Death
Member
Posts: 46
Registered: 1-11-09
Location: WV
Member Is Offline
|
![[*]](http://www.31stsquad.com/wvps/images/oldage/default_icon.gif) posted on 1-13-09 at 10:27 PM |
|
|
Cryptozoology
Cryptozoology (from Greek κρυπτός, kruptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals") is the
study of and search for animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogs. It consists of two primary fields of research:
The search for living examples of animals taxonomically identified through fossil records which are considered to be extinct.
The search for animals that fall outside of taxonomic records due to a lack of empirical evidence, but for which anecdotal evidence exists in the form
of myths, legends, or undocumented sightings.
A subset of the first field is the search for "out of place animals," such as Phantom cats.
Those involved in cryptozoological study are known as "cryptozoologists"; the animals they study are often referred to as "cryptids", a term
coined by John Wall in 1983.
Because cryptozoologists do not typically follow the scientific method and devote a substantial portion of their efforts to investigations of animals
that most scientists believe are unlikely to exist, cryptozoology has received little attention from the scientific community. In 2004, however,
paleoanthropologist Henry Gee, a senior editor of the leading journal Nature argued that cryptozoology was of legitimate scientific value and could
"come in from the cold."
Overview
Invention of the term "cryptozoology" is often attributed to zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans, though Heuvelmans attributes coinage of the term to the
late Scottish explorer and adventurer Ivan T. Sanderson. Heuvelmans' 1955 book On the Track of Unknown Animals traces the scholarly origins of the
discipline to Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans and his 1892 study, The Great Sea Serpent. Heuvelmans argued that cryptozoology should be undertaken with
scientific rigor, but with an open-minded, interdisciplinary approach. He also stressed that attention should be given to local, urban and folkloric
sources regarding such creatures, arguing that while often layered in unlikely and fantastic elements, folktales can have small grains of truth and
important information regarding undiscovered organisms. Loren Coleman, a modern popularizer of cryptozoology, has chronicled the history and
personalities of cryptozoology in his books.
Another notable book on the subject is Willy Ley's Exotic Zoology (1959). Ley was best known for his writings on rocketry and related topics, but he
was trained in paleontology, and wrote a number of books about animals. Ley's collection Exotic Zoology is of some interest to cryptozoology, as he
discusses the Yeti and sea serpents, as well as relict dinosaurs. The book entertains the possibility that some legendary creatures (like the sirrush,
the unicorn or the cyclops) might be based on actual animals, through misinterpretation of the animals and/or their remains. Also notable is the work
of British zoologist and cryptozoologist Karl Shuker, who has published 12 books and countless articles on numerous cryptozoological subjects since
the mid-1980s.
Prominent cryptozoological organizations such as the the International Society for Cryptozoology and the Centre for Fortean Zoology have attempted to
apply a degree of scientific rigour to their work.
Relationship with mainstream science
Discoveries of previously unknown animals are often subject to great attention, but cryptozoology per se has seen relatively little interest from
mainstream scientists. As historian Mike Dash notes, few scientists doubt there are thousands of unknown animals, particularly invertebrates, awaiting
discovery. However, cryptozoologists are largely uninterested in researching and cataloguing newly-discovered species of ants or beetles, instead
focusing their efforts towards "more elusive" creatures that have often defied decades of work aimed at confirming their existence.
The majority of mainstream criticism of cryptozoology is directed towards the search for megafauna cryptids such as Bigfoot, the Yeti, and the Loch
Ness Monster which appear often in popular culture, but for which there is little or no scientific support. Scientists argue that mega-fauna cryptids
are unlikely to exist undetected in great enough numbers to maintain a breeding population, and are unlikely to be able to survive in their reported
habitats due to issues of climate and food supply.
As such, cryptozoology has never been embraced by the scientific community. Most experts on the matter consider the Bigfoot legend to be a combination
of folklore and hoaxes, and cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by mainstream zoologists and biologists. Noted objections to cryptozoology
include unreliable eyewitness accounts, lack of scientific and physical evidence, and over-reliance on confirmation (confirmation bias) rather than
refutation.
Defenders
Supporters often argue that cryptozoological evidence is evaluated not on its merits or failings, but rather based on opinions of researchers, or on
prevailing paradigms or world views.[2] For example, biological anthropologists Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum have cited what they perceive to be
ample physical evidence in support of the existence of Bigfoot, suggesting a surviving population of gigantopithecines. However, their arguments
regarding Bigfoot have largely been dismissed by other scientists. Another supposedly well-attested cryptid that was largely ignored by scientists was
the Minnesota Iceman of the 1960s, purportedly an unidentified hominid corpse inspected by two cryptozoologists, Ivan T. Sanderson and Bernard
Heuvelmans.[15]
Supporters claim that as in legitimate scientific fields, cryptozoologists are often responsible for disproving their own objects of study. For
example, some cryptozoologists have collected evidence that disputes the validity of some facets of the Bigfoot phenomenon.
Cryptozoology supporters have claimed that in the early days of Western exploration of the world, many native tales of local animals initially
dismissed as superstition by Western scientists were later proven to have a basis in biological fact, and that many unfamiliar animals, when initially
reported, were considered hoaxes, delusions or misidentifications.
There are several species cited as examples for continuing cryptozoological efforts:
Cryptzoologists claim the Mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) was previously dismissed as folklore/myth, due to lack of evidence and fossils, before
being confirmed in 1902.
The coelacanth, a "living fossil" which represents an order of fish believed to have been extinct for 65 million years, was identified from a
specimen found in a fishing net in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. According to Dash, the Coelacanth is a good case for paying close attention to
natives' knowledge of animals: though the fish's survival was a complete surprise to outsiders, it was so well known to locals that natives commonly
used the fish's rough scales as a sort of sandpaper.
The 1976 discovery of the previously unknown megamouth shark off Oahu, Hawaii, has been cited by cryptozoologists to support the existence of other
purported marine cryptids. Zoologist Ben S. Roesch agrees the discovery of megamouth proves "the oceans have a lot of secrets left to reveal," but
simultaneously cautions against applying the "megamouth analogy" too broadly to hypothetical creatures, as the megamouth avoided discovery due to
specific behavioral adaptations that would not fit most other cryptids. Cryptozoologists contend that as deep ocean remain unexplored,
cryptozoological claims about oceanic cryptids should be given more credence. By plotting the discovery rate of new species, C. G. M. Paxton estimated
that as many as 47 large oceanic species remain undiscovered. While the Megamouth is not a useful analogy to support the existence of marine
"cryptids" in general, it does demonstrate the resistance of science to identify new large species of marine animals without a corpse. Sightings of
Megamouths now number approximately one a year. Before the discovery, one could argue this consistent sighting record was also present, but that the
sightings were ignored or discredited as of some other animal.
The Hoan Kiem Turtle was previously thought to be a local legend and classified as a cryptid, before conclusive evidence for its existence was
accepted around 1998–2002.
The 2003 discovery of the fossil remains of Homo floresiensis, thought to be a descendant of earlier Homo erectus, was cited by paleontologist Henry
Gee of the journal Nature, as possible evidence that humanoid cryptids like the orang pendek and Yeti were "founded on grains of truth."
Additionally, Gee declared, "cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold."
|
|
|
|
