Recognition and respect for cryptobiologists

A valid point, especially considering that "cryptozoology" is a comparatively recent term that has no standing as an actual branch of the sciences. .

I think mostly Strangelove is right in that most "Cryptobiologists" are looking for fame or fortune, either as a blogger, writer, TV personnality, or otherwise are hobbiests who think it is fun. If I was to go Honestly looking for Bigfoot or a jackalope, or a hodag, or the hoop snake, I'd get a biology background first, then knowing what is possible and impossible, gather evidence. I'd call myself a biologist, just as Meldrum does, and go about my Research quietly and thuroughly. Cryptozoologists that call themselves cryptozoologists are the ones you need to watchout for.

kangoro first seen by peple sayd to be stud up like people had two heads vhich lookedlike dears with no horns and they jumped like frogs and no body beleved those people and this explains not just how crazy people can tell about unknown animals but it explains that people can find cryptids.

Since the concept of cryptozoology did not exist when kangaroos were first described by Europeans it would have been impossible for a cryptozoologist to have made that discovery.

[spoiler]Kangaroos weren't discovered by cryptozoology[/spoiler]

Well what's quantifying a cryptid for you? People who like to discount cryptozoology say that pretty much any species discovered fairly recently weren't cryptids. Why, though? Take the Okapi. There were myths surrounding it. For something to be a cryptid it doesn't necessarily have to be an acid-spitting death worm or a giant ape, does it now? If a biologist were to confirm a new species that had folklore or sightings, then that would make it a cryptid, would it not? While a lot of 'cryptozoologists' who spend their days looking around for a sasquatch in the backyard can ... [More]

No, it would not. Cryptids are not simply "unknown" animals. Cryptids are "hidden" animals. As in they are not just hidden from sight, but from pretty much all other means of detection. Cryptozoology is generally used to refer to the study of two sorts of creature: creatures that are incompatible with the environment, and creatures that are out of place and/or time. The second type of cryptid is not really such a mystery, with the increased access of travel and the unfortunate human predilection of bringing home strange animals, getting bored of them, and rele... [More]

Noted. You make a strong point, I don't really entertain the idea of the sasquatche and n/t/che/whatever-essies. The type of stuff I take stock in wouldn't be considered cryptids by the literal definition, I suppose.

I have struggled with this very same question Mr. Entity for a multitude of reasons. I think the main reason is because I have a general biology degree (I am not a biologist and never have been). Also because the term is relatively a new concept, and a very loosely defined one, I have a hard time accepting it as valid. There seems not to be a consensus for the meaning of the term, not even among so-called cryptozoologists. For example I can look up the definition of zoology, biology, or physics and get the same definition for each in every dictionary that I look at. On the other hand wh... [More]

Very sadly true. If all those louts spent time doing anything but looking for(and exploiting) one particular(and implausible) animal, they may have actually discovered a few new species by now.