Blackduiker
Well-Known Member
Blackduiker
Very well said Devi.
Very well said Devi.
Cryptozoology
- Thread starter CZJimmy
- Start date
I agree fully on this with you.
I know that most "sightings" how improbable they might seem to the scientific eye where the thylacine are concerned are NOT properly investigated. This is may main criticism on the current status quo + there IS a powerful economic giant lobby not to indulge into environmental sciences (certainly where old growth forests are concerned in Tassie).
I'm so sick of the okapi being constantly used as the poster-boy of cryptozoology. Devi, it was not discovered "fairly recently" -- it was over a hundred years ago!! How many Western explorers do you think there were wandering around in the depths of the Congo rainforest at the turn of that century? Is it any wonder that the okapi wasn't discovered by Westerners until 1901? No it is not. When people try to use it in defence of patently ridiculous cryptozoological entities as the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot, it is just plain stupid ("oh but the okapi was only discovered in 1901 in a remote rainforest untravelled by anyone but the natives: that must mean that Bigfoots live in downtown Chicago!" - yes I am being sarcastic). And most cases of cryptozoological mystery are argued by people sitting in armchairs with absolutely no concept of what the conditions on the ground actually are. There are mystery animals out there that may turn out to be real, but the vast majority have no basis in reality.Devi said:
(p.s. this is why I don't like to get involved in debates of this nature
)Who said there was Bigfoot in chicago?? I was simply saying there was a possibility of something, somewhere, which we haven't seen. No specifics, just an appeal for open minds.
If I'm talking personally, if I was looking for a giant ape man, I'd be looking at the Himalayas first. It is very interesting how many cultures seem to have their own giant ape man though, I'm interested in where the idea comes from.
But granted on Okapi being an easy example. I shall exchange it for the Devil Bird of Sri Lanka. Now known as B. nipalensis or Spot-Bellied Eagle Owl. Discovered in 2001, it was known to locals for years only by its eerie human sounding call, rarely if ever seen, and classed as local legend by foreigners and scientists alike. IUCN estimates more than 10,000 of the things. It's not the size of a horse, but it's a fairly big bird.
Is that better? Cause I think I can find some more?
If I'm talking personally, if I was looking for a giant ape man, I'd be looking at the Himalayas first. It is very interesting how many cultures seem to have their own giant ape man though, I'm interested in where the idea comes from.
But granted on Okapi being an easy example. I shall exchange it for the Devil Bird of Sri Lanka. Now known as B. nipalensis or Spot-Bellied Eagle Owl. Discovered in 2001, it was known to locals for years only by its eerie human sounding call, rarely if ever seen, and classed as local legend by foreigners and scientists alike. IUCN estimates more than 10,000 of the things. It's not the size of a horse, but it's a fairly big bird.
Is that better? Cause I think I can find some more?
I wouldn't. It is a very inhospitable climate and terrain and I don't think large hominids could survive there. In the jungle foothills maybe, but not in the remote 'Yeti' country of the high Himalaya.
Regarding recently discovered large animals, a much better example nowadays than the oft quoted Okapi (or the other favourite- Mountain Gorilla!) would be the Saola or Vu Quang Ox, or even the Vietnamese population of Javan rhino.
I've done a bit of research on this. It was considered extinct since 1969, spotted again in 1982, then the last sighting was in 1988. Some people refer to a sighting in 1998, but with no references I have no idea how true that is.
Another article referred to people regularly finding footprints and a population of 250 ish estimated in 2008, but again, no references.
Another article referred to people regularly finding footprints and a population of 250 ish estimated in 2008, but again, no references.
As far as I know the kouprey is still considered no more. There has even been a hectic debate whether it was a true species at all ..... IMO it is.
I think those last references do pertain to continental banteng. Incidentally, gaur also occur in IndoChina. The mainstay of these bovids is all Burma-Cambodia.
find some more what? Animals that have been recently discovered? Yes, there are thousands of them. Animals that were known to the local populace before discovery by Western science? Yes, there are thousands of them.
I was merely rallying against the okapi being constantly used to support cryptozoology today. It is just a lazy and ignorant argument to do so.
