Cryptozoology

Chlidonias said:
it is some kind of viverrid with mange. In the photo on this link Oriental Yeti Discovered In China | Two Minute News the animal is in a better position and is obviously a civet. Despite the comparison to a "bear" you can also see from the cage that it is not a large animal at all.
Click to expand...

Wow, this second picture makes it much clearer, I am in no doubt that you are right about it being a civet. Apparently, several civet species, and one species of linsang occur in Sichuan province.

With things like this it amazes me that it can get all round the world on the news without this being pointed out at any stage? I'm sure there are plenty of people, who like you, spotted straight away what the animal is; it's just not as good a story that way.
 
After seeing that second photo I have to agree that it does look more like a civet in that image. A rather deformed civet at that.

:p

Hix
 
Blackduiker

Just to throw a wrench into the machinery, I've been reading everything on cryptozoology I could get my hands on since I was in the 8Th grade. Especially Bigfoot or Sasquatch. Just about anything written by John Green, Loren Coleman or Rene Dahinden has consumed much of my reading interest, along with so many others like Ivan Sanderson, Dr. Grover Krantz and Dr. Jeff Meldrum. And if you think that's oddball, I'm in the same company as Jane Goodall herself. I've read literally thousands of eyewitness accounts, and am convinced there is something out there. Just to get a general background though, I recommend the following excellent website:

Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization
 
Blackduiker said:
I've read literally thousands of eyewitness accounts, and am convinced there is something out there.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't come in a small wire cage looking remarkably like a Civet Cat or similar sized animal with mange.

I cannot understand how an obvious fabrication like this can make News when it is so obvious from the photo that this particular creature is a known animal. Are they really, really stupid people who put this out, or do they really believe it might be something 'new' to science?
 
The creature in the photo is definitely some poor, known to science, victim of mange or another illness. But I still am very much an advocate of cryptids and the continued investigation of hidden animals. The Okapi, Komodo Dragon, Mountain Gorilla, Mountain Tapir, Chacoan Peccary, Megamouth Shark, Coelocanth, and Saola. Just to name a few, were all considered "unknown" until the 20th century. And some of them the much latter part of that century. (Chacoan Peccary, Megamouth, Saola, et.).
 
This oriental Yeti is clearly a linsang or other civet species from the Sichuan/Yunnan region. Its medical condition resembling mange is probably due to the time period of inadequate captivity management of this particular individual.

IMO it should be rehomed to one of the reputable Chinese zoos like Beijing or Shanghai (not even Chengdu presently has state-of-the-art mustelid or small felid housing). It should be quarantained first, medically treated and raised back to health. That wire-netted cage is a sign of animal welfare concern ...

It is to be applauded that lately animal welfare and exotic wild animal management has come under closer scrutiny and is warranting Parliamentary resolve to introduce more robust animal welfare legislation for native and exotic species. Both timely and needed.
 
On general cryptology matters: the science is valuable.

I do think that in the case of hominids like the Yeti/Sasquatch, there is relevance to the frequency of reports (despite pseud-scientists on the bandwagon).

I would say similar relevance exists for e.g. Tassie wolf (and a host of other thought off as extinct species ... et cetera cum et cetera). Every one of these species just needs a champion determined enough to get to the bottom of the real truth (which in the case of the Tassie wolf is ... despite the difficulty of terrain in that particular corner of NE-Tasmania).
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
Every one of these species just needs a champion determined enough to get to the bottom of the real truth (which in the case of the Tassie wolf is ... despite the difficulty of terrain in that particular corner of NE-Tasmania).
Click to expand...

Apart from the many hoaxes, grainy photos and videos, innumerable sightings of varying credibility, the Tasmanian Tiger has had a number of serious champions trying to prove its continued existence. Some of them, like Eric Guiler spent decades searching for evidence but still no-one has come up with any irrefutable proof- now nearly 80 years since the last one was seen in the wild. I cannot see how it could have survived so long with no tangible evidence it still exists, coming to light.
 
