Diversity within the species.

[keninsc]

I'm going to post this up so you guys can offer up your input. I have noticed that there seem to be three different types of “Bigfoot” or Bigfoot-like creatures. I think we get a little lost in the description given by people but I got to thinking that they may be variations within the species. Just look at humans in any city, we have all sorts of variations within ourselves. If you were from another planet and came to Earth and saw Shaquille O'neal, then saw a Vietnamese woman next to him you'd never guess they were of the same species. So, my point is, the same might be true of Bigfoot.

I think there are three different types, all part and parcel of the same family, but different.

Number one:

What I call the Ape-like Bigfoot.

They look and are described and looking ape-like they tend to be the second largest of the three. They are a bit more territorial than average, often doing mock charges, aggressive rock throwing and they tend to do more shouting, howling, screaming. They tend to have a longer and slightly more elongated face, much like a chimpanzee, and are often said to have a more pointed head. Often are described as having only slightly pronounced canine teeth.

Number two:

What I call the Neanderthal-like Bigfoot.

Many times you'll hear an account where the witness says, '...it really didn't look like an ape, more like a giant human.' This is the type that my friends each described in their encounters. They have a broad face which is wider and flatter than the Ape-like ones, the head is more human like and not slightly pointed. They are often described as having large human like teeth. These tend to be less aggressive and high-tale it out of sight when humans come around.

Number three:

What I have come to call the “dogmen” variety:

They are the largest ones, at least according to witness accounts, they have longer and even more pronounced “snouts”, often are described as having large canine teeth. Extremely fast, but not afraid of humans so much, they are usually only seen at night and very often are described as “Werewolves”. These can be very aggressive and have been reported to attack homes and cars. They rarely throw rocks but rather have been described as carrying large sticks, presumably as a weapon or for self defense.

Now, I think these all might be variations on the same theme, or diversity within the species. Keep in mind that Jeffrey Meldrum even pointed out that not all the Bigfoot casts he's examined appear to have the mid-tarsal break.

Thoughts? Observations? Comments?

[eaglesareskykittens]

Do the three types described overlap in territory or are they geographically distinct? It would be interesting if the behavior and physical differences had distinctive ranges, theoretically such information could be used to argue that there were subspecies of bigfoot that have adapted to better fit a certain habitat. Differences in behavior could largely be do to the learned behavior from certain family groups. After all lots of species learn what to eat, how to act, behave, hunt, defend, and survive from their parents. If there is no geographical distinction perhaps male, female, (perhaps even juvenile) have different physical and behavioral characteristics.

[keninsc]

I have noticed they tend to have their own territories, for instance the dog-like one tends to be in the deep south, Texas and parts of Oklahoma. The neo and ape like ones tend to be in the more northern parts of the south. Obviously I can't say with a great deal of accuracy, this is based on stories and witness accounts which can be a bit dubious.

[eaglesareskykittens]

I have noticed they tend to have their own territories, for instance the dog-like one tends to be in the deep south, Texas and parts of Oklahoma. The neo and ape like ones tend to be in the more northern parts of the south. Obviously I can't say with a great deal of accuracy, this is based on stories and witness accounts which can be a bit dubious.

Was just thinking in terms of breeding, if they don't come in contact with one another then they probably wouldn't breed with each other. I know it that it is all subjective theory blabber thoughts, but geographic isolation can lead to a new species or at least a subspecies.

[keninsc]

Now here's the thing, I have no idea if they cross breed or not, I'm only saying that I have noticed over the years there tends to be three basic types and they vary one to the other in looks and temperament. Granted what you say is true and could be the reason there seems to be three distinctly different types. However, look at us, we're all over the place in height, weight, skin color, physical attributes, hair color. We know there are variations in other species due to environmental factors. Shoot look at bears, were have three basic types, if you don't include Pandas but I seem to recall that Pandas are more related to....raccoons? Not sure if I'm remembering correctly and I don't always worry about looking it up. But the three bears in North America pretty much all stem from one ancient predecessor.

[Sakari]

I will go out on a limb and say there are 0 types/species of Bigfoot.

