Cryptozoologicon - cryptids as real animals

[MysteryMike 214]

Kinda surprised this has never been mentioned here on this site given its theme but had anyone ever heard of Cryptozoologicon? Its a book where it depicts cryptids and other mythological creatures if they were real animals.

Some notable examples.

Chupacabra as a species of possum that feeds on blood.

Gambo: A marine species of monotreme.

Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu as a species of lungfish.

There's also fanart.

Arica Monster: A species of lizard that evolved bipedalism

Dover Demon: A species of tarsier.

Gowrow: A large relative of the gila monster.

J'ba Fofi: A species of large terrestrial crab.

Ningen: A gigantic species of sea turtle closely related to the leatherback turtle.

Being fascinated with the concept. I decided to do a few ideas of mine.

Akhlut: A sole survivor and separate species resembling an aquatic species of wolf-like predator that branched off of whales from the same ancestor.

Dobhar-chú: A large species of otter. Among the biggest with the giant otter and sea otter.

Ozark Howler: A bear-like cat.

Also if anyone is interested.

https://cryptoresponse.weebly.com/

https://www.deviantart.com/search?q=cryptozoologicon

Edited July 14, 2020 by MysteryMike

[papageorge1 5,908]

21 minutes ago, MysteryMike said:

Kinda surprised this has never been mentioned here on this site given its theme but had anyone ever heard of Cryptozoologicon? Its a book where it depicts cryptids and other mythological creatures if they were real animals.

 

Sounds like an attempt to step down the mysteries into what more conservative people can accept and whitewashing a lot of the more dramatic claims.

My argument with that is the unlikeliness of never finding evidence of these largish creatures that must have a breeding population if normal animals. But that might apply better to ocean dwelling creatures.

I still think some of the creatures are better understood as having attributes we might call paranormal like shapeshifting or not being full-time residents of our normal physical plane. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by papageorge1

[Orphalesion 7,086]

Interesting, I actually have had the sample reading of that book on my kindle app for a few months now. Can you recommend the book? I really love stuff like that and how creative it can get. I once saw an online artist who remained the Kraken as a giant Man-o-War, large enough for people to confuse it with an island. The "krakens" were actually its tendrils that appeared like giant squid to Viking boats.

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Sounds like an attempt to step down the mysteries into what more conservative people can accept and whitewashing a lot of the more dramatic claims.

 

No, it doesn't sound like that. It's entertainment, just like books imagining faux-bological backgrounds/explanations for dragons and other beings from mythology. Only with more recent folklore.
The scenarios usually presented in books like that (and seen on the Deviant art page) are not meant to be a any sort of rationalization or "real version" of the cryptid, they just flesh it out a lot more by bringing real life mythology into the mix.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Orphalesion

[Myles 14,621]

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Sounds like an attempt to step down the mysteries into what more conservative people can accept and whitewashing a lot of the more dramatic claims.

My argument with that is the unlikeliness of never finding evidence of these largish creatures that must have a breeding population if normal animals. But that might apply better to ocean dwelling creatures.

I still think some of the creatures are better understood as having attributes we might call paranormal like shapeshifting or not being full-time residents of our normal physical plane. 

What do you mean by that?

[papageorge1 5,908]

11 minutes ago, Myles said:

What do you mean by that?

Take Bigfoot as an example: Conservatives are more apt to consider reasonable something like an unidentified or previously thought extinct ape species.

More wide open types as myself would consider shapeshifting and interdimensional aspects.

The other part is to not account for (whitewash) the part of some claims that these things can appear and disappear or do other paranormal things like make you not remember. That was what I meant by more dramatic claims.

I've never seen the book and I was just commenting on the impression the OP gave me. I could have it wrong.

[MysteryMike 214]

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I've never seen the book and I was just commenting on the impression the OP gave me. I could have it wrong.

In no way was I even implying that. Perhaps the way my post was gave that impression but never intended to come across the way.

[onlookerofmayhem 4,374]

36 minutes ago, MysteryMike said:

In no way was I even implying that. Perhaps the way my post was gave that impression but never intended to come across the way.

Nope.  Your post was pretty clear about the book taking imaginary creatures and depicting them. 

If he would have bothered to read the link he would have found the first paragraph :

"The book approaches the study of mystery creatures as a skeptical matter, for the most part refuting their existence. But as a part of the book, they also approach cryptozoology as speculative fiction, using the hypotheses of various cryptozoologists as inspiration, and also providing their own. All the while, the book is provided with lavish illustrations, to accompany their speculation."

[MysteryMike 214]

10 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Nope.  Your post was pretty clear about the book taking imaginary creatures and depicting them. 

If he would have bothered to read the link he would have found the first paragraph :

"The book approaches the study of mystery creatures as a skeptical matter, for the most part refuting their existence. But as a part of the book, they also approach cryptozoology as speculative fiction, using the hypotheses of various cryptozoologists as inspiration, and also providing their own. All the while, the book is provided with lavish illustrations, to accompany their speculation."

I'm was referring to the whole "whitewashing" which was in no way comparable to any of this. As Orp mentioned this is meant to be entertainment like After Man or The New Dinosaurs.

[Carnoferox 6,261]

On 7/14/2020 at 10:01 AM, papageorge1 said:

Sounds like an attempt to step down the mysteries into what more conservative people can accept and whitewashing a lot of the more dramatic claims.

My argument with that is the unlikeliness of never finding evidence of these largish creatures that must have a breeding population if normal animals. But that might apply better to ocean dwelling creatures.

I still think some of the creatures are better understood as having attributes we might call paranormal like shapeshifting or not being full-time residents of our normal physical plane. 