However, seeing you brought up the Sri Lankan "devil-bird", I seriously hope that you are not suggesting that this is a newly-discovered species!? Bubo nipalensis has a wide distribution throughout India and the Himalayas eastwards into Burma and was described in 1836 (the specific name nipalensis is a pretty clear giveaway that it was not recently discovered in Sri Lanka!). The Sri Lankan subspecies B.n.blighi was described in 1878. Now my knowledge of the legends around the devil-bird is pretty vague but I do doubt that "foreigners and scientists alike" dismissed it as non-existant, given that even the cryptozoologist literature states that amongst the possibilities mooted for the identification was Bubo nipalensis!
Chlidonias, I'm confused. I will happily debate cryptozoology with you, but I feel we're on the same side here? You seem to be arguing against cryptozoology on one hand, yet on the other you are claiming that there are thousands of undiscovered subjects? That IS cryptozoology.
This is the definition of Cryptozoology as recognised by most.
Term coined by zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans to characterize the study of "hidden animals." It includes the study of the existence of known animals in places where they were not expected to occur as well as the persistence of animals presumed to be extinct. The key trait of animals considered the object of cryptozoology is their unexpected nature. The idea of cryptozoology was suggested by the discovery of exotic animals through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They include the gorilla, the giant squid, and the coelecanth (a fish thought to be extinct for many millenia).
This is the definition of Cryptozoology as recognised by most.
Term coined by zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans to characterize the study of "hidden animals." It includes the study of the existence of known animals in places where they were not expected to occur as well as the persistence of animals presumed to be extinct. The key trait of animals considered the object of cryptozoology is their unexpected nature. The idea of cryptozoology was suggested by the discovery of exotic animals through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They include the gorilla, the giant squid, and the coelecanth (a fish thought to be extinct for many millenia).
why are you confused? I'm not arguing "for" or "against" cryptozoology, I'm debating specifics. People don't need to be on opposing sides to debate specifics. Most people on this forum are pro-zoo and yet constantly debate specifics.
Specific number one: You used the okapi being discovered in 1901 in the Congolese rainforest as if it had some relevance to the continued existance of the thylacine in Tasmania in the 21st century. I disputed that.
Specific number two: You directly implied that Bubo nipalensis was only discovered in 2001, in Sri Lanka. I disputed that.
I am quite familiar with the works of Heuvelmans, but I do also dispute your assessment that finding previously-undiscovered species of animals is cryptozoology. It is not, that is just plain old regular zoology. Cryptozoology concerns itself with unknown species for which there are "legends" (for want of a better word) and with supposedly-extinct species. Strictly-speaking, a species that is simply unknown is not cryptozoological. The overall problem with debating the specifics of the meaning of the term "cryptozoology" is that it is not a legitimate field of science. Any idiot can call himself a cryptozoologist as if it means something important and it does not. A zoologist is a legitimate title, as is geologist, biologist, etc. Cryptozoologist means nothing.
Specific number one: You used the okapi being discovered in 1901 in the Congolese rainforest as if it had some relevance to the continued existance of the thylacine in Tasmania in the 21st century. I disputed that.
Specific number two: You directly implied that Bubo nipalensis was only discovered in 2001, in Sri Lanka. I disputed that.
I am quite familiar with the works of Heuvelmans, but I do also dispute your assessment that finding previously-undiscovered species of animals is cryptozoology. It is not, that is just plain old regular zoology. Cryptozoology concerns itself with unknown species for which there are "legends" (for want of a better word) and with supposedly-extinct species. Strictly-speaking, a species that is simply unknown is not cryptozoological. The overall problem with debating the specifics of the meaning of the term "cryptozoology" is that it is not a legitimate field of science. Any idiot can call himself a cryptozoologist as if it means something important and it does not. A zoologist is a legitimate title, as is geologist, biologist, etc. Cryptozoologist means nothing.
Chlidonias,
Affirmative and nothing much to add. Only diligent science and discovery can lead us to new or already extant species!
As for indigeneous knowledge, most folks on this forum would be surprised what the locals know and has yet to be scientifically documented. For a scientist/researcher one particular important source of information (and later on sustainable conservation practice) is the local population. In particular old folks, livestock herders and hunters have much to add to our knowledge of the natural world. It is however an under-resourced and often un-acknowledged source of information.
K.B.
Affirmative and nothing much to add. Only diligent science and discovery can lead us to new or already extant species!
