What cryptids might be real?

[mike3]

We may be overcomplicating things.

A well placed bullet or some road kill is all it would take to establish that this species exists, (presuming that it isn't visually identical to some other species). Frankly, it doesn't seem a lot to ask.

Mike

And I suspect such a discovery would provide motivation for some scientists to do all the other work if necessary.

 

[Correa Neto]

Wait a minute... It doesn't take a roadkill or a hunter's bullet to bring scientists in to studying bigfoot or any other cryptid.

There are lots of scientists working right now in the field at the supposed habitats of many a cryptid. Biologists and geologists are the first that came to my mind. Anyone of them - among the many other people who regularly work out there in the woods - can potentially find them, but only if they exist. A bigfoot, chupacabra or cryptic feline would not be missed by an orninthologist, a botanic or someone studying bears. "Oh, they are not looking for it" is a lame excuse, borne out of some combination of despair, ignorance, bias and maybe dishonesty. Finding a bigfoot would mean an instant extreme professional achievement. Fame, fortune and glory (OK, within the limits scientists can reach). Even that guy studying fungus from the Pacific Northwest rainforests would stop his work and dedicate himself to describe this outstanding discovery and publish a pile of papers about it.

A common fallacy among cryptozoology circles is that a given cryptid is not found just because scientists are not looking for it, instead they spend their lives isolated in ivory towers. No. Scientists are doing their works pretty well in the fields (a place some of them spend much more time than the most daring footer) and in the lab. Bigfoots, chupacabras, mokele mbembes, etc. are not being found just because they are not there.

 

[Zippy Omicron]

More Mackal

Mike,

Certainly can provide more data on this person.

Mackal = Dr. Roy Mackal (of the University of Chicago), biochemist/virologist, PhD 1953

Here's his biography, which is fairly complete, including a publication listing of his journal articles as well (99% non-cryptozoological):

http://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Roy_Mackal.html

Here's a relevant excerpt about his efforts in the Congo region:

"....

During the 1980s, Mackal turned his attention to another legendary creature, the Mokele-mbembe, an alleged living dinosaur in the Likouala swamp region of the Republic of Congo. Accompanied by University of Arizona ecologist Richard Greenwell and Congolese biologist Marcellin Agnagna, Mackal undertook two expeditions, the first in 1980 and the second in 1981, to find and photograph the creature. Mackal himself did not actually see the creature, but he and his colleagues did collect multiple firsthand reports from Congo natives, who, according to Mackal, consistently described a creature similar to a long-necked sauropod. During his interviews with the natives, Mackal also heard anecdotes about the Emela-ntouka, another possible living dinosaur which supposedly resembles a Monoclonius or Centrosaurus, the Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu that resembles a Kentrosaurus, and the snake- or lizardlike Nguma-monene.

In 1987, Mackal wrote a book about his adventures in the Likouala swamps called A Living Dinosaur? In Search of Mokele-Mbembe. He had tried to obtain funds for a third expedition to the region, but his plans were never realized, and the mystery of the Congolese “living dinosaurs” remains unsolved.

..."

I read the book a good while back. If my dim memory serves, he included some photography of actual foot tracks that he tentatively identified as the alleged Mokele Mbembe. There are also artists' renditions of some of the other creatures in the volume as well. Overall, I found the book quite fascinating and interesting.

 

[MikeG]

The Boreal Helmanon is most likely to be real.

Am I the only one smiling at this, and thinking that WP has a subtle sense of humour? You see, I think this one is a makey-uppey cryptid, which makes it from all the................er..............wait a minute.......

Mike

 

[Resume]

Watching a Nat Geo about tigers in the Bhutan mountains. Maybe they'll run into a Yeti.

So far, just golden langurs . . .

 

[Jerrymander]

Wait a minute... It doesn't take a roadkill or a hunter's bullet to bring scientists in to studying bigfoot or any other cryptid.

