Cryptozoology

for anyone else reading the above post who isn't clear on which are bigcat speciali's words and which are quotes: the first four paragraphs are the abstract and introduction of the paper which I linked to earlier, the fifth paragraph is bigcat speciali's post from earlier simply repeated word for word, the final paragraph is bigcat speciali's also.

In reply, your entire argument against this paper seems to revolve around the line which reads "In 1980, a live Puma was captured at Cannich, Inverness-shire; the animal’s scat showed that it had been living wild for an extended period (Shuker 1989)." This is one example given in a selection of examples. You repeating it over and over doesn't make it the sum total of the paper. That puma was quite tame and rather fat as I recall, so was obviously not a wild-living animal. But that example doesn't actually negate any of the other examples given. Some of them are unconfirmed (Shuker in particular, likes to grasp at any straw within reach) but others are fully documented and complete with live or dead specimens. And the inclusion of the puma, whether the data about it is incorrect or correct, certainly doesn't make the paper's conclusion flawed, because their conclusion is that the museum specimen is a Canadian lynx and that individual released/escaped cats from captivity have been recorded living wild in the UK. The puma is entirely incidental to the paper.

I don't believe there are wild populations of alien big cats in the UK (or Australia, or NZ, or any of the other places they are claimed from), but your criticisms of this paper appear to come mostly from your own prejudices about the subject.
 
Chlidonias said:
for anyone else reading the above post who isn't clear on which are bigcat speciali's words and which are quotes: the first four paragraphs are the abstract and introduction of the paper which I linked to earlier, the fifth paragraph is bigcat speciali's post from earlier simply repeated word for word, the final paragraph is bigcat speciali's also.

In reply, your entire argument against this paper seems to revolve around the line which reads "In 1980, a live Puma was captured at Cannich, Inverness-shire; the animal’s scat showed that it had been living wild for an extended period (Shuker 1989)." This is one example given in a selection of examples. You repeating it over and over doesn't make it the sum total of the paper. That puma was quite tame and rather fat as I recall, so was obviously not a wild-living animal. But that example doesn't actually negate any of the other examples given. Some of them are unconfirmed (Shuker in particular, likes to grasp at any straw within reach) but others are fully documented and complete with live or dead specimens. And the inclusion of the puma, whether the data about it is incorrect or correct, certainly doesn't make the paper's conclusion flawed, because their conclusion is that the museum specimen is a Canadian lynx and that individual released/escaped cats from captivity have been recorded living wild in the UK. The puma is entirely incidental to the paper.

I don't believe there are wild populations of alien big cats in the UK (or Australia, or NZ, or any of the other places they are claimed from), but your criticisms of this paper appear to come mostly from your own prejudices about the subject.
Click to expand...

Thank you for, your input, most grateful indeed. I can see your point...
 
My neighbours have a big cat, he is an enormous chap, he reminds me of a miniature Liger in the way he moves and he certainly has had a few ‘giant genes’ slip through into his DNA make up. He (Sid) dwarfs our Sausage dog (Holly). Fortunately the neighbours are quite responsible and have attached a bell to Sids collar so he can’t catch birds, in fact he is so big he probably couldn’t catch a frog.
I am taking a delivery of a four or five ex battery hens in a couple of weeks and need to secure a night house for them to sleep and lay in, so apart from the foxes which I reckon I can keep away, my only other fears are potential big cats (not Sid) and whilst posting in the Cryptozoology thread my old friend Bigfoot.
 
Pertinax said:
I reckon it was still around at least until the early 1980's.;) I have a cast from a set of footprints taken then, they were identical to those shown by Eric Guiler in one of his books and purported to be those of Thylacine, as found during one of his 1960's searches on the Woolnorth property in the North West of Tasmania...
Click to expand...

Can I come back to this post and ask for details? I'd be really interested to know where they were taken and whether photos could be provided, although I must admit I can't believe in living thylacines after about 1950.
 
oldrover said:
Can I come back to this post and ask for details? I'd be really interested to know where they were taken and whether photos could be provided, although I must admit I can't believe in living thylacines after about 1950.
Click to expand...

Have a look at the website' The Thylacine Museum'. At the end, in the long section, which is a form of online book titled 'Magificent Survivor' (the author evidently believes they do still exist even now) there are several photos of 'Thylacine' footprints and other 'sign' evidence.My own cast was taken on the East Coast but having contacted the online museum, some doubt has arisen as to whether its a Thylacine print anyway. Personally I would like to think it is, but who knows? Apart from that, the rest of me does feel is extinct, and has been from around the date you pick-the 1950's. I am quite sure they were still alive though up until then, well after the 'official' extinction with the 1936 death of the Hobart Zoo animal.
 
I see, I think potential thylacine prints are a pretty complex area. I must admit I’ve no idea. And yes it’d be wonderful to think they’d made it that far. Although I believe they disappeared earlier, there do seem to be some positive relationship between an earlier date and a better sighting. Such as this one from the 60’s;
www.rsne.com.au/bert/chapter23.htm

And of course for the 80’s there’s Hans Naarding.

