Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Carnoferox

Bigfoot Prints Have A Scientific Name

22 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Carnoferox
Posted (edited)

Unbeknownst to me until recently, Bigfoot has been assigned another binomial scientific name besides Gigantopithecus blacki/canadensis (which I've already discussed before). In a 2007 paper Jeffrey Meldrum created the ichnogenus and ichnospecies Anthropoidipes ameriborealis for Bigfoot prints, with the Bluff Creek tracks as the holotype.

Below is the formal description of Anthropoidipes from Meldrum (2007):

Quote

Anthropoidipes ichnogen. nov.

Figures 1-3

Diagnosis: Plantigrade, pentadactyl, entaxonic, elongate footprints of a hominoid biped, that differ from Homo sapiens footprints in their larger absolute size, greater relative breadth, elongated heel segment, lack of a longitudinal arch and evidence of midfoot flexibility.

Description: Large, plantigrade, pentadactyl, entaxonic, elongate footprints of a hominoid biped. Footprint is flat, lacking a fixed longitudinal arch typical of human footprints. Frequently, indication of a transverse axis of flexion at midfoot present, occasionally producing a midtarsal pressure release ridge or disc. Ball is poorly differentiated from surrounding forefoot; rarely transected by a flexion crease, if sole pad extends sufficiently distal beneath proximal phalanges. Widest part of the foot lies at inferred position of metatarsal heads. Heel is elongate, broad and rounded. Relative breadth-to-length ratio exceeds that of human footprints. Deepest part of the footprint often beneath the forefoot; lacking evidence of distinct heel-strike typical of human striding gait. Digit impressions are short and rounded to elongate ovals; toe stems 226 often visible when digits extended. Digit I approximately 50% wider than digits II-V; digits II – V more subequal than human toe row; digit I typically most distally projecting, although occasionally digit II is equally long or more distally projecting. Step length generally greater than 2.5 times foot length.

Included Ichnospecies: Type only

Distribution: Pacific, intermountain, boreal and lowland forests of North America. Discussion: Detailed discussions and evaluation of distinctive features and range of variation are found in Meldrum (2004, 2006) and Krantz (1999).

Anthropoidipes ameriborealis ichnosp. nov.

Figures 1-3

Derivation of the name: North American ape foot.

Diagnosis: Same as for ichnogenus

Type Material: Holotype: Preserved portion of Patterson-Gimlin trackway, with Smithsonian Institution (SI) specimen 390041, left pes rubber mold and duplicate cast and SI 390042, right pes duplicate cast, representing left and right feet respectively. Additional material relevant to the holotype: An additional 10 casts from the site, eight of these comprise SI 390043-50 (CA-11-18), including molds for SI 390047 and SI 390050.

Type Locality: A sandbar along Bluff Creek, in Del Norte County, California, midway between Notice Creek and the North Fork. Approximate latitude 123.70 degrees West, longitude 41.44 degrees North (Fig. 4).

Discussion: The type pair of casts was originally made by Roger Patterson on October 20, 1967. These represent the earliest documentation of the footprints in nearly pristine condition. Krantz labeled this pair as CA-9 and CA-10 respectively. Dupliates are reposited in the Division of Physical Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. Ten additional casts relevant to the holotype were made by Bob Titmus at the film site, nine days after the filming. The original ten casts are reposited in the Willow Creek – China Flats Museum, Humboldt County, CA. A large sample of footprint casts and photos, representing a wide temporal and geographic range, has been evaluated by Meldrum (1999, 2004, 2006) and others (e.g. Bindernagel, 1998; Krantz 1999; Murphy, 2004). Statistical summary of linear metrics and proportions of a large sample of footprints are reported by Fahrenbach (1998), offering a summary of the range of variation in footprint dimensions. It is not widely known that more than 200 footprints have been examined and evaluated, with duplicates and some originals of a significant number of casts housed in the author’s research lab at Idaho State University. These include material from important collections made by previous generations of researchers. In order to both make these specimens more readily accessible to serious researchers, and permit quantitative geometric morphometric analyses of the specimens, a project was undertaken to scan the casts and create an archive of 3D virtualized models. These are accessible on-line through the Idaho Virtualization Laboratory webpage (http:// ivl.imnh.isu.edu/).

However, according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Anthropoidipes is null, as would be any further names designated for Bigfoot prints. Article 1.3.6. states that all names proposed after 1930 for the work of extant animals, which includes footprints, are invalid.

Quote

1.3. Exclusions. Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names proposed

1.3.1. for hypothetical concepts;

1.3.2. for teratological specimens as such;

1.3.3. for hybrid specimens as such (for taxa which are of hybrid origin see Article 17.2);

1.3.4. for infrasubspecific entities unless the name was subsequently deemed to be an available name under Article 45.6.4.1;

1.3.5. as means of temporary reference and not for formal taxonomic use as scientific names in zoological nomenclature;

1.3.6. after 1930, for the work of extant animals;

1.3.7. as modifications of available names [Art. 10] throughout a taxonomic group by addition of a standard prefix or suffix in order to indicate that the taxa named are members of that group.

In short, no matter how many scientific names Bigfoot researchers create for footprints, only a physical specimen will satisfy the ICZN requirements.

References:

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
PrisonerX
Posted (edited)

Unbeknownst to most people, Bigfoot exists.

