The Top Ten Cryptozoology Stories of 2019

[rashore]

Quote

In the 1940s, the Scottish-born zoologist Ivan T. Sanderson began using a word he coined, “cryptozoology,” to describe a new subdiscipline of zoology that studied hidden, as yet-to-be-discovered large animals. Fieldworkers and authors previously had used the phrase, “romantic zoology.” In the late 1950s, after a decade of correspondence with Sanderson, Belgian zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans began formalizing “cryptozoology.”

Today, Sanderson’s and Heuvelmans’ precise approaches to the passion and patience of the field has grown into a more scientifically-aware cryptozoology, resulting in 21st century establishment of the International Cryptozoology Museum, journals, conferences, and other speciality museums. A history is being written about cryptozoology, as it grows older, year to year.

The Year of 2019 foreshadows the New Year of 2020, but first we must archive this decade’s highlights of old news. This overview of cryptozoological events, we shall share the highpoints and discoveries that made the year memorable.

http://www.cryptozoonews.com/top-cz-2019/

 

[stereologist]

Going through the list the most interesting item to me was the new monkey being listed. The rest of the items seem to indicate that there are no cryptos to discover.

[butterflygirl1]

I wouldn't consider species finds like that monkey (where it is simply previously regarded as another species) to be truly cryptid (which I interpret as almost totally unknown) in nature. In taxonomy the criteria predominately used is morphology and this can overlap and be homogeneous.... often it is sequencing of CO1 and other genes which shows heterospecifity. Before the molecular explosion we could only use morphology and this historic strength on anatomical characters is what caused species complexes to be overlooked (because there was no evidence to indicate there were differences in populations to be further investigated). Now that the molecular avenue is open, finds such as that are a regular occurrence and are simply overlooked.

Edited January 5, 2020 by butterflygirl1
clarity

[Scholar4Truth]

I wonder why #2 and #5 would fall under Cryptozoology?

[Carnoferox]

On 1/5/2020 at 7:33 AM, butterflygirl1 said:

I wouldn't consider species finds like that monkey (where it is simply previously regarded as another species) to be truly cryptid (which I interpret as almost totally unknown) in nature. In taxonomy the criteria predominately used is morphology and this can overlap and be homogeneous.... often it is sequencing of CO1 and other genes which shows heterospecifity. Before the molecular explosion we could only use morphology and this historic strength on anatomical characters is what caused species complexes to be overlooked (because there was no evidence to indicate there were differences in populations to be further investigated). Now that the molecular avenue is open, finds such as that are a regular occurrence and are simply overlooked.

A lot of "new" species being named are populations that had already been known to exist for a long time, they just hadn't been recognized as distinct species until DNA analyses. Cryptozoologists like to grasp on to anything they think supports them in their ever-shrinking field, but discoveries like this actually show how unlikely it is that most cryptids exist. When we can determine DNA differences between small monkey species in the remote Amazon, how come we can't get a single DNA sample from a supposed large ape in populated areas of the USA?

[stereologist]

10 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

A lot of "new" species being named are populations that had already been known to exist for a long time, they just hadn't been recognized as distinct species until DNA analyses. Cryptozoologists like to grasp on to anything they think supports them in their ever-shrinking field, but discoveries like this actually show how unlikely it is that most cryptids exist. When we can determine DNA differences between small monkey species in the remote Amazon, how come we can't get a single DNA sample from a supposed large ape in populated areas of the USA?

I know the answer. I know. I know. I know. (Both of my hands up waving feverishly)

 

BF is amazingly intelligent.

BF can see in the infrared and see that trail cams are being used.

BF wears a coat of bear skin so we always only see bear DNA. Well, expect for poor BF who wear coats of opossum fur.

[butterflygirl1]

45 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I know the answer. I know. I know. I know. (Both of my hands up waving feverishly)

 

BF is amazingly intelligent.

BF can see in the infrared and see that trail cams are being used.

BF wears a coat of bear skin so we always only see bear DNA. Well, expect for poor BF who wear coats of opossum fur.

Sounds like Bigfoot could easily get a job in the green berets! lol ^^