As I say though my own depressing little 20th C timeline for them is shorter than that, it would be; beyond reprieve by the 1920's, pretty much eradicated by the 30’s but with some breeding going on, I think Flemming’s expeditions support this. After that I think we can pretty much bank on a few individuals making it through to the 40’s any later though given the evidence I tend to be pessimistic.

I agree that the animal in the zoo was definitely not the last alive. I've always found that idea to be as melodramatic as it is improbable, anyway good evidence puts them still in the Derwent Valley in 37.

The Thylacine Museum though is an excellent resource, I've learned loads from it. It’s head and shoulders above most of the cobblers that’s out there. The author I think maintains the position that as there’s no sure way of knowing one way or the other, he’s currently regarding them as extant but seriously on the skids.

Did you take your username from the brief emperor?
 
oldrover said:
And yes it’d be wonderful to think they’d made it that far.
And of course for the 80’s there’s Hans Naarding.


I agree that the animal in the zoo was definitely not the last alive. I've always found that idea to be as melodramatic as it is improbable, anyway good evidence puts them still in the Derwent Valley in 37.

The Thylacine Museum though is an excellent resource, I've learned loads from it. It’s head and shoulders above most of the cobblers that’s out there.

Did you take your username from the brief emperor?
Click to expand...

1. If they made it as far as the 1980's, then I think there is a real chance they're still there now.... Hans Naarding quote- 'I know what I see';)


2. But if not, then I think extinction probably came earlier, perhaps late 1940- early 1950's era but they were definately still alive up till then. I know when Eric Guiler questioned one of the old Bushmen who was familiar with Thylacines, he told him that sometime in the 1940's(date?) he had 'put up a slut (their slang name for Thylacine) and three pups out of a patch of Manferns' as if it was nothing out of the ordinary- Guiler thought that he probably also killed them, as the bushman dodged that issue.

3. Thylacine Museum is very good. As you said, head and shoulders above a lot of other Thylacine 'research' and information. I have been in contact with him several times. One interesting issue is the dates of the films- the two films dated 1928 are probably in fact later than that as both these and the 1933 Fleay film all appear to show the same animal- the last one, which arrived at the zoo in 1933 as the same fresh snare mark on the hind leg is evident in all three films. They are researching it presently.

4. 'Pertinax' comes from a Gorilla's name- he resides at Paignton zoo but was probably himself named after the Emperor.

Have also replied to your Thylacine-related post in the Wildlife Conservation section.
 
Ghosts do not fall into the realm of cryptozoology. This should have been somewhere in Zoo Café.
 
Abominable Snowman Actually A Polar Bear???

Interesting article, which reports on a DNA testing hairs from abominable snowmen:

Story here: DNA Clue Links Yeti to Bear - science | Stuff.co.nz

A British scientist says he may have solved the mystery of the Abominable Snowman - the elusive ape-like creature of the Himalayas. He thinks it's a bear.

DNA analysis conducted by Oxford University genetics professor Bryan Sykes suggests the creature, also known as the Yeti, is the descendant of an ancient polar bear.

Sykes compared DNA from hair samples taken from two Himalayan animals - identified by local people as Yetis - to a database of animal genomes.

He found they shared a genetic fingerprint with a polar bear jawbone found in the Norwegian Arctic that was at least 40,000 years old.

Sykes said the tests showed the creatures were not related to modern Himalayan bears, but were direct descendants of the prehistoric animal.

He said "it may be a new species, it may be a hybrid" between polar bears and brown bears.

"The next thing is go there and find one."

Sykes put out a call last year for museums, scientists and Yeti aficionados to share hair samples thought to be from the creature.

One of the samples he analysed came from an alleged Yeti mummy in the Indian region of Ladakh, at the western edge of the Himalayas, and was taken by a French mountaineer who was shown the corpse 40 years ago.

The other was a single hair found a decade ago in Bhutan, 1300 kilometres to the east.

Sykes said the fact the hair samples were found so far apart, and so recently, suggested the members of the species were still alive.

"I can't imagine we managed to get samples from the only two 'snow bears' in the Himalayas," he said.

Finding a living creature could explain whether differences in appearance and behavior to other bears account for descriptions of the Yeti as a hairy hominid.

"The polar bear ingredient in their genomes may have changed their behaviour so they act different, look different, maybe walk on two feet more often," he said.

Sykes' research has not been published, but he said he has submitted it for peer review. His findings would be broadcast Sunday (local time) in a television programme on Britain's Channel 4.

Tom Gilbert, professor of paleogenomics at the Natural History Museum of Denmark, said Sykes' research provided a "reasonable explanation" for Yeti sightings.

"It's a lot easier to believe that than if he had found something else," said Gilbert, who was not involved in the study.

"If he had said it's some kind of new primate, I'd want to see all the data."

Sykes' findings were unlikely to lay the myth of the Yeti to rest.

The Yeti or Abominmable Snowman was one of a number of legendary ape-like beasts - along with Sasquatch and Bigfoot - reputed to live in heavily forested or snowy mountains.

Scientists were sceptical, but decades of eyewitness reports, blurry photos and stories have kept the legend alive.