As for indigeneous knowledge, most folks on this forum would be surprised what the locals know and has yet to be scientifically documented. For a scientist/researcher one particular important source of information (and later on sustainable conservation practice) is the local population. In particular old folks, livestock herders and hunters have much to add to our knowledge of the natural world. It is however an under-resourced and often un-acknowledged source of information.
K.B.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@Chlidonias: My point exactly. And I'm also fed up with the constant okapi reference-see my previous post here:
An interesting side note: Hans Schomburgk mentioned several accounts from people in Liberia of a larger striped hoofed mammal that was neither bongo nor bushbuc nor (zebra) duiker, but rather sounded a lot like an okapi. Maybe some relict specimens of a previously larger habitat range of the species?
An interesting side note: Hans Schomburgk mentioned several accounts from people in Liberia of a larger striped hoofed mammal that was neither bongo nor bushbuc nor (zebra) duiker, but rather sounded a lot like an okapi. Maybe some relict specimens of a previously larger habitat range of the species?
Um, I think the dictionary might disagree there
Oxford
cryptozoology
• noun the search for animals whose existence is disputed or unsubstantiated
Dictionary.com
cryp·to·zo·ol·o·gy [krip-toh-zoh-ol-uh-jee]
–noun
the study of evidence tending to substantiate the existence of, or the search for, creatures whose reported existence is unproved
Wikipedia even explains the greek roots
Cryptozoology (from Greek κρυπτός, kryptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals")
Cryptozoology is not, and never has been, the study of 'legendary' animals. It's not a science, because once the animal is found, it's just normal zoology, can't study what you can't see can you? It is simply a widely recognised term for a section of research.
lol I was just re-reading the entire thread now, and came across that post of yours Sun Wukong
I'm not sure you even understood what I had written Devi. Perhaps you should try again? This is what I said:Devi said:
your dictionary quotes are simply agreeing with what I wrote!Chlidonias said:
Btw the expression I used "legends (for want of a better word)" is not a reference to such legendary creatures of, eg, the nature of dragons as you may perhaps have interpreted it. I was referring to legends in terms of the Sri Lankan devil-bird example you yourself provided before. Sorry if I confused issues with my choice of word.
Blackduiker
Well-Known Member
Blackduiker
New zoological discoveries, especially when unexpected or doubted, are pretty much the same as cryptozoology. And it has taken both scientists and laymen over the years to prove some of the greatest discoveries. With that said, we look at just a few species that have been officially documented in recent years; cryptids (or hidden) animals. Also, we follow those researchers who have braved the remote areas of the world, and are not just speaking from behind some university desk.
Finding New Species: The Golden Age of Discovery by Bruce Stutz: Yale Environment 360
Wildlife Extra - New Species
The explorers' club - Telegraph
Adam Davies' Extreme Expeditions - Stalking the World's Mystery Animals
Dr Karl Shuker - Zoologist, Cryptozoologist, Author
D. Jeffrey Meldrum
Grover Krantz - squatchopedia.com - All things bigfoot and sasquatch
New zoological discoveries, especially when unexpected or doubted, are pretty much the same as cryptozoology. And it has taken both scientists and laymen over the years to prove some of the greatest discoveries. With that said, we look at just a few species that have been officially documented in recent years; cryptids (or hidden) animals. Also, we follow those researchers who have braved the remote areas of the world, and are not just speaking from behind some university desk.
Finding New Species: The Golden Age of Discovery by Bruce Stutz: Yale Environment 360
Wildlife Extra - New Species
The explorers' club - Telegraph
Adam Davies' Extreme Expeditions - Stalking the World's Mystery Animals
Dr Karl Shuker - Zoologist, Cryptozoologist, Author
D. Jeffrey Meldrum
Grover Krantz - squatchopedia.com - All things bigfoot and sasquatch
Last edited:
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
Finding & officially describing a new species of dung beetle or froglet is not "pretty much the same" as cryptozoology, @Blackduiker. Better take another look at Chlidonias' previous posts.
BTW: Are you, or rather "we", trying to start giving a speech? Cause your last post sounds a lot like that...
BTW: Are you, or rather "we", trying to start giving a speech? Cause your last post sounds a lot like that...
No, you're speaking from behind a computer screen.