[eaglesareskykittens]

a subdivision of a biological species coincident with a geographic region and presumably the resultant of environmental peculiarities : a geographic subspecies

Now here's the thing, I have no idea if they cross breed or not, I'm only saying that I have noticed over the years there tends to be three basic types and they vary one to the other in looks and temperament. Granted what you say is true and could be the reason there seems to be three distinctly different types. However, look at us, we're all over the place in height, weight, skin color, physical attributes, hair color. We know there are variations in other species due to environmental factors. Shoot look at bears, were have three basic types, if you don't include Pandas but I seem to recall that Pandas are more related to....raccoons? Not sure if I'm remembering correctly and I don't always worry about looking it up. But the three bears in North America pretty much all stem from one ancient predecessor.

We are on the same page, was only doing speculating nonsense and trying to remember what I learned form biology, ecology, and conservation courses I have taken. If you want to talk about diversity within in a species look at dogs, I mean I know there is human influence in breeding but still they make a good example.

[eaglesareskykittens]

I will go out on a limb and say there are 0 types/species of Bigfoot.

Quite possibly, I just think it is fun to theorize about.

[keninsc]

Well, in the case of dogs, there's been a lot of man-made manipulations, the sort of things that one might not see in nature. However, there is diversity within the species that's natural.

[eaglesareskykittens]

So do you think of the variations of the bigfoot as subspecies, geographic races (like people), or different species in the same family?

[keninsc]

So do you think of the variations of the bigfoot as subspecies, geographic races (like people), or different species in the same family?

Not sure really, diversification is usually a function of environment and survival. Changes in a species are usually made that improves a species chances of survival in response to the pressure of the environment.

[coldethyl]

I'm with Sakari, but it's a good theory to ponder.

[Ravinoff]

Loren Coleman has been on this theory for a while now, have a look at the Field Guide To Bigfoot And Other Mystery Primates. Real interesting stuff, he isolates a number of different apparent varieties. He breaks them down a bit further, but I've got a somewhat simplified list of types, with names mostly pinched from Coleman's work:

• Neo-Giant: the classic Bigfoot, of the Patterson Film. 6-8 feet tall, pronounced sagittal crest resulting in a cone-shaped head, dark hair, very bulky and heavily built. Tends to live in temperate forested areas, like the Pacific Northwest and portions of the global boreal forest band.
  
• True Giant: 10+ feet tall, much rarer than any other type (possibly even extinct). Much leaner than the Neo-Giant, although often confused for one. More widespread historically, most modern reports come from extremely isolated locations in northern Europe and Canada. Tend to leave truly enormous tracks up to 20 inches long not consistent with Neo-Giant prints. Possibly descendents of Gigantopithecus.
  
• Anomalous hominids: possible ancient-human relic populations. Break down into the classic Neanderthaloid, the more primitive wildman, and the tropical proto-pygmies. Neanderthaloids tend to show up in Eurasia and North America (rarely), seem to like mountainous regions. Top locations to look would be the Caucasus and Atlai mountain ranges, and the Yukon's Nahanni valley. Wildmen are much more widespread, occurring globally and turning up in a huge number of myths around the world. Proto-pygmies are mostly found in the tropics, primarily southern Asia. Most of you will likely have heard of one, the Sumatran orang-pendak. Very probably relic populations of Homo floresiensis.
  
• Unidentified lower primates: basically, another way of saying apes and monkeys in places they shouldn't be. Good examples are the skunk apes of Florida and the midwestern "booger." Two types, the ape-like and the baboon-like (OP's dog-like). Apey ones are commonly spotted in the southeastern US and move with the typical hunched knuckle-walking posture of chimps or gorillas. The baboon-like ones are seen mostly in the central US from Texas through the midwest, sometimes mistaken for kangaroos due to their leaping gait. Likely move in packs.
  

[Dougward5]

Great topic. ...

[Mike G]

I wonder how many unicorn and leprechaun sub-species there are...

[Q-C]

Loren Coleman has been on this theory for a while now, have a look at the Field Guide To Bigfoot And Other Mystery Primates. Real interesting stuff, he isolates a number of different apparent varieties. He breaks them down a bit further, but I've got a somewhat simplified list of types, with names mostly pinched from Coleman's work:

• Neo-Giant: the classic Bigfoot, of the Patterson Film. 6-8 feet tall, pronounced sagittal crest resulting in a cone-shaped head, dark hair, very bulky and heavily built. Tends to live in temperate forested areas, like the Pacific Northwest and portions of the global boreal forest band.
  