What one wants to name it, or its footprints, matters little.

I respect scientists like Meldrum, however, for making the effort to play the game for the sake of the sloths, limping behind. 

Edited by PrisonerX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

I didn't see any mention that differentiates the left print from the right print ... very poor Science that ...

~

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PrisonerX
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, third_eye said:

I didn't see any mention that differentiates the left print from the right print ... very poor Science that ...

~

That's because you were too quick to dismiss, and too lazy to follow the link. Very poor form. Do better. 

 

Edited by PrisonerX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
14 minutes ago, PrisonerX said:

That's because you were too quick to dismiss, and too lazy to follow the link. Very poor form. Do better. 

 

You are right, I should ridiculed before dismissing, and wear myself out clicking on links that keeps imposing imaginary entities on the Scientific community because of overly large footprints found and measured postulated to have been made by, not only Legendary but Mythical creatures. I didn't even make a 'Bigfoot mauled and ravaged Aunty Daisy' joke, very poor form indeed, I promise to do better.

~

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
1 hour ago, PrisonerX said:

That's because you were too quick to dismiss, and too lazy to follow the link. Very poor form. Do better.

Meldrum :lol:

Is he a fun guy in person?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
4 hours ago, PrisonerX said:

Unbeknownst to most people, Bigfoot exists.

What one wants to name it, or its footprints, matters little.

I respect scientists like Meldrum, however, for making the effort to play the game for the sake of the sloths, limping behind. 

Unbeknownst to most.... therefore beknownst to you? Please, put this asinine debate to bed and prove it. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seaturtlehorsesnake

speaking of futility, do you have anything to add to this discussion other than declaring that anyone who disagrees with your vague pronouncements are brainless sheeple?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Yay!  A new bigfoot topic.  sigh.  I was going to do one on the discovering bigfoot doc that is now available on Netflix, but it was such a fail I thought - eh - why bother?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
3 hours ago, PrisonerX said:

Lol I'll take that as an admission of fault and a concession to my point being correct about your fail. 

 

Never met him, but he seems chill. 

 

"Asinine"....Your bias is showing. It's futile to discuss this topic with your kind. 

Wonderful dodge there PX. The debate over whether or not Bigfoot exists is asinine, either it does and there’s evidence or it doesn’t and there isn’t. You say it does, therefore you have proof therefore you can put the debate to bed. Bally we’ll go on and do so!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)

snip

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PrisonerX
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Wonderful dodge there PX. The debate over whether or not Bigfoot exists is asinine, either it does and there’s evidence or it doesn’t and there isn’t. You say it does, therefore you have proof therefore you can put the debate to bed. Bally we’ll go on and do so!

Less of a dodge, and more of a....

v0xrJ.gif

 

Edited by PrisonerX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Smile for the camera ...

~

13904971605102.jpg

 

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
On 09/01/2018 at 10:45 AM, PrisonerX said:

Less of a dodge, and more of a....

v0xrJ.gif

 

Agent Smith was right though.

also, if Neo dying and coming back meant he won that fight, surely it means Smith coming back and only losing because God said “no” means he won over all.

Edited by Sir Wearer of Hats
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201

Anthropoidipes mythicalis good4commercialis  

Edited by Area201
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 1/7/2018 at 0:05 AM, PrisonerX said:

Unbeknownst to most people, Bigfoot exists.

What one wants to name it, or its footprints, matters little.

I respect scientists like Meldrum, however, for making the effort to play the game for the sake of the sloths, limping behind. 

Another dubious proclamation of no value. Unbeknowst to PrisonerX there is no evidence.

We notice that Meldrum has not reported anything on the DNA collected last June. That was done with money collected from online.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit

Reminder to all members.

The rules which are part of your agreed terms of service can be found Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

I guess it's kinda cool that the prints have a scientific designation, but I'd have been happier if it was granted by someone other than Meldrum. Since, y'know, Meldrum is the worst scientist on the planet.

Edited by Podo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
56 minutes ago, Podo said:

I guess it's kinda cool that the prints have a scientific designation, but I'd have been happier if it was granted by someone other than Meldrum. Since, y'know, Meldrum is the worst scientist on the planet.

I wouldn't call Meldrum the worst on the planet. A bit harsh. I am interested in hearing from his eDNA collection from the "nests" in Washington state. I suspect they were human made works of what might be called landscape art. Any eDNA will be interesting in that it will describe something about the local ecology.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seaturtlehorsesnake

so i guess the answer to my question is "no, no i have nothing at all"

that's nice to know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
On 1/7/2018 at 1:22 AM, PrisonerX said:

That's because you were too quick to dismiss, and too lazy to follow the link. Very poor form. Do better. 

 

Still you provide nothing to help prove your belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
On 1/10/2018 at 5:53 PM, stereologist said:

I wouldn't call Meldrum the worst on the planet. A bit harsh. I am interested in hearing from his eDNA collection from the "nests" in Washington state. I suspect they were human made works of what might be called landscape art. Any eDNA will be interesting in that it will describe something about the local ecology.

I suppose you're right, he's not the worst. His methods are even kind of okay. I just hate how many conclusions he jumps to, and the lengths with which he will stretch his data to equate with sasquatches being concrete and proved.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.