33 replies to this topic

[evancj]

psyche101, on 15 November 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

The Hoan Kiem Turtle is considered a "found" cryptid. Quite a fantastic tale goes with it too. But this one find does I believe show the value that Cryptozoology can offer. We now know that only 4 of this kind of Turtle exist in the world, and whilst it may be too late, we can have a crack at saving a species.

But what did the field of cryptozoology or cryptozoologists actually contribute to the rediscovery of this turtle? I'll wager nothing. From what I understand these turtles are genetically identical to swinhoei which was already well documented and held in captivity in Vietnam and China. It wasn't cryptozoology that kept the memory of this turtle living in Hoan Kiem Lake alive, it was the local folklore that did that.

psyche101, on 15 November 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

I think Cryptozoology has it's place. It is fun and exciting, but some people start trying to make money by inventing mythical creatures, or chasing folklore. When the credulous attain credence, we have a problem. These should be marketed for what they are. Adventure tours, not anything at all to do with science. No Bigfoot will be found, but a lot of people will have some fun in the wilderness.

Now this I completely agree with.

psyche101, on 15 November 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

I am not sure of the Pygmy Elephant has yet been officially classified. Last I heard it was still a bonafide cryptid as well.

Not to sure about this one. Do you have any info? I cant find much about it.

psyche101, on 15 November 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Bigfoot, Nessie, Werewolves, Vampires are the cartoons of Cryptozoology. But there is an academic level as well. It's just pretty minuscule in the big picture.

minuscule indeed.

[psyche101]

evancj, on 17 November 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

But what did the field of cryptozoology or cryptozoologists actually contribute to the rediscovery of this turtle? I'll wager nothing. From what I understand these turtles are genetically identical to swinhoei which was already well documented and held in captivity in Vietnam and China. It wasn't cryptozoology that kept the memory of this turtle living in Hoan Kiem Lake alive, it was the local folklore that did that.

Hi Evan

Whilst local folklore did keep the legend alive, the last supposed Turtle was killed by an angry fisherman in 1967. Year of the Psyche After that the Turtle was assumed extinct. Then in 1998 an amateur cameraman captured a Turtle on film  and this was where it really started to be called a cryptid. It officially had been extinct for 33 years and classed a cryptid in the same sense the Tassie Tiger is. In 2,000 science confirmed and named the species. It was featured in the meantime in Loren Colemans Field Guide to Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and other mystery denizen's of the deep, which was co authored by Patrick Huyghe, whom I think might be bringing a little balance to Colemans enthusiasm.  He is a little more skeptical in general I find. But it was a creature of legend assumed not to exist, which I think allows it the crypto tag? Cryptozooligists did little more than make people aware of the creature, but in some cases, I feel that might be enough.

It is a distinct species.


LINK - Hoan Kiem turtle is a new species

“Our test results are not different from previous statements of Vietnamese experts. The turtle is feminine gender and a new species. It is not a Chinese or Dong Mo turtle species,” Dr. Binh added.


“After the World Gene Bank receives the sample, Vietnam can make public that the legendary turtle in Hoan Kiem Lake is a new species, named Rafetus Vietnamensis or Hoan Kiem turtle,” said Binh.
Binh said the turtle may be sourced from the Red River from millions of years ago.

evancj, on 17 November 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Now this I completely agree with.

One thing my time with the little green men people has taught me is to be optimistic. More people these days are asking questions and scepticism is becoming something to embrace, not fear. My hope is that enough people will start asking questions to make the snake oil salesmen diminish. I know we can never be rid of such charlatans, but hopefully knowledge will make their scams much harder to peddle. I'd like to see people with a genuine interest in Cryptozoology, problem being I do not see a very noticeable line between cryptozoology and zoology the way I am looking at it.

evancj, on 17 November 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Not to sure about this one. Do you have any info? I cant find much about it.

This paper - LINK - conclues that Pygmy Elephants do not exist, yet we have powerful evidence that they do.

Not to be confused with a dwarf elephant. That had to do with some of the confusion as I understand it.

