In praise of cryptobiologists

[Doctor_Strangelove]

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.

Kangaroos weren't discovered by cryptozoology

[Carnivorous Entity]

There is not one animal in this article that is even close to a cyrptid. They are what they are, previously unknown species to science. Show me bigfoot or nessie and I will look at cryptozoology in a new light.

I think the person who wrote this article took a few to many liberties with the truth. Perhaps you should not take everything you read at face value.

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 hardly be called scientists in any manner, can we not call the biologists who spend a significant amount of time looking for new species something akin to a cryptozoologist?

Edited June 28, 2011 by Carnivorous Entity

[aquatus1]

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?

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 releasing them into the wild.

It is the first type of cryptid that are the most popular. Nessie, Bigfoot, et al, these are all creatures that live in defiance of the laws of nature other animals live at. For instance, for all the lakes that seem to have a monster in them, there is nothing to indicate any sort of migration pattern, any sort of biological lineage, or nothing else that we would expect to see in an environment. It's almost like some gigantic overseer with a salt shaker full of crytids sprinkled them liberally all over the world. The reason these animals are "hidden" is not merely because they cannot be seen (or, apparently, photographed), but because they are hidden at all levels, appearing completely invisible to their environment. Unlike any other animal, these cryptids could be removed from their environment, and absolutely nothing would change.

[Carnivorous Entity]

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 releasing them into the wild.

It is the first type of cryptid that are the most popular. Nessie, Bigfoot, et al, these are all creatures that live in defiance of the laws of nature other animals live at. For instance, for all the lakes that seem to have a monster in them, there is nothing to indicate any sort of migration pattern, any sort of biological lineage, or nothing else that we would expect to see in an environment. It's almost like some gigantic overseer with a salt shaker full of crytids sprinkled them liberally all over the world. The reason these animals are "hidden" is not merely because they cannot be seen (or, apparently, photographed), but because they are hidden at all levels, appearing completely invisible to their environment. Unlike any other animal, these cryptids could be removed from their environment, and absolutely nothing would change.

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.

[evancj]

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.

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 when I look up cyrptozoology I can find several definitions with the only common theme being "unsubstantiated existence" or the literal Greek translation of the word "the study of hidden animals".

Unsubstantiated means - unsupported by other evidence. We could also use the following related words to describe cryptozoology, or cryptids; unconfirmed, unproven, speculative, questionable, spurious, groundless, open to question, uncorroborated, conjectural, unestablished, and unattested. Not exactly glowing references for the purported subject of study, or a supposed scientific discipline.

Hidden animals? Not very helpful or descriptive. Hidden animals could describe the majority of all species on this earth. Most animals avoid being killed or eaten by staying hidden.

I also find the term a bit discriminatory and dismissive of non-westerners and their knowledge of their environments. Every animal in the OP article (with maybe the exception of the frog) was known to the locals in the areas they were found. Cryptozoology conveniently ignores this fact. If a Kalahari bushman came to North America and saw a moose would that make the moose a cryptozoological discovery? I think the cryptozoologist would hypocritically inform him that he was wrong because we (westerners) have known about the moose forever.

I think aquatis1 came up with the best definition for a cryptid that I have ever heard;

It is the first type of cryptid that are the most popular. Nessie, Bigfoot, et al, these are all creatures that live in defiance of the laws of nature other animals live at. For instance, for all the lakes that seem to have a monster in them, there is nothing to indicate any sort of migration pattern, any sort of biological lineage, or nothing else that we would expect to see in an environment. It's almost like some gigantic overseer with a salt shaker full of crytids sprinkled them liberally all over the world. The reason these animals are "hidden" is not merely because they cannot be seen (or, apparently, photographed), but because they are hidden at all levels, appearing completely invisible to their environment. Unlike any other animal, these cryptids could be removed from their environment, and absolutely nothing would change.

This is clear concise and upfront. A definition that I can wrap my head around rather than the vague, interpenetrate as you wish suggestion that describes cryptids.

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?

Well according to the above definition those are perfect cryptid candidates.

If a biologist were to confirm a new species that had folklore or sightings, then that would make it a cryptid, would it not?

No it would make it a new species to science. Just like the gorilla, kamoto dragon, panda, Okapi, etc. etc. etc.

While a lot of 'cryptozoologists' who spend their days looking around for a sasquatch in the backyard can hardly be called scientists in any manner, can we not call the biologists who spend a significant amount of time looking for new species something akin to a cryptozoologist?

I think that would be an insult to someone whom spent years getting their biology degree. Anyone can claim they are cryptozoologist. Hell even my dog could be a cryptozoologist he is smarter than most of them, and he can always find a hidden animal with no problems. But not many of us can say we put in the time effort and discipline it takes to be a real bonafide biologist.

Cryptozoology has no discipline, rules or standards, its a free-fraul to see who can get the next TV show, or make the most money from books, field trips, videos, photos, and t-shirts.

Edited June 29, 2011 by evancj

[Carnivorous Entity]

Cryptozoology has no discipline, rules or standards, its a free-fraul to see who can get the next TV show, or make the most money from books, field trips, videos, photos, and t-shirts.

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.