am familiar with about the history of gorillas. If you know of something more exact, please post it here.

3. Nearly 2,500 years ago an expedition from the Phoenician merchant city of Carthage to western coasts of Africa accidentally discovered a group of wild gorillas.

4. During the sixteenth century an English sailor by the name of Andrew Battel was captured by the Portuguese in West Africa. He spoke of two man-like apes (today easily recognized as chimpanzees & gorillas) that would visit the campfire when it was unattended.

5. The mountain gorilla was first discovered by a German officer, named Captain Robert von Beringe in 1902. Prior to this time, only lowland gorillas were known to exist. The mountain gorilla subspecies name is derived from Captain Robert von Beringe's last name (Gorilla beringei beringei).

EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES OF THE GORILLA

1. Many ancient explorers and African tribes have described gorillas as primitive hairy people. They have also been referred to as anthropoid or "man-like" apes.

2. During the 1600s very little was known about apes and scientific literature often confused the greater apes with pygmy tribesmen.

3. In 1860 an explorer named Du Chaillu described the gorilla as a bloodthirsty forest monster that is willing to attack any human beings. Author Alfred Brehm discounted Du Chaillu's claim in the 1876 book, Thierleben (Animal Life).

http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/gorilla/scientific-classification.htm

Edited March 20, 2011 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

More specifically, a cryptid is an animal that is not simply hidden from people, but from its own environment as well. The defining trait of a cryptic is that it is invisible to the ecological niche where it comes from, and has no migration background to its location.

Mythical animals are usually defined by the role or purpose they played in defining heroes. They are generally only found in fables and legends, and are not considered to be real or even possible.

Out-of-place animals are real animals in locations foreign to their natural habitat. Assuming they exist, they can be considered to have been transported (as opposed to migrated). Generally speaking, they usually refer to populations, rather than one-shots, for instance the monkey colonies of the Everglades, or the camels in the Arizona (?) desert.

What would be the catagory used for a creature known only from rumor, or story? From an area that is functional unexplored and where the environment is not know well enough to say if the animal is invisible to it or not. This is what I am arguing with the gorilla. That was clearly known to the locals, but not to science. That explorers knew it at first only from rumor and local legend.

Many cryptids exist only by way of local legend and rumor. So would not a gorilla count as a cryptid in those years of exploration before they were brought to Europe, but after people had heard about them living in the jungle?

The reason a unicorn, or griffon, or bigfoot, or the thunder birds are cryptids, is because people tell stories about them, but no evidence has been found. Surely there was a time when Europeans had heard of, and even seen and wrote about, gorillas, but had no scientific evidence of them. People write about seeing bigfoot and the Orang Pendek, but that does not mean that they are real till evidence is found.

(At thread in general)

That is what I meant when I said debatable. I'm not trying to be arguementative, I'm just trying to point out that the subject is factually debatable.

Edited March 20, 2011 by DieChecker

[Mattshark]

Here is a good summery of what I am familiar with about the history of gorillas. If you know of something more exact, please post it here.

http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/gorilla/scientific-classification.htm

If it is from $eaworld it is not likely to be a good summary, they are very, very poor in terms of scientific information and accuracy (not to mention being lying scum).

The western gorilla was first classified in 1847 when an American naturalist, Jefferie Wyman and a physician and missionary, Thomas Savage, sent back gorilla remains to Mass. it was originally named Troglodytes gorilla, but was later moved into its own genus (Gorilla).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.20203/abstract;jsessionid=84F40DBE19D50EAF1DB8B316D651DCA4.d03t03

An article on the discovery of the animal. Any claims made 1860 about the animal were simply from a lack of knowledge of the animals behaviour.

Nothing about them to suggest being a cryptid.

[+DieChecker]

If it is from $eaworld it is not likely to be a good summary, they are very, very poor in terms of scientific information and accuracy (not to mention being lying scum).

Whatever. The points that I posted were all Facts, not opinions. If you want to build a better summery, I would be very happy to discuss it with you. I suspect that the major points would be very close to the same.