They have been rumoured for some decades now, but since 2,000 there has been much more activity concerning the species. I am honestly not sure if people still class it as Cryptid, but I know it was just a few short years back, based on being an animal that exists only orally.

evancj, on 17 November 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

minuscule indeed.

Too much so, but I hope not too much for some optimism It was nice to see Dr Meldrum participate, but a bit disappointing that he did not stick around. It is hard to believe anyone who cannot take the time to talk to a person. Over in the UFO section we see James Oberg on a regular basis, and had a few visits from James Carlson. Both prominent authorities on the subject of UAP. It makes one feel like they actually give a damn when they take the time to talk to the general public. Shame Dr Meldrum did not feel the discussion valuable enough to continue participating in.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 20 November 2012 - 02:28 AM.

[evancj]

psyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

Hi Evan

Whilst local folklore did keep the legend alive, the last supposed Turtle was killed by an angry fisherman in 1967. Year of the Psyche After that the Turtle was assumed extinct. Then in 1998 an amateur cameraman captured a Turtle on film  and this was where it really started to be called a cryptid. It officially had been extinct for 33 years and classed a cryptid in the same sense the Tassie Tiger is. In 2,000 science confirmed and named the species. It was featured in the meantime in Loren Colemans Field Guide to Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and other mystery denizen's of the deep, which was co authored by Patrick Huyghe, whom I think might be bringing a little balance to Colemans enthusiasm.  He is a little more skeptical in general I find. But it was a creature of legend assumed not to exist, which I think allows it the crypto tag? Cryptozooligists did little more than make people aware of the creature, but in some cases, I feel that might be enough.

Very interesting psyche. I was not aware that this animal was ID'ed as a cryptid prior to it's rediscovery. That said, I would say that the more scientifically accurate terminology would classify this turtle as a "Lazarus species" not a cryptid.

Am I splitting hairs? I might be but I don't think so. And I know folks are getting impatient with me harping on this subject but I feel that cryptozoology has stolen many already existing scientific terms and terminologies, renamed and redefined them in order to legitimize a belief in mythical animals.

psyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

It is a distinct species.


LINK - Hoan Kiem turtle is a new species

“Our test results are not different from previous statements of Vietnamese experts. The turtle is feminine gender and a new species. It is not a Chinese or Dong Mo turtle species,” Dr. Binh added.


“After the World Gene Bank receives the sample, Vietnam can make public that the legendary turtle in Hoan Kiem Lake is a new species, named Rafetus Vietnamensis or Hoan Kiem turtle,” said Binh.
Binh said the turtle may be sourced from the Red River from millions of years ago.

That's great news, I hope they can pull these reptiles back from the brink.

As always I can count on you (and a few others here) to educate me with facts when my ignorance is showing and I truly respect and appreciate you (and a few others) for that.

psyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

One thing my time with the little green men people has taught me is to be optimistic. More people these days are asking questions and scepticism is becoming something to embrace, not fear. My hope is that enough people will start asking questions to make the snake oil salesmen diminish. I know we can never be rid of such charlatans, but hopefully knowledge will make their scams much harder to peddle. I'd like to see people with a genuine interest in Cryptozoology, problem being I do not see a very noticeable line between cryptozoology and zoology the way I am looking at it.

I share the same interest and hope as you. But I honestly think that cryptozoology will never get it's stuff togeather and come up with an identity and definition of of it's own. There is no disipline in this psuedoscience, and it is chock full of folks cashing in on the fact that very few of it's followers will ever bother challenging, or factcheck their outrageous claims.

You are far more accepting of cryptozoology in it's current state than I am.

psyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

This paper - LINK - conclues that Pygmy Elephants do not exist, yet we have powerful evidence that they do.

Not to be confused with a dwarf elephant. That had to do with some of the confusion as I understand it.

They have been rumoured for some decades now, but since 2,000 there has been much more activity concerning the species. I am honestly not sure if people still class it as Cryptid, but I know it was just a few short years back, based on being an animal that exists only orally.

Thanks psyche, I am a bit confused as to what is a dwarf elephant and a pygmy elephant. I take a look at links you provided.

psyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

Too much so, but I hope not too much for some optimism It was nice to see Dr Meldrum participate, but a bit disappointing that he did not stick around. It is hard to believe anyone who cannot take the time to talk to a person. Over in the UFO section we see James Oberg on a regular basis, and had a few visits from James Carlson. Both prominent authorities on the subject of UAP. It makes one feel like they actually give a damn when they take the time to talk to the general public. Shame Dr Meldrum did not feel the discussion valuable enough to continue participating in.

Cheers.

I feel that Dr Meldrum has lost all objectivity when it comes to the subject of bigfoot. Soooo.

Thanks again, and don't disappear on us like that again. You bring a lot to the table here.

Edited by evancj, 21 November 2012 - 01:42 AM.

[psyche101]

evancj, on 21 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

Very interesting psyche. I was not aware that this animal was ID'ed as a cryptid prior to it's rediscovery. That said, I would say that the more scientifically accurate terminology would classify this turtle as a "Lazarus species" not a cryptid.

Am I splitting hairs? I might be but I don't think so. And I know folks are getting impatient with me harping on this subject but I feel that cryptozoology has stolen many already existing scientific terms and terminologies, renamed and redefined them in order to legitimize a belief in mythical animals.

Hi Evan

Mate I would say no, you are not splitting hairs, I too find it hard to understand the major difference between cryptozoology and zoology. A you say, zoology would classify the species as a Lazarus species, and cryptozoology would classify t a "cryptid". Same animal, same reasons for the terminology. All Sanderson did was muddy the waters in the long run. Yet Coleman holds him up as some sort of amazing pioneer attributed with coining the term. The only difference I can see is the word "hidden" is inserted, and whilst that seems to make very little difference, I find that zoology is very compartmentalised but even with all these sub branches:

Quote

Zoology
See also animals; biology; birds; bulls and bullfighting; butterflies; cats; cocks; dogs; fish; horses; insects; organisms; reptiles; snakes; wolves; worms.

acarology

a division of zoology that studies mites and ticks. — acarologist, n.

amphibiology

the branch of zoology that studies amphibians. — amphibiological, adj.

arachnology

a branch of zoology that studies spiders and other arachnids. Also called arachnidology, araneology. — arachnologist, n.

carcinology

the branch of zoology that studies crustaceans. — carcinologist, n.

cetology

the study of whales. — cetologist, n.

coadunation

the state or condition of being united by growth. — coadunate, adj.

coccidology

the branch of zoology that studies scales, mealy bugs, and other members of the family Coccidea.

conchology

the branch of zoology that studies the shells of mollusks. Also called malacology. — conchologist, n. — conchological, adj.

crustaceology

the branch of zoology that studies crustaceans.

cynology

the branch of zoology that studies the dog, especially its natural history.

echinology

the branch of zoology that studies echinoderms.

entomology

the study of insects. — entomologist, n. — entomologie, entomological, adj.

epimorphosis

development of an organism or form of animal life in which body segmentation is complete before hatching. — epimorphic, adj.

estivation, aestivation

the practice of certain animals of sleeping throughout the summer. Cf. hibernation.

gemmation

reproduction by budding. See also botany.

hibernation

the practice of certain animals of sleeping throughout the winter. Cf. estivation.

invertebracy

the state or quality of being invertebrate or without a backbone, as certain organisms, animals, etc; hence, spinelessness; exhibiting a lack of strength of character. — invertebrate, adj.

lepidopterology

the branch of entomology that studies butterflies. — lepidopterologist, lepidopterist, n.

malacology

conchology. — malacologist, n.

mammalogy

the branch of zoology that studies mammals. — mammalogist, n.

metamorphosis

a change or succession of changes in form during the life cycle of an animal, allowing it to adapt to different environmental conditions, as a caterpillar into a butterfly.

ornithology

the branch of zoology that studies birds. — ornithologist, n.

paleomammalogy, palaeomammalogy

the branch of zoology that studies the mammals of past geologic ages.

stirpiculture

selective breeding to develop strains with particular characteristics. — stirpicultural, adj.

taxonomy

a system of naming things, as plants or animals. — taxonomist, n. — taxonomie, adj.