• True Giant: 10+ feet tall, much rarer than any other type (possibly even extinct). Much leaner than the Neo-Giant, although often confused for one. More widespread historically, most modern reports come from extremely isolated locations in northern Europe and Canada. Tend to leave truly enormous tracks up to 20 inches long not consistent with Neo-Giant prints. Possibly descendents of Gigantopithecus.
  
• Anomalous hominids: possible ancient-human relic populations. Break down into the classic Neanderthaloid, the more primitive wildman, and the tropical proto-pygmies. Neanderthaloids tend to show up in Eurasia and North America (rarely), seem to like mountainous regions. Top locations to look would be the Caucasus and Atlai mountain ranges, and the Yukon's Nahanni valley. Wildmen are much more widespread, occurring globally and turning up in a huge number of myths around the world. Proto-pygmies are mostly found in the tropics, primarily southern Asia. Most of you will likely have heard of one, the Sumatran orang-pendak. Very probably relic populations of Homo floresiensis.
  
• Unidentified lower primates: basically, another way of saying apes and monkeys in places they shouldn't be. Good examples are the skunk apes of Florida and the midwestern "booger." Two types, the ape-like and the baboon-like (OP's dog-like). Apey ones are commonly spotted in the southeastern US and move with the typical hunched knuckle-walking posture of chimps or gorillas. The baboon-like ones are seen mostly in the central US from Texas through the midwest, sometimes mistaken for kangaroos due to their leaping gait. Likely move in packs.
  

Now we don't have one mystery animal to speculate where it falls in evolution, but several???

I am all for some variation in the same species, and between gender and young/juvenile/adult. But other than that, it really asks a lot to consider such options when science won't even offer an explanation for one species of bigfoot.

Speculating at the existence of one bigfoot species however-- I would offer if significant variations (new species) are not due to the creature itself but rather the eye-witness. The tale that grows around an encounter, or fear, or poor light, imaginations, etc.

Edited March 10, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[eaglesareskykittens]

Now we don't have one mystery animal to speculate where it falls in evolution, but several???

I am all for some variation in the same species, and between gender and young/juvenile/adult. But other than that, it really asks a lot to consider such options when science won't even offer an explanation for one species of bigfoot.

Speculating at the existence of one bigfoot species however-- I would offer if significant variations (new species) are not due to the creature itself but rather the eye-witness. The tale that grows around an encounter, or fear, or poor light, imaginations, etc.

The brain will see what the brain wants to see.

[Sakari]

When I read this, why do I feel like I am at a Star Trek conversion?

Maybe I am just really sick of Bigfoot.

I just do not understand reading replies from people saying they know Bigfoot does not exist. Then turn around and start discussing the different species?

It is like this is a " roll play " thing.

As someone posted, what is next, discussing different species of unicorns and dragons?

Don't get me wrong, if a new topic pops up of a new sightin, I will join in. As long as it is not that one guy.

But this is really ridiculous. Unless you do believe.

[Q-C]

I don't believe in bigfoot, but I can comment that varying descriptions of bigfoot (eye-witness reports being the only source for any species "variations" considered in the OP) can be simply due to the eye-witnesses and not the "creature" they saw. It fits perfectly with my non-belief. It is also still a possibility if I believed in bigfoot’s existence.

We have no bodies or fossils, so I argue most bigfoot discussions/debates/arguments are based on speculations about the creature (=assuming existence), on both sides.

I can and do frequently comment on sighting reports. They make up a lot of bigfoot threads. It is an integral part of the subject. In fact, without the sightings (= descriptions of bigfoot) we’d have little to discuss. So taking a part and analyzing any sightings is par for the course as a skeptic.

In order to argue as a nonbeliever: Bigfoot diet, habitat, migration, population, no dead bodies, etc., I have to discuss believers’ speculations or there is nothing to argue from. So without any speculation as a non-believer as to what this creature is, there would no counter-argument on my part.

I, a non-believer, have to have a creature in my head (=speculation on the biology of this nondocumented mythological creature) in order to argue/discuss/debate its viability, habits, diet, descriptions and origins, etc.

Otherwise, I would 1. Avoid the topic altogether or 2. Post a short- "They don't exist." in every bigfoot thread.

But if I am here to discuss bigfoot as a non-believer, those would not be my only choices.

