• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Cryptozoology and megafauna

Jerrymander

Muse
Jerrymander
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
625
One of the things I noticed about cryptozoology is that the creatures they are trying to find are all large vertebrates. Giving that the majority of undiscovered species are insects, you'll think they'd be interested in them too. I brought this up on the bigfoot forums and was told that new species of bugs or rodents aren't interesting.

So what do you all think?
 
I think that next to none of the cryptozoologizts appear to be actual biologists and therefore to them a new species of insect or rodent is not very interesting.

To real biologists, and those interested in the natural world, the discovery of a new species is always exciting no mater how small. Think of the thrill of all those new species they are finding around deep ocean thermal vents! Or the new species that are being found in inland China now that expeditions are becoming more frequent. I heard they recently found a new species in China about the size of a large rabbit, isn't that exciting?
 
And lets not forget the bombardier beetle or the African spiny mouse (a mammal that can regrow its skin).
 
Last edited:
I can understand that bias against the little stuff. The thrill of cryptozoology lies in those species that remain undiscovered despite repeated attempts to find them. If biologists go somewhere and collect a bunch of inverts that are new to science, that's not the same thing as mainstream science failing to find things that appear in some early explorer's journal or are known only to the natives.
 
I think it's because you can't fit a person inside an insect suit.
 
JoeBentley said:
I think it's because you can't fit a person inside an insect suit.
Click to expand...

But you can fit an insect inside a person suit.

476251641ad37ec68.jpg
 
To be fair, we're no different. Look at the funding differences between, say, mollusks (which are THE go-to phyla for testing evolutionary theory) and dinosaurs (which, while very cool, are exceedingly rare and represent only one small twig on the evolutionary tree).
 
I think it's because they harbor delusion of fame and fortune springing from their grand "discovery" whereas finding a new species of Rhinoceros Beetle is only exciting to entomologists.
 
It's probably in part because they don't know enough to find the actual discoveries interesting. The less flashy something is, the more in-depth knowledge you need to appreciate it. Cryptozoologists don't have the background needed to find actual discoveries interesting.

And like Dinwar said, this is true of all of us (I certainly find dinosaurs more interesting than mollusks, because dinos are big and flashy and look good when made out of felt, while mollusks are small and all look the same to me). But it's a bit problematic when you're focus is biology-related, but you lack the knowledge to be interested in the non-flashy stuff.
 
Akri said:
And like Dinwar said, this is true of all of us (I certainly find dinosaurs more interesting than mollusks, because dinos are big and flashy and look good when made out of felt, while mollusks are small and all look the same to me).
Click to expand...
Giant squid... cough...
 
Mark6 said:
Giant squid... cough...
Click to expand...

Proves my point. Everyone knows Arcatoothus. How many know, say, Acanthinities? Or Arcestes? Or Pachydiscus? The later two include a benthic species and one showing clear evidence of predation--VERY cool from an ecological perspective, but not so much from any other.

And that's giving you the best of it. those are ammonite genera (except the giant squie genus), which are widely prized for their beauty. It gets much worse once you go to more normal squid.
 
Once I thought cryptozoology might enter the door of science someday. While it is more popular now than ever before, I don't see much science in it. It is monster hunting, not zoology.

It is a modern rebirth of the bestiary of folk-lore. The 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries chased away the old order of monsters, the giants, dragons, werewolves, and other fabulous creatures believed through folk tales.

Now with cryptozoology we have monsters of a superficially more realistic sort. Instead of fire-breathing dragons, we have surviving dinosaurs, for instance. Since we are allegedly a science influenced culture, our monsters carry a patina of scientific understanding; no more shape shifting werewolves, for example. Now we have apes of unknown origin in our backwoods, but apes none-the-less.
 
But there ARE larger species being "found" -- that is, formally identified by science -- these days. It was only a few years ago that the four- to five- footlong *frugivorous* monitor lizard was found. I mean, how cool is THAT?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18741-meet-the-giant-fruiteating-monitor-lizard.html

Or, slightly longer ago, the OMG is that really a footlong sea bottom woodlouse thing?!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...il-workers-dredge-giant-cousin-woodlouse.html

(Those guys are simultaneously cute and nightmarish, IMHO).

I still think our best hope for a large cryptid is in the deserts of Australia. Something has got to be eating those camels! ;)
 
Miss_Kitt said:
But there ARE larger species being "found" -- that is, formally identified by science -- these days. It was only a few years ago that the four- to five- footlong *frugivorous* monitor lizard was found. I mean, how cool is THAT?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18741-meet-the-giant-fruiteating-monitor-lizard.html

Or, slightly longer ago, the OMG is that really a footlong sea bottom woodlouse thing?!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...il-workers-dredge-giant-cousin-woodlouse.html

(Those guys are simultaneously cute and nightmarish, IMHO).

I still think our best hope for a large cryptid is in the deserts of Australia. Something has got to be eating those camels! ;)
Click to expand...

OTHER camels, driven mad by loneliness and despair. The Hills Have Humps.
 
Keep in mind, many species are "found" in museum and zoo collections- hardly the natural habitat of big foot hunters and their ilk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom