Does the finding of a fish, once thought to be long extinct by scientists, count as a cryptozoological finding?
No. Why should it? The coelacanth was discovered by fisherman few days before Christmas in 1938, at the mouth of theChalumna River on the east coast of South Africa.
They were always there. I don't even think cryptozoology existed per se back when this prehistoric survivor was discovered. It was mainstream zoologists and ichthyologists who identified it. Since then they are regularly seen and occasionally captured in the same waters.
New species are discovered all the time. It would be fair to say they were not discovered before because they were “hidden†or cryptic in their habits or localities. Many in out of the way places, unexplored terrain. The depths of the oceans and deepwater lakes qualify under this reasoning. Or they are simply not recognized nor have they come to the attention of science. Sometimes they are found lying preserved in museum collections for decades. Regular zoologists, without the crypto modifier are fully capable of identifying new species. The cryptozoological field is quick to take credit for the discovery of new species such as the coelacanth or Viet Namese (Quang Tri Forest) miniature leaf or muntjack deer (
Muntiacus trungsonensis) But in reality they had nothing to do with such discoveries except to say “see, see…I told you there are undiscovered species.†OK. Sure. In the last 100 years fewer than ten new mammal species have been discovered. However, there have been many new species of life forms found among fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles and arthropods. Cryptozoology seems to have attracted a following of big-foot, yeti and lake monster searchers. When or IF a big hairy primate is captured or retrieved in the Himalayas or the wilderness of the American NW or a dinosaur is found to have survived in Lake Champlain, you can be certain a mainstream zoologist will be the one to prove it or not. In the meantime cryptozoologists cling to their beliefs that mythical beasts exist, that legend is always true and that footprints and other evidence is not hoaxed or fabricated. We all need a hobby.
http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/species.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There are interesting photos fr LIFE Magazine)and a diagram if you scroll down on the following website and find them over the caption that follows. This is the kind of material that interests cryptozoologists:
http://theshadowlands.net/serpent.htm
This carcass was picked up by the Japanese fishing boat MS Zuiyomaru off the coast of Japan. The carcass was covered with a fatty tissue which had badly decayed. The creature weighed about 1 ton. The Captain ordered it thrown back because of it's smell so it was never closely examined. Scientists studying the picture were unable to tell what kind of animal it was. It does not resemble any known sea dwelling creature. Skeptical scientists assumed it was a decayed body of a basking shark. Upon further examination, other biologists claim the size, fin placement, and overall appearance does not support the basking shark theory. The sketch shown above is a drawing of what the creature would look like laid out flat.
