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.
mm, I've said this before in the thread somewhere (it's a long thread!) but saying that someone has a poor understanding of cryptozoology, or that cryptozoology means this or means that is rather meaningless. "Cryptozoology" is not a science - it is whatever a person imagines it to encompass under the umbrella of "searching for hidden animals".
Zoology is a science, geology is a science, archaeology is a science. People who are zoologists or geologists or archaeologists have studied academically for years and gained actual qualifications in their field - that's what qualifies them to makes judgements and statements in that field, and what allows them to call themselves zoologists or geologists or archaeologists. More importantly, their work is evaluated by a scientific peer-review process - that is why it is science.
A cryptozoologist, on the other hand, is any random person who wants to call themselves a cryptozoologist. Some of the people who call themselves cryptozoologists
are actually zoologists and can (in theory) make accurate assessments of cryptids [Darren Naish, for example, does a really good job at this; Karl Shuker does a pretty half-assed job], but others are half a step away from being put in a straightjacket.
What this means is that there isn't a scientific structure to cryptozoology and therefore what it encompasses is up to the opinions of the individual person who engages in it.
For me, finding new lizards or beetles or birds isn't cryptozoology - that is just completely normal everyday zoology; but to some cryptozoologists, finding
any previously unknown species is cryptozoology. Some cryptozoologists even include DNA-based species splitting in their case.
For me, if a zoologist sees an unknown fish or frog but doesn't collect it and therefore only refers to it as a sighting - that is just regular zoology and when it is collected it will be described as per usual; but to some cryptozoologists that is "clearly" cryptozoology because it has referenced an unknown animal.
For me, if a species of rat or lemur or antelope hasn't been seen in seventy years and then is unexpectedly (or even expectedly) rediscovered, that is just zoology as normal; for some cryptozoologists that is cryptozoology because they are "animals which were thought to be extinct", however mundane the manner of their rediscovery might be.
What
I would include in cryptozoology is the
search for (or the compilation of data for) known extinct animals (either recent species such as thylacine or impossible species like dinosaurs and pterosaurs) - as opposed to animals simply being rediscovered as above - and the same for "unknown animals" such as lake monsters, sea monsters, man-apes, etc. That is not to say that I think cryptozoology is only about Sea Monsters and Bigfoot, simply that my view of what cryptozoology includes is the search for animals which fall outside current thoughts of zoology (with some cross-over for the recently-extinct) and which are based on reports of sightings/evidence of those extinct or unknown animals, or on legends and folktales.
Now, you can say "no no, that's not correct, you're misunderstanding what cryptozoology is!" - and that is exactly the point. There is no "This Is Cryptozoology" because it is a made-up field with no scientific stand-point, and which can therefore include
any kind of zoological matter you wish so long as you phrase it in the right way.
), extant moas, globsters, the waitoreke ...