"I do not think the study gives any comfort to Yeti-believers," David Frayer, a professor of biological anthropology at the University of Kansas, said in an email.

But "no amount of scientific data will ever shake their belief."

"If (Sykes') motivation for doing the analyses is to refute the Yeti nonsense, then good luck," he said.

Sykes said he was simply trying "to inject some science into a rather murky field".

"The Yeti, the Bigfoot, is surrounded in myth and hoaxes," he said.

"But you can't invent a DNA sequence from a hair."
Click to expand...
 
nanoboy said:
Well as I always say, myths and legends are grounded in truth. A bear rearing up would sort of look like a primate if the weather and lighting were poor I suppose.
Click to expand...

There's a few cases of primate individuals having a habit of staying upright, maybe sometimes bears develop a similar thing?

I checked on youtube and there's this -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yZ4fktcuNk

When that thing is behind the trees I would have sworn I'd seen a bigfoot.
 
Last edited:
Interesting video of the three-legged bear. It has learnt rapid movement is more efficient walking bipedally than hobbling on three legs. When its foraging its down on three legs, while as soon as it wants to move a distance it gets up its hindlegs.
 
Personally I think this is largely unrelated to the origin of the yeti myth. You won't mistake a bear for a yeti unless the concept of there being a yeti already exists.

Wild men are reported from all over the world including Guadalcanal, Hawaii and New Zealand, it's a universal myth created by a very fundamental piece of human psychology.
 
fascinating programme on today about the yeti. A DNA test by a leading scientist on hair samples match up with those of an ancient polar bear, he suspects a polar x brown bear hybrid.
 
Personally I'm not impressed with it, very enjoyable TV but no persuasive argument made there as far as I'm concerned. Apparently there is to be a proper article, I'll wait till then.
 
oldrover said:
Personally I'm not impressed with it, very enjoyable TV but no persuasive argument made there as far as I'm concerned. Apparently there is to be a proper article, I'll wait till then.
Click to expand...

Its an interesting theory but didn't go into any real detail on this part, perhaps because it is hypothetical at present. The use of the term 'hybrids' is perhaps misleading. Polar/brown bears can, and have hybridised as we know but its a rare occurrence in the wild and its hardly likely there are any polar bears wandering around the Himalaya to produce same at intervals. However a population of bears which differ genetically from known modern Brown bears and became split from ancestral Polar bears even more recently, is, I guess, more feasible and what is apparently being suggested here. But how would they remain completely seperated from known Brown bear populations, if these range up to 18,000 ft as stated in the programme?

The scientist involved is bringing out a book about this next year.

I only wish they wouldn't try to 'hype up' these programmes as much as they do e.g. laying 'roaring' sounds over the tame Grizzly when it was opening its mouth wide begging for food! It gets in the way of the credibility a bit.
 
Last edited:
Pertinax said:
For the record, a follow-up programme about 'Yetis' by the same programme-makers mentioned the previous 'ancient Polar bear' hypothesis and said, without much explanation, that it was now discounted- before quickly moving on...
Click to expand...
I've just been reading about that. The idea was pretty dead before it even left the gate.

Basically the original scientist (Sykes) DNA-tested some yeti hair samples from Ladakh and Bhutan, and found that they were a 100% match to DNA from a 40,000 year old polar bear jawbone. From that he (naturally) deduced that the yeti was actually a polar bear x brown bear hybrid. Quite how he arrived at that conclusion I'm not clear on - polar bears are found a long way from the Himalayas, and if the DNA was a 100% match how does that result in his idea of it being a hybrid? In any case, as soon as he published every other scientist said "that's rubbish" and checked his findings. The part of the DNA he was looking at is actually identical between polar and brown bears, and there is no way to say which species of bear the hairs came from. Visually they look exactly like the hair from the brown bear found naturally in the regions the hair came from...
 
Chlidonias said:
The part of the DNA he was looking at is actually identical between polar and brown bears, and there is no way to say which species of bear the hairs came from. Visually they look exactly like the hair from the brown bear found naturally in the regions the hair came from...
Click to expand...

I wonder if he retracted his original 'findings' then?

In the new (follow-up) programme, the various hair samples or(in one case) stuffed creatures that were tested came back as the Tibetan subspecies of Brown Bear.
 
Apologies if this comes across as rude - I assure you, I have no intentions of it being that way. But it seems to me as if some here don't have a proper understanding of cryptozoology.

First of all, to think that cryptozoology is about lake monsters and ape-men is quite frankly, wrong. These are simply the well-known cryptids, which thanks to media coverage, hype, and tons of hoaxes, have become well-known, and is causing such poor views of cryptozoology as has been shown on this thread. In fact, there are many cryptozoological creatures which stand a good chance of being real. Good examples are Beebe's abyssal fishes and glow-nosed frogs.

Secondly, cryptozoology is not purely about discovering new species. For example, cryptozoologists look into theories such as memories passed down from generation to generation. For example, I personally believe stories of apemen come from cultural memories of a time when neanderthals and other species of human roamed the Earth with us, and probably posed a danger to us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top