Blackduiker said:
The creature in the photo is definitely some poor, known to science, victim of mange or another illness. But I still am very much an advocate of cryptids and the continued investigation of hidden animals. The Okapi, Komodo Dragon, Mountain Gorilla, Mountain Tapir, Chacoan Peccary, Megamouth Shark, Coelocanth, and Saola. Just to name a few, were all considered "unknown" until the 20th century. And some of them the much latter part of that century. (Chacoan Peccary, Megamouth, Saola, et.).
Click to expand...

But all the species that you mention come from deep rainforest, mountains, difficult to reach islands, the deep ocean or a combination therein. On the contrary, the Rockies is an area which has been reasonably populated for over a hundred years. Not only that, but it is criss-crossed by roads, has suffered large amounts of habitat degradation and is crawling with hunters. Finally, if apes did cross into the americas then they would have done it from africa and up through south america but, despite it being far more typical habitat than the Rockies, there are none in the amazon!
 
Agreed. I'm much more willing to believe in the yeti than bigfoot for these reasons:

- Location: Living in the Himalayas is both difficult to explore and dangerous for natural and sometimes political reasons. We only know about the snow leopard from very few wild sightings, look how long wildlife filmakers have spent up there just trying to catch a glimpse of one. An environment significantly tougher to explore than the mountains in which the mountain gorilla wasn't discovered till the 20th century.
- Locals: They treat just as they would any other animal of the mountains, and have come to fear and respect it over the generations. There are many stories of their sightings amongst those who spend much of their time in the mountains.
- Paleontological: Countries surrounding the Himalayas, such as Nepal, China and India, was once home to Gigantopithecus blacki, an immense ape that would've been ten feet at standing height, believed to have fed mainly on bamboo, fruit and invertabrates. When Homo erectus moved into Asia they would've lived alongside such beasts, though rather than all go extinct within the Pleistocene, perhaps populations of the apes were driven further into the mountains by our ancestors, who would've then learn't to feed on anything they could get, such as vegetation, berries in the cloud forests and the hunting of animal prey like chimps.

Of course I'm not 100% on the yeti, you can't be until you've got a real specimen. But, added with the various footprints and sightings over the last few centuries, it has a good chance of being there, and many zoological academics such as Sir David Attenborough would agree with this.
 
Oh @Blackduiker, please spare me the stale news by constantly citing okapi, komodo dragons, giant forest hog, mountain nyala, saola etc. as the one and only examples of newly discovered animals. Tme has gone by (in the case of the okapi more than 100 years..), and plenty of other equally interesting animals have been "discovered" since, also in the more recent past (Giant peccary, Australian snubfin dolphin, Upemba Lechwe, Bornean Clouded Leopard, Arunachal macaque...to name just some charismatic larger mammals) .
What has changed, however, is that in the current "age of molecular biology" many "new" species discoveries have not been made outdoors on an Indiana Jones-like adventure trip, but within the security of the labratory, by splitting up formerly singular species into many new ones(like Asian hog-badger(s), West African Dwarf crocodile(s), Burmese python(s)(?!?), etc, etc.).
Don't get me wrong: I'm really fond of serious(!) cryptozoology. However, a lot people seem to equal this subject with escapist pseudo-factual paranormal "monster hunting". The latter is no surprise, as most "believers"(sic!) of this mindset appear to favour the "crypto superstars" like Nessie, Yeti, Sasquatch, Giant Anacondas and El Chupa. Reports of smaller, less harmful & less spectacular creatures appear to be less attractive-even though the chance to discover them one day is usually way more plausible...

None of the reasons mentioned above to explain Yeti & Co. do really have a solid base. All that is left of Gigantopithecus sp. are a few teeth and some mandibula fragments. To assume based on these fragmentary fossils that the animal was bipedal or had any correlation to the popular yeti sightings is highly speculative.