The western gorilla was first classified in 1847 when an American naturalist, Jefferie Wyman and a physician and missionary, Thomas Savage, sent back gorilla remains to Mass. it was originally named Troglodytes gorilla, but was later moved into its own genus (Gorilla).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.20203/abstract;jsessionid=84F40DBE19D50EAF1DB8B316D651DCA4.d03t03

An article on the discovery of the animal. Any claims made 1860 about the animal were simply from a lack of knowledge of the animals behaviour.

Nothing about them to suggest being a cryptid.

Right so Thomas Savage was in Africa (Liberia) in 1836 and found the remains before presenting his paper in 1847. What would be the status of the animal between the 1600s and 1847 when it was made official? Undiscovered? Clearly it had been seen and reported, at least in stories. At what point do we determine that this is a "known" animal? The link said that Savage believed it an unknown ape.

It is not so cut and dried. There is 100s of years where no clear name and no clear description of the animal or its habitat exist, yet people were talking and writing about it. That sounds like a legendary or rumored animal (criptid) to me.

Edited March 21, 2011 by DieChecker

[aquatus1]

What would be the catagory used for a creature known only from rumor, or story? From an area that is functional unexplored and where the environment is not know well enough to say if the animal is invisible to it or not.

That would depend on the available evidence. For instance, in the case of the coelacanth, the locals regularly used the scales to sandpaper bicycle tires prior to repair. It was caught in their nets not regularly, but not rarely either. Something like this is simply an unknown animal. What is curious about unknown animals is that they get something of a waiver when it comes to special abilities. Every lake has its uncatchable fish, some giant of its breed who regularly bites through fish hooks and insolently flips water into the fisherman's boat. These are all part of the "Tall Tales" genre, where stories grow and grow, but are always taken with a grain of salt. Such creatures are classified as Local Legends.

The reason a unicorn, or griffon, or bigfoot, or the thunder birds are cryptids, is because people tell stories about them, but no evidence has been found.

Actually, with the exception of Bigfoot, those are considered eithe mythological or fantastical creatures. They are part of mythology and serve as an advancement, in other words, a plot device, to move the hero's story forward. They are not generally regarded as anything other than fiction by scholars, in the same way that you won't ring any historians supporting the existence of Atlantis.

Surely there was a time when Europeans had heard of, and even seen and wrote about, gorillas, but had no scientific evidence of them. People write about seeing bigfoot and the Orang Pendek, but that does not mean that they are real till evidence is found.

(At thread in general)

That is what I meant when I said debatable. I'm not trying to be arguementative, I'm just trying to point out that the subject is factually debatable.

I understand where you are coming from, and I believe it is simply a matter of definition. The question isn't so much whether the evidence exists, but whether it has been documented or not. There was evidence of the cealocanth long before it was documented, but the creature was never considered a cryptid, simply out-of-place (or in that particular case, time). There was evidence of the yeti, but once it was documented, it was found to be fake, so we are still left with a creature that is invisible to its environment and to other forms of detection, hence, a cryptid. And we have our bif fish story, about a fish with marvelous abilities beyond the realm of fishdom. He is a local legend, much like the gorilla, until one actually catches him, and which point he is simply another animal, albeit one with an entertaining story behind it.

[+DieChecker]

That would depend on the available evidence. For instance, in the case of the coelacanth, the locals regularly used the scales to sandpaper bicycle tires prior to repair. It was caught in their nets not regularly, but not rarely either. Something like this is simply an unknown animal. What is curious about unknown animals is that they get something of a waiver when it comes to special abilities. Every lake has its uncatchable fish, some giant of its breed who regularly bites through fish hooks and insolently flips water into the fisherman's boat. These are all part of the "Tall Tales" genre, where stories grow and grow, but are always taken with a grain of salt. Such creatures are classified as Local Legends.

I can agree with that. The gorilla might fit into the local legends catagory, but what about after the legends went to Europe?

I agree the coelacanth was not a cryptid since it was never looked for. It just turned up in a market. Just like some of the animals found in Vietnam in the last decade. They were found in meat markets and then found in the wild after they were known to be there.

Actually, with the exception of Bigfoot, those are considered eithe mythological or fantastical creatures. They are part of mythology and serve as an advancement, in other words, a plot device, to move the hero's story forward. They are not generally regarded as anything other than fiction by scholars, in the same way that you won't ring any historians supporting the existence of Atlantis.

But people did go looking for them. Cannot an animal be part of the local mythology and still be a undiscovered animal? The thunderbird for one supposedly has real people who have reporting seeing gigantic birds.

I understand where you are coming from, and I believe it is simply a matter of definition. The question isn't so much whether the evidence exists, but whether it has been documented or not. There was evidence of the cealocanth long before it was documented, but the creature was never considered a cryptid, simply out-of-place (or in that particular case, time). There was evidence of the yeti, but once it was documented, it was found to be fake, so we are still left with a creature that is invisible to its environment and to other forms of detection, hence, a cryptid. And we have our bif fish story, about a fish with marvelous abilities beyond the realm of fishdom. He is a local legend, much like the gorilla, until one actually catches him, and which point he is simply another animal, albeit one with an entertaining story behind it.

So would you say a cryptid would be... An animal that people suspect to be real, and which have people that have given a serious account of seeing or otherwise encountering, yet even after many have looked there is still no evidence? I put in the part about suspect to be real, to eliminate things like dragons and other super-creatures that are anatomically, or chemically, or physics-wise, impossible. I would call creatures like bigfoot, almas, yeti, mongolian deathworm, sea serpands and the thunderbird, as cryptids because people claim to have seen them and they are not overly fantastical, yet there is no evidence of them existing.

The key point then would be that someone looked and found nothing, yet rumors persist.

Edited March 21, 2011 by DieChecker

[aquatus1]

I can agree with that. The gorilla might fit into the local legends catagory, but what about after the legends went to Europe?

It would remain a local legend. Location refers to a creature's location, not to the location of the story being told.

But people did go looking for them. Cannot an animal be part of the local mythology and still be a undiscovered animal? The thunderbird for one supposedly has real people who have reporting seeing gigantic birds.

My mistakes. I was thinking of the Thunderbird, in terms of the American Indian mythology, not of the really big bird some people have claimed to see.

There comes a point when one has to separate the concept of a creature from the original source. For instance, we have people advocating the existence of Megaladon, except now it leaves in the deep ocean, and it has a different metabolism, and has adapted evolutionarily, and, ultimately, isn't really Megaladon anymore, but just a big shark. Same thing with the thunderbird of cryptid stories. The modern thunderbird is simply an animal that doesn't impact its environment, hence, a cryptid. I do not believe that an undiscovered animal can be a mythological animal. The big difference, I think, between an undiscovered animal and a mythological animal is purpose. The purpose of a mythological animal is to advance a hero. An undiscovered animal can be a local legend. It depends o. What happens after you kill it. Are the people going to stare in awe and wonder, or are they going to comment "Nice shot. Beer?"

So would you say a cryptid would be... An animal that people suspect to be real, and which have people that have given a serious account of seeing or otherwise encountering, yet even after many have looked there is still no evidence?

I think that it is important to clarify that It isn't simply a lack of direct evidence for the creature, but also that the environment itself does not support the existence of the creature. For instance, if we removed the all the moose (meese? Mooseses?) from their environment, we would rapidly note a change in the local ecosystem. If a cryptid were removed from its environment, no one would notice any change.

I put in the part about suspect to be real, to eliminate things like dragons and other super-creatures that are anatomically, or chemically, or physics-wise, impossible.

Right. Those are the "fantastical" creatures.

I would call creatures like bigfoot, almas, yeti, mongolian deathworm, sea serpands and the thunderbird, as cryptids because people claim to have seen them and they are not overly fantastical, yet there is no evidence of them existing.

The key point then would be that someone looked and found nothing, yet rumors persist.

I would agree that they are cryptids, but not because people looked and found nothing, but rather because all available evidence shows them to be hidden from the environment. In others words, I try to define them by the objective evidence, as opposed to defining them by human actions and biases. I suppose it is an attempt to find a scientifically valid (and neutral) definition.

[+DieChecker]

My mistakes. I was thinking of the Thunderbird, in terms of the American Indian mythology, not of the really big bird some people have claimed to see.

There comes a point when one has to separate the concept of a creature from the original source. For instance, we have people advocating the existence of Megaladon, except now it leaves in the deep ocean, and it has a different metabolism, and has adapted evolutionarily, and, ultimately, isn't really Megaladon anymore, but just a big shark. Same thing with the thunderbird of cryptid stories. The modern thunderbird is simply an animal that doesn't impact its environment, hence, a cryptid. I do not believe that an undiscovered animal can be a mythological animal. The big difference, I think, between an undiscovered animal and a mythological animal is purpose. The purpose of a mythological animal is to advance a hero. An undiscovered animal can be a local legend. It depends o. What happens after you kill it. Are the people going to stare in awe and wonder, or are they going to comment "Nice shot. Beer?"

I'd say that just because an animals is included in the local mythology does not mean it is not based on a real animal. I think your just talking semantics with refering to a mythological animal, rather then a local legendary animal.

I think that it is important to clarify that It isn't simply a lack of direct evidence for the creature, but also that the environment itself does not support the existence of the creature. For instance, if we removed the all the moose (meese? Mooseses?) from their environment, we would rapidly note a change in the local ecosystem. If a cryptid were removed from its environment, no one would notice any change.

This is true if the cryptids environment is sized so that the food compared to a minimum population is actually measurable.

If bigfoot is a thousand times more rare then a bear, how would we know it is there by looking at the environment? Would we really notice an extra 1000 bears continent wide, if there was a million bear population? I've often said no, we would not. A survey that was done in Michigan (Or maybe Wisconsin??) on bear population turned up that they had been under counting bears by around a third for at least a decade. Why should I take the food and other environmental estimates of the government and researchers for gold, if they are often shown to be only "mostly" correct. And this is in the US where arguably there is little "virgin" wilderness left. Even if the experts are 98% correct, in a population of a million that would be 20,000 animals that could be unaccounted for, and I doubt very much that such food surveys are even close to 98% accurate. The chaos factor involved in wild environments prevents accurate counting.

I would agree that they are cryptids, but not because people looked and found nothing, but rather because all available evidence shows them to be hidden from the environment. In others words, I try to define them by the objective evidence, as opposed to defining them by human actions and biases. I suppose it is an attempt to find a scientifically valid (and neutral) definition.

But what if what we know of the environment in question is incomplete? How can you claim to take a animal out of an environment, if the environment itself is not well known?

EDIT: I hope you are on a regular computer now and not on your Iphone.

Edited March 21, 2011 by DieChecker

[Myles]

I understand where you are coming from, and I believe it is simply a matter of definition. The question isn't so much whether the evidence exists, but whether it has been documented or not. There was evidence of the cealocanth long before it was documented, but the creature was never considered a cryptid, simply out-of-place (or in that particular case, time). There was evidence of the yeti, but once it was documented, it was found to be fake, so we are still left with a creature that is invisible to its environment and to other forms of detection, hence, a cryptid. And we have our bif fish story, about a fish with marvelous abilities beyond the realm of fishdom. He is a local legend, much like the gorilla, until one actually catches him, and which point he is simply another animal, albeit one with an entertaining story behind it.

So a cryptid falls under the definition of an animal that was documented but found to be fake? Sounds like fantasy to me.

[aquatus1]

Well, not quite. We can't define a cryptid as something found to be fake, because there may be a real one out somewhere. We define a cryptid as something hidden from the environment, because that definition is more specific to the existing evidence (i.e. not just none, but evidence to the contrary), and because it is more neutral, in the sense that we try to remove personal bias as much as possible. The difference between cryptids and fantasy creatures, however, is that there is a statistically significant portion of the population who believes the creature may be real, whereas a fantasy creature is regarded by the vast majority to be fictional. If the yeti remains had turned out to belong to some unknown creature, then the yeti could have been classified as an unknown animal, a local legend, however, being that there is still no evidence of it, it remains firmly in the category of cryptid.