You completely misunderstood the point of this book. It's an exercise in speculative zoology/evolution, not meant to be serious explanations for these cryptids.

On 7/14/2020 at 2:58 PM, papageorge1 said:

I've never seen the book and I was just commenting on the impression the OP gave me. I could have it wrong.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Carnoferox

[stereologist 24,322]

On 7/14/2020 at 4:58 PM, papageorge1 said:

Take Bigfoot as an example: Conservatives are more apt to consider reasonable something like an unidentified or previously thought extinct ape species.

More wide open types as myself would consider shapeshifting and interdimensional aspects.

The other part is to not account for (whitewash) the part of some claims that these things can appear and disappear or do other paranormal things like make you not remember. That was what I meant by more dramatic claims.

I've never seen the book and I was just commenting on the impression the OP gave me. I could have it wrong.

So you think being open minded is introducing never before observed fantasies as properties of a nonexistent animal? I believe making up stories like that is being delusional.

I've seen this book. It's a lot of fun to look at and its about entertainment.

[jethrofloyd 2,948]

On 7/14/2020 at 10:58 PM, papageorge1 said:

More wide open types as myself would consider shapeshifting and interdimensional aspects.

 

Papageorge, it can only work in the Twillight Zone. Watch this episode 'The Parallel'. Great entertainment on that topic.

 

[papageorge1 5,908]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

So you think being open minded is introducing never before observed fantasies as properties of a nonexistent animal? I believe making up stories like that is being delusional.

I've seen this book. It's a lot of fun to look at and its about entertainment.

I believe many things like Bigfoot and other mysteries actually have been observed.

[papageorge1 5,908]

21 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said:

Papageorge, it can only work in the Twillight Zone.

Why 'only'?

[stereologist 24,322]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

I believe many things like Bigfoot and other mysteries actually have been observed.

Of course you do. There is zero evidence for bigfoot. So you believe in a nonexistent, unsupported tale?

[Trelane 2,469]

An interesting read of fiction. I really would like for some of these creatures to exist but there's just nothing to support it.

[papageorge1 5,908]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Of course you do. There is zero evidence for bigfoot. So you believe in a nonexistent, unsupported tale?

No, I believe in serious and supported tales.

[stereologist 24,322]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

No, I believe in serious and supported tales.

Supported by evidence? There is no evidence for BF.

The claim of serious and supported tales is just another of your made up stories.

[Trelane 2,469]

21 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

No, I believe in serious and supported tales.

Supported tales of interdimensional animals??? Tell me more...

[papageorge1 5,908]

13 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Supported tales of interdimensional animals??? Tell me more...

Actually I was referring to cryptos in general if you followed that discussion.

However , I do believe creatures like Bigfoot have been tracked and disappeared and that is from Native American trackers.

[Trelane 2,469]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Actually I was referring to cryptos in general if you followed that discussion.

However , I do believe creatures like Bigfoot have been tracked and disappeared and that is from Native American trackers.

I am following, that's what you said. So please tell me more...

[papageorge1 5,908]

7 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I am following, that's what you said. So please tell me more...

 

I have heard the claim many, many times. Here is something I just found quickly. I do not claim to be able to prove anything regarding Bigfoot if you want to carry it that far.

Native American Bigfoot Figures of Myth and Legend

One Pertinent Sentence:

In some Native stories, Bigfoot may have minor supernatural powers-- the ability to turn invisible, for example-- but they are always considered physical creatures of the forest, not spirits or ghosts.

[Resume 464]

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

 

 

In some Native stories, Bigfoot . . .  Blahblahblahblah.

In other bigfoot stories . . .  blahblahblahblah.  The defining word, stories.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Resume

[papageorge1 5,908]

18 minutes ago, Resume said:

In other bigfoot stories . . .  blahblahblahblah.  The defining word, stories.

If you use a dictionary you will find 'stories' can include real things and events. 

 

 

 

an account of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.

"the story of modern farming" · 

Edited July 20, 2020 by papageorge1

[Resume 464]

25 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

If you use a dictionary you will find 'stories' can include real things and events. 

 

 

 

an account of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.

"the story of modern farming" · 

Not interested in a mundane definition of the word; I'm interested in how it is being used in this context, which you are claiming is some sort of evidence. Anecdotes are p*** poor evidence as they can neither be verified nor falsfied.  Before you start going on about proof versus evidence, you should first understand that "proofs" are the language of math, not science.  Science examines hypotheses; they may be shown to be sound, or falsified (disproved) but all conclusions are provisional and subject to re-examination and revision.  Stories in this context are anecdotes and untestable.  Given the shady nature of most bigfoot "research," quality evidence for bigfoot would be a bigfoot, or a piece of one.

Show me a bigfoot, and I am helpless but to admit that there is a bigfoot; tell me a story and I file it along with all the other stories people tell me.  The time to believe that story is when is is robustly evidenced, and not a minute before.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Resume

[psyche101 41,746]

46 minutes ago, Resume said:

In other bigfoot stories . . .  blahblahblahblah.  The defining word, stories.

Ambiguous unsupported wild claims is how that poster rolls. That's why there are no names, nothing, just a vague reference from a rubbish website. 

No research, no evidence, no reasoning. Just brain vomit.

Piney actually is a North American native tracker, yet PG dismisses him out of hand.

Nothing to do with evidence. Despite the claims there is neither quality, nor quantity supporting his ridiculous proposal. The bulk of anecdotes does not suggest a shapeshifting dissapearing creature, even proponents suggest a hidden primate.