One should not be too hasty when it comes to ruling out potential "habitats": in fact, some areas of the Pacific Northwest are pretty remote and scarely inhabitated.
 
'I believe that yellow books armed with cocktail umberella's live inside my head' - you cannot prove this is ture, but neither can you prove that it doesn't exist.

it's is hard to imagine life in areas of boiling chemical envrionments of underground volcano's - but they do. Whislt it may seem that mythical beasts like the yeti and big foot do not exist I am totally open to the possibility just as I am to the possibilty that there are yellow books armed with cockatil umberella's living inside my head.

Plus sometimes it is nicer to beleive in something totally abstract and unrealistic then be stuck still in reality.
 
Sun Wukong said:
One should not be too hasty when it comes to ruling out potential "habitats": in fact, some areas of the Pacific Northwest are pretty remote and scarely inhabitated.
Click to expand...

That does not mean that they haven't been thoroughly explored and certainly doesn't mean (in my eyes at least) that there is an undiscovered hominid roaming around them being caught in occasional, blurred photographs.
 
Are you really sure that all of the Pacific Northwest has been "thoroughly explored"? Given the size of the area, I somehow don't believe so...

All one had to do to (dis)prove your umbrella example would be to open your skull, @foz-want me to bring in my "Li'l brain surgery kit"? ;)
 
Sun Wukong said:
Are you really sure that all of the Pacific Northwest has been "thoroughly explored"? Given the size of the area, I somehow don't believe so...

All one had to do to (dis)prove your umbrella example would be to open your skull, @foz-want me to bring in my "Li'l brain surgery kit"? ;)
Click to expand...

Well unless I was an "undiscovered" species, I don't think opening up my skull would prove anything very much, or do you have some snappy retort for that as well? And yes the Rockies have been thoroughly explored thanks to wagon trails to the west, numerous gold-rushes (and searches), other mineral mining, hunting, close proximity to towns and cities, hiking, early exploring, rock climbing, helicopters, trackers, the fact that it is now crossed by numerous roads and railways and I can't be bothered to continue. In short, there are very few areas left relatively pristine which would be large enough to support a thriving population of "Bigfoot" not to mention the fact that sightings are spread out, so if you take them to be evidence then you would have to assume that the animal is widespread across the pacific northwest and perhaps even the rest of America. In my opinion, this invalidates sightings as even so-called "soft" proof as many advocates for "Bigfoot's" existence ignore the fact that they cover such a large area. For example, the relatively large number in states like Texas and Florida are generally discarded by people looking for the creature, yet they still take those along the pacific coast to be evidence of its existence. This is, of course, not to mention the fact that as far as I am aware no remains of apes have been found in North America either from thousands of years ago or more recently and all pictures, video footage, supposed corpses etc can be disputed. When looked at closely, I fail to see how any one can believe the very flimsy evidence for "Bigfoot's" supposed existence.
 
Of course do I have a snappy retort for your question, dear @redpanda: is foz an "undiscovered species"? ;)

The Pacific Northwest is a bit more than just the Rockies:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Northwest]Pacific Northwest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Indeed, there are various reports of wild hominids all over North America, including Florida (the Skunk Ape), with widespread reports of sightings in particular in the Northwest.
File:Bigfoot Sightings in USA.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human activity does not rule out the often unnoticed presence of larger wildlife. A nice example of this was illustrated by a picture sign next to the cougar exhibit at Denver Zoo: it showed a lady holding a toddler, with a canyon in the background. On closer observation, one could observe the head of a wild cougar in the bushes just behind the lady. Both she and her photographing husband only noticed the cat while sitting happily back at home and going through the holiday photo collection.

This should by no means serve as an argument to support the idea of large unknown wild primates roaming America, but maybe make you, dear reader, a bit more careful before making all too hasty assumptions. Sometimes, areas that are thought to be well-known and of little significance for zoology, might sport something unusual & significant-as various "cryptozoological" discoveries exemplify again and again.

Given the little percentage of (prehistoric) biomass actually making it to be found as recognizable fossils, one should be careful to base one's argumentation on their nonexistence. Before the discovery of their fossils, people would have doubted the existence of bizarre creatures such as Stomatosuchus, Thalassocnus sp. or Hurdia victoria. So not having found any ape fossils in North America yet just means that-that no ape fossils have been found in North America - yet. However, it doesn't rule out their finding in the future, although I personally doubt it.

Honestly, I'm neither really convinced of nor really interested in the existence of large unknown primates in North America or the Himalaya.
What I consider interesting is that the phrase "believe" always pops up in these discussions. As if dealing with the "crypto superstars" was a decision of faith!
Such an attitude makes it hard for sceptics and fans alike to notice & acknowledge the most important part of the word cryptoZOOLOGY as it was meant by Heuvelmans-as a zoological approach, but not as an escapist playground for self-acclaimed "monster hunters".
Therefore Bigfoot, Nessie and Yeti would have to qualify for the same rules of scientific identification all other species have and had to endure. However, this would also mean to have at least one real complete specimen available for the profound systemic examination by qualified specialists, with the results available to the public. As long as this criterium can not be matched, I see no reason to "believe" in the existence of Sasquatch, Yeti etc. as something other than a wild mix of misinterpretations of already known animals, local folklore, dupery and sensationalism.
 
Sun Wukong said:
Of course do I have a snappy retort for your question, dear @redpanda: is foz an "undiscovered species"? ;)
Click to expand...

I know you too well Sun ;), reading your post back I see that "umbrella example" referred to foz's little umbrella people as opposed to you calling my argument overarching - fair enough.

Sun Wukong said:
The Pacific Northwest is a bit more than just the Rockies:
Pacific Northwest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Yet the Rockies is where it would seem most likely that a Sasquatch may be found, which was why I referred to it. Unless you think that we should do genetic testing on the people of Seattle?

Sun Wukong said:
This should by no means serve as an argument to support the idea of large unknown wild primates roaming America, but maybe make you, dear reader, a bit more careful before making all too hasty assumptions. Sometimes, areas that are thought to be well-known and of little significance for zoology, might sport something unusual & significant-as various "cryptozoological" discoveries exemplify again and again.
Click to expand...

As you have already said "again and again" in this thread, those new discoveries or practically always a new species of lizard, freshwater fish or some other equally unnoticed species. The chance of discovering a new large mammal is far less likely, especially in a country like the USA. And the idea that a large primate could evade capture/shooting for two hundred years in a populated area is rather more fanciful than a cougar slinking up behind you. As such, I stand by my not so "hasty assumptions".

Sun Wukong said:
Given the little percentage of (prehistoric) biomass actually making it to be found as recognizable fossils, one should be careful to base one's argumentation on their nonexistence. Before the discovery of their fossils, people would have doubted the existence of bizarre creatures such as Stomatosuchus, Thalassocnus sp. or Hurdia victoria. So not having found any ape fossils in North America yet just means that-that no ape fossils have been found in North America - yet. However, it doesn't rule out their finding in the future, although I personally doubt it.
Click to expand...

As I said above, this is not a solid argument in itself but the fact that none have been found in the americas in general (or indeed northern asia which would be the other crossing possibility) only serves to strengthen. Furthermore, my point was also that when hunting is such a popular pursuit in the US and there are so many roads traversing the habitat (not to mention natural deaths) corpses would turn up occasionally. As such, the continued lack of remains is a major obstacle to the "Bigfoot" theory.
 
But have you read the thousands of eyewitness accounts from virtually every background, from hunters to police officers? And what about the native peoples who's legends span numerous Native-American tribes, over several centuries; are we somehow categorizing them as ignorant and foolish? Didn't the same attitude persist towards the people of Africa, concerning the existence of Gorillas? And again I submit to you, Jane Goodall herself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top