[psyche101]

Du Chaillu said that they were stronger then a lion and louder then any other animal, that elephants did not live in the region because the gorillas chased them off. That gorillas captured people and held them prisoners. Does that not sound unbelievable or magical, compared to what we know of gorillas today? The definition of magical would then be in play. Specifically the animal was attributed with properties that were practically impossible.

Andrew Battell

The Pongo would kill lots of the locals and beat down on elephants? Is that normal gorilla behavior? Would you say that this story is true to life, or embellished, or a repeat of local legend.

Yes, a Gorilla would kill an intruder, one escaped from captivity and injured 3 before being recaptured. They may well be louder than a Lion, I have to say I have not been face to face with an angry Gorilla, nor Lion.

In any case, most of these stories were not Du Chaillu's. They belonged to the tribe he encountered in that region - the Fang. They also believe that if a pregnant woman or her husband were to see a gorilla, even a dead one, she would give birth to a gorilla, rather than to a human child. Superstition for sure, but in now way detracts from the fact that the Gorilla was a real and studied (by Du Chaillu and Hanno) animal. Also remember the initial name? ngi that we discussed some time back, turns out this name just happens also be the symbol of fire and positive power, so a few embellishments, passed on from people who knew very much that the Gorilla was a real and dangerous animal are not at all surprising. It is to me like saying that evolution is incorrect because the assumption of one hominid species evolving was incorrect.

The Bantu also feel the Gorilla (Mountain) are particularly agressive, they say silverbacks can and will attack pregnant women to kill their baby. Incidentally, most tribes in the Virunga region consider the Gorilla a "bad spirit". Kota hunters from northeastern Gabon talk about mystic transformations between humans and gorillas or chimpanzees as well, so the mystical properties are grounded in Africa. Du Chaillu was merely a messenger. Local superstition does not make an animal a cryptid. Du Chaillu still brought back a valid description of a real animal.

One time I must disagree with Mattshark in that the Gorilla was known about long before 1850. I have no doubt whatsoever that it was first brought into the limelight 2,500 years ago, as you well know.

I agree these were probably chimps.

My point being that the date of the identification of the gorilla is historically pinned on these stories. But the stories themselves refer to animals that either are misidentified, or made up. Even though this fellow duChaillu shot a lot of gorillas, until one was brought back to "civilization" and science, it was to be regarded as just a story. And thus a crypto creature. A creature of rumor and legend.

I feel that fact that Du Chaillu brought back the African culture pertaining to the Gorilla makes it more viable as a real animal. It was not misidentified, nor made up, the local religions of the animal were the best source of information at the time. His narrations :Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa, with Accounts of the Manners and Customs of the People, and of the Chace of the Gorilla, Crocodile, and other Animals; and A Journey to Ashango-land, and further penetration into Equatorial Africa arfe not regarded as mythical today, so why should a Gorilla be?

Edited March 22, 2011 by psyche101

[+DieChecker]

Local superstition does not make an animal a cryptid. Du Chaillu still brought back a valid description of a real animal.

I think it can when taken into another culture and given expanded significance.

Supposedly locals all over the world see and report weird animals. The fact these are local legends/myths does not mean that we here in the USA are not going to decide that such and such animal is real and we go looking for it. Thus a local legend can become a cryptid by getting exposure on a larger region.

That is my arguement basically, that the locals knew about the gorillas and told stories and those stories went back to Europe and America before the bones and skins did, thus promoting a knowledge of the creature that was not founded on science or anything more then stories. The creatures status during that time is the part I say is debatable.

[+DieChecker]

That is what we have with the Orang-Pendek. Locals with stories, and people going looking for the source of the stories. Do we know enough about this Indonesian jungle to say that the orang-pendak should not be there?