Cryptozoology: A playground in science

But whose saw the Nandi bear he said it had gigantic claws and somebody said the bear was herbivorous...

 

Video by Bob Gymlan, who explains that the Nandi Bear could actually be a Dinopithecus, which is an extinct large baboon.

 

Here is another
Thylacine (there is thousands of sightings in Tasmania and Mainland Australia)

 

Other people have suggested it could be a chalicothere. Cuvier could classify fossils from a small number of bones and teeth, but got chalicotheres completely wrong. He thought that an animal with a head like a horse couldn't have long claws. There is/was a nice reconstruction of a chalicothere at the Basel Natural History Museum.

 

Not exactly applicable to this thread, given Cryptozoology involves mythical/folklore animals and the Thylacine was definitely real

 

Ok

 

Not exactly. Since cryptozoology is not a formal science, it can involve whatever a self-pronounced cryptozoologist wants to study. Occasionally even ‘animal-like’ purported aliens are included under the banner. And often, a ‘cryptid’ has no prior folklore surrounding it - this is usually ‘created’ by unscrupulous ‘believers’ by appropriating unrelated local myths.

 

Right, but a thylacine is still not applicable

 

No it isn't. Or rather it shouldn't be. Cryptozoology theoretically only deals with animals whose existence has not been proven. There have been multiple museum galleries in fact actually contrasting these cryptozoological animals with thylacines and a coelacanths for example. Unless you believe the thylacine did not in fact exist, it isn't relevant to cryptozoology per se.

However, while it isn't a formally-defined science, a cryptozoologist trying to prove the existence of the Thylacine is hardly a cryptozoologist, since its existence has already been proven. So if the thylacine is relevant to the discussion, so too is the Red fox since both definitely have existed.

 

I agree with Chlidonias

A few cryptozooids are animals that some people believed to still exist, although many people consider them to be extinct. For example, Dinopithecus and chalicotheres existed.

 

While I agree with most of your statements, Chlidonias. I have heard people who claim that thylacines still exist, so the statement 'they are extinct' is questionable.

 

Then why have several museum displays contrasted the thylacine specifically with cryptids?

The reason why many of the animals cited above are cryptids is because many people thought they were hoaxes until legitimate proof of their existence was shown.

Furthermore, Forrest Galante, whose job is to try and find animals that may or may not be extinct, doesn't believe that his job has anything to do with crypto:

I mean, crypto is not my area of study. I am a biologist and focus on known scientific animals. I absolutely believe in the Thylacine as that was a known creature that existed in recent times. I do believe it could still be out there in super small sub populations. I’m not much one for monsters and scaries, I am more into the wildlife.

A professional in the field directly disagrees with you.

 

From what I have read on the subject, this remains a contentious subject - I have seen many accounts on both sides of the argument. I think that the very nature of crypto makes it difficult to define - it is so informal and vague that arguments like this have no right answer in a sense.

Yes, but not in the way you think. While Heuvelmanns was a pioneer in cryptozoology, the informal science of cryptozoology has existed for thousands of years under different names. All animals from different continents from a European perspective were once cryptids, since their existence could only be confirmed by hearsay and no actual proof could be shown unless the animal was successfully brought back to Europe or photographic proof could be found (which obviously was only possible after such methods were created in the late 19th century.

Of course saying that the dodo's existence was not proven while Heuvelmanns conducted his work is absolute rubbish and I was not suggesting that was the case.

So not only (pretty much) every living animal was a cryptid at some point but also all dinosaurs and extinct animals. Hence they were, at some point and in some cases still now.

While I do take back, at least partly, my contradiction on the matter of the thylacine and apologize to @felis silvestris for being so blunt, I don't think that this matter can be conclusively settled in either direction. Every animal has, at some point, been a cryptid, whether living or extinct, so what can be defined as cryptid nowadays? Well the truth is, almost anything. What makes an unphotographed and newly-discovered species not a cryptid? Its existence is only proven by someone's word, whether a scientist or not...

All very vague and rough. I do however apologise for being so blunt, I now realise that the question is more nuanced than I may have thought at first. However, I don't believe that a thylacine is a cryptid any more than many of the animals living on Earth today, just to be clear.

 

Except they wouldn’t try to prove its existence, rather, it’s persistence. A fairly simple difference.

Except he is not a ‘professional’ cryptozoologist: the quote you posted literally said that. I could also quote many more actual cryptozoologists who think the opposite, but that would take some time and I am quite busy, so I will post them later.

Not directly related, but you should remember that photographs are easily faked, and not proof in and of themselves.

No.
For example, those species present in Africa during the evolution of Homo sapiens have never been cryptids, unless they have since gone extinct and are yet looked for by cryptozoologists, but I am unaware of any such examples, and you do not consider extinct species cryptids.
In addition, I doubt ‘tales’ of any animals from the Americas, let alone the very existence of such continents, reached the old-world in prehistoric times prompting them to look for them, which, unless I am misunderstanding you, is essentially what you define as a cryptid. When the time the America’s were finally colonised by people and these species seen for the first time, I don’t think many people doubted their existence, and even if they did, it would be a minority of these species.
Similarly, it would be near impossible for there to have been claims of certain fossil animals before the first scientifically described specimens are unearthed and photographed, especially fragmentary but diagnostic ones.
Unless you think a creature can be a cryptid before anyone has even claimed it’s existence?

 

Yet cryptozoology is defined as the 'pseudoscience and subculture that aims to prove the existence of entities from the folklore record'.

He is a professional in the field of finding animals that are thought to be extinct though, as I said, which makes him more relevant to the conversation at hand than the 'actual cryptozoologists' you cite given that is what we are talking about. You suggest I claimed he was a cryptozoologist, I never did, I claimed the opposite and so does he.

Either way, it is clear that a cryptozoologist asked if the thylacine is a cryptid would say yes and a person like Galante would say no, given the obvious incentives to do so.

More pedantry - of course I know this, I didn't want to mention it for fear of making my argument clunky and sentences twice the necessary length. Furthermore they didn't have photo editing softwares in the late 19th century anyway so this is utterly irrelevant.

African animals like rhinos or cheetahs were cryptids to the Romans for example, just as jaguars or black bears were cryptids to early European settlers in America. Virtually every single animal out there has been a cryptid at some point to someone. You have to remember that for virtually the entirety of man's existence up to a couple of hundred years ago there was little to no communication across long distances, let alone across continents. Rumours of horned animals in Africa and pouched jumping mammals in Australia reached Europe in trickles and in stories often distorted by being passed on via hearsay. These animals were undeniably cryptids in Europe at the time. Just think of Durer's rhinoceros for an example.

Obviously not, since no-one travelled from the Americas to the Old World in prehistoric times?

When you say colonised by people, do you mean the Native Americans or the Europeans? If the former, then I am confused by your statement. Imagine you are a settler in the Americas, having just entered Alaska. You are by yourself on a hunting expedition and see a black bear. You run back to the camp and report your sighting of a massive black animal with immense claws and big teeth. That animal is a cryptid, because it is exactly the same situation as for example the Nandi bear from their perspective - an unknown animal only spotted a couple of times. I don't really understand your last sentence, but clearly ever new species they see would be described and passed on by hearsay, each time slightly distorting it, so once again, a cryptid.

Don't understand what you are saying here either but dinosaurs upon being discovered were of course viewed as cryptids, along with any fossils. The vast majority of Europe were religious and disregarded the claims of immense creatures once roaming the Earth before man because of the scriptures. So of course dinosaurs were cryptids for many years until the tide of public opinion began to change and they were generally accepted are having existed.