Edited March 10, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Myles]

Loren Coleman has been on this theory for a while now, have a look at the Field Guide To Bigfoot And Other Mystery Primates. Real interesting stuff, he isolates a number of different apparent varieties. He breaks them down a bit further, but I've got a somewhat simplified list of types, with names mostly pinched from Coleman's work:

• Neo-Giant: the classic Bigfoot, of the Patterson Film. 6-8 feet tall, pronounced sagittal crest resulting in a cone-shaped head, dark hair, very bulky and heavily built. Tends to live in temperate forested areas, like the Pacific Northwest and portions of the global boreal forest band.
  
• True Giant: 10+ feet tall, much rarer than any other type (possibly even extinct). Much leaner than the Neo-Giant, although often confused for one. More widespread historically, most modern reports come from extremely isolated locations in northern Europe and Canada. Tend to leave truly enormous tracks up to 20 inches long not consistent with Neo-Giant prints. Possibly descendents of Gigantopithecus.
  
• Anomalous hominids: possible ancient-human relic populations. Break down into the classic Neanderthaloid, the more primitive wildman, and the tropical proto-pygmies. Neanderthaloids tend to show up in Eurasia and North America (rarely), seem to like mountainous regions. Top locations to look would be the Caucasus and Atlai mountain ranges, and the Yukon's Nahanni valley. Wildmen are much more widespread, occurring globally and turning up in a huge number of myths around the world. Proto-pygmies are mostly found in the tropics, primarily southern Asia. Most of you will likely have heard of one, the Sumatran orang-pendak. Very probably relic populations of Homo floresiensis.
  
• Unidentified lower primates: basically, another way of saying apes and monkeys in places they shouldn't be. Good examples are the skunk apes of Florida and the midwestern "booger." Two types, the ape-like and the baboon-like (OP's dog-like). Apey ones are commonly spotted in the southeastern US and move with the typical hunched knuckle-walking posture of chimps or gorillas. The baboon-like ones are seen mostly in the central US from Texas through the midwest, sometimes mistaken for kangaroos due to their leaping gait. Likely move in packs.
  

Possibly even extinct? That just comes off odd to me. This creature that hasn't been proven to even exist is now speculated to possibly be extinct.

If bigfoot did exist, it is possible that they may be different looking even among themselves. However, different sub species would make it even more unlikely that they were real. To think that 3-5 different variations of these are hiding so well doesn't add up. Surely one type would tend to enjoy rummaging through dumpsters. One type might be more curious and venture into more populated areas. Maybe one would cross roads more often. One would not bury the bones of the dead.

[keninsc]

A belief in Bigfoot is not required for reasoned discussion. Much like a belief in UFO's is not an endorsement of alien visitation.

There have been a number of sighting of Bigfoots rummaging around in dumpsters, gardens, barnyards and such. One wonders why no one has bothered to get good video of them or at least some grainy pictures? But then that tends to be part of the allure as well.

[+DieChecker]

When I read this, why do I feel like I am at a Star Trek conversion?

Maybe I am just really sick of Bigfoot.

I just do not understand reading replies from people saying they know Bigfoot does not exist. Then turn around and start discussing the different species?

It is like this is a " roll play " thing.

As someone posted, what is next, discussing different species of unicorns and dragons?

Don't get me wrong, if a new topic pops up of a new sightin, I will join in. As long as it is not that one guy.

But this is really ridiculous. Unless you do believe.

Is UM now a science and physics only forum? Some of us post here for entertainment purposes and to share things that are interesting to discuss.

Even if there was thread on the different types of unicorns... and there are probably like 5 or 6... What does that really hurt?

[keninsc]

Hurts nothing. People discuss all sorts of things outside the realm of what we call normal, and some people have to be the center of attention of it's of no interest to them.

*shrugs*

Takes all kinds I suppose.

[+DieChecker]

I'd tend to go with sub-species rather then full on different species when talking about differences of bigfoot descriptions. They seemingly come in many colors,and many heights, and many foot configurations, and many facial feature types. I'd normally think that a species with a population base as small as it has to be, would appear to be very homogenous.

[keninsc]

That would be a very reasonable assumption, DC. However, when you start looking at sighting reports, and you have to be critical with what reports you read. Not every report is real and not every real report is always accurate. So the whole thing becomes subjective in what we accept and reject.......which might make an interesting thread in itself......however, be that as is may. we have our own criteria for what is cool and what isn't. I might think this video, is a great example of a real Bigfoot and everyone else might tell me I'm high or something and of course the reverse is true as well.

If there could be a more subjective subject to discuss I can't imagine what it might be?