vivipara

pl. animals whose young are bom live, as mammals. — viviparity, n. — viviparous, adj.

zoogeography

1. the study of the geographical distribution of animals.
2. the study of the causes, effects, and other relations involved in such distributions. — zoogeographer, n.

zoonomy, zoonomia

the laws of animal life or the animal kingdom. — zoonomist, n. — zoonomic, adj.

zoopathology

the study or science of the diseases of animals; animal pathology. Also zoopathy.

zoopathy

zoopathology.

zoophysiology

the physiology of animals, as distinct from that of humans.

zoophytology

the branch of zoology concerned with the zoophytes. — zoophytological, adj.

zootaxy

zoological classification; the scientific classification of animals.

Link

the major difference is that I do not know where one might get a degree to say they are qualified to seek out "hidden animals" or how that course would run. As that broad definition seems to cover everything from the Loch Ness Monster to Pygmy Elephants, it sounds again much like Zoology to me. I do not think a "hidden animal" offers anything out of the box from any animal that was previously unknown to science does. I guess cryptid have been rumoured to exist? Bet then again, that is what prompts expeditions. Back to zoology again.

I think Cryptozoology has hijacked the Tassie Tiger IMHO.

evancj, on 21 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

That's great news, I hope they can pull these reptiles back from the brink.

As always I can count on you (and a few others here) to educate me with facts when my ignorance is showing and I truly respect and appreciate you (and a few others) for that.

Thank's for the kind words mate The feeling is very much mutual. I have learned much from you, nice to be able to share a bit back

evancj, on 21 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

I share the same interest and hope as you. But I honestly think that cryptozoology will never get it's stuff togeather and come up with an identity and definition of of it's own. There is no disipline in this psuedoscience, and it is chock full of folks cashing in on the fact that very few of it's followers will ever bother challenging, or factcheck their outrageous claims.

I like to use Nessie and Bigfoot as indicators. Nessie I think is pretty much out of the realm of wonder, and firmly making a seat for herself in mythology. 50 years ago, some people would have sworn on the Bible she was an honest to goodness monster in another country. Over the last decade we have seen Nessieness diminish to a point of reality, almost. If Bigfoot gets that far, I like to think people would take a second thought about things like Mothman, Chupucabra and The Jersey Devil and hopefully put the claims into some perspective. That element will always remain in some form I agree, but I like to hope it becomes fringe enough to be restricted by age, as most of todays Werewolves and Vampires are. After 15 they are not scary anymore, nor believable, but they make a cool TV show. To some anyways, not into that sort of thing myself. I think Werwolves and Vampires are hard to get scared about. It's like being scared of an evil smurf or something.

evancj, on 21 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

You are far more accepting of cryptozoology in it's current state than I am.

Hrrmzzz, maybe more hopeful......

evancj, on 21 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

Thanks psyche, I am a bit confused as to what is a dwarf elephant and a pygmy elephant. I take a look at links you provided.

Cheers, dwarfism is a medical condition, but pygmies are a phenotype I am pretty sure.

evancj, on 21 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

I feel that Dr Meldrum has lost all objectivity when it comes to the subject of bigfoot. Soooo.

Yes, this visit was very disappointing, we have been waiting for years for a personality to grace these boards, I have invited Jon Whitcomb too many times to mention, I think S2F hit the nail on the head with the tall poppy syndrome. Not good enough for us little people, the ones they expect to buy their books!

evancj, on 21 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

Thanks again, and don't disappear on us like that again. You bring a lot to the table here.

Well mate, how can I refuse! Nicest thing I have heard all day I have come to enjoy the ET section as well due to a love of astronomy, some of the things one hears are just too ridiculous for words, but a couple of NASA guys (MID & Jim Oberg) offer their time for the boards. It's hard to avoid hearing about their actual experiences . But I often tell them, Crypto drew me here, time to get back to my roots I think.

All in all I think the best thing about Cryptozoology os that it gets people interested in learning about the animals we do have as a means for comparisons. If it saves a species or two along the way, that is a bonus, and I am not really fussed who gets the credit, as long as we all benefit.


Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 22 November 2012 - 05:42 AM.