There are lots of scientists working right now in the field at the supposed habitats of many a cryptid. Biologists and geologists are the first that came to my mind. Anyone of them - among the many other people who regularly work out there in the woods - can potentially find them, but only if they exist. A bigfoot, chupacabra or cryptic feline would not be missed by an orninthologist, a botanic or someone studying bears. "Oh, they are not looking for it" is a lame excuse, borne out of some combination of despair, ignorance, bias and maybe dishonesty. Finding a bigfoot would mean an instant extreme professional achievement. Fame, fortune and glory (OK, within the limits scientists can reach). Even that guy studying fungus from the Pacific Northwest rainforests would stop his work and dedicate himself to describe this outstanding discovery and publish a pile of papers about it.

A common fallacy among cryptozoology circles is that a given cryptid is not found just because scientists are not looking for it, instead they spend their lives isolated in ivory towers. No. Scientists are doing their works pretty well in the fields (a place some of them spend much more time than the most daring footer) and in the lab. Bigfoots, chupacabras, mokele mbembes, etc. are not being found just because they are not there.

One argument I heard relating to that issue is that if a field biologist sights a bigfoot than he/she can't tell his boss since nobody would believe him/her.

 

[Resume]

One argument I heard relating to that issue is that if a field biologist sights a bigfoot than he/she can't tell his boss since nobody would believe him/her.

Yeah, field biologists can't be bothered with discovering new species.

 

[MikeG]

.......Even that guy studying fungus from the Pacific Northwest rainforests would stop his work and dedicate himself to describe this outstanding discovery and publish a pile of papers about it..........

I would agree with you 100%, if he managed to obtain verifiable physical evidence. A body or body part, for instance. But what if he just had a sighting? Even say a 20 minute long close-quarters visual encounter. What then? Wouldn't he just be another nutter with an unverified and unverifiable claim? Or are you perhaps going to rely on an argument from authority? (A mycologist would have greater weight given to his claimed observation than a member of the general public in this scenario).

I have seen testimony from at least 2 biologists of encounters with Sasquatch, so I suggest that the idea that field scientists observing the creature bring it's description any nearer, is fallacious. We're back to a well placed bullet or some road kill, in my view.

Mike

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, I disagree. That's the sort of argument that may stick within the ranks of cryptozoology enthusiasts, but actually has too many holes. 20 minutes seeing it and not a single picture? No cameras, biologists in the woods? Riiiiight. Saw unidentified animals, not a glimpse, not something just a bit different from some known species and that's it? The chance of a lifetime and let it go? See, these people are there, working hard, collecting evidence and they have the right gizmos and gadgets. Fungus guy will have a camera. Fungus guy after seeing a bigfoot will find a way to set camera traps, for example, thus collecting more evidence. Not to mention biologists working out there are very methodic. If working with fauna census, for example, they usually establish a set of trails crossing the woods, set camera traps and observation sites at privileged spots. They will search and collect evidence - imagery, hairs, scat, footprints, specimens, etc.

If bigfoots were there, those guys would find it. Sure, it could as well be the truck driver or ther hunter. Now, consider this- no single piece of reliable evidence backing the existence of these animals has been found since science start to study animals. This is not because scientists are not doing their jobs, its because these animals are not there. This is valid for other cryptids too. Take Africa, for example. Centuries of trading ivory and animals, living or dead. Countless elephant tusks and rhino horns, but not a single ceratopsian horn, sauropod head or carnosaurus skull.

 

[MikeG]

Yeah, hear what you say, but think on this.

My daughter studied civets in South Africa for 4 months. She set sand traps to survey the population of prey in the area. She collected scat. She set game cameras and captured some great photos. I am sure she did all sorts of other very clever things too (including going out looking for them every day).......

....and in the 4 months, the only civet that any one in the team of 6 actually saw was sitting on the roof of the kitchen block whilst my daughter was sitting on the toilet in the toilet tent. Clearly, visiting the toilet, she had nothing with her other than her toiletries. Her observation, albeit for half an hour and in reasonable sighting conditions from fairly close range, remains anecdotal, and forms no part of the study they were undertaking.

Biologists in the field aren't always on duty and prepared.

You musn't take my answer as any sort of suggestion that sasquatch is out there, BTW, or any excuse for why it hasn't been described if it is out there. It is simply to point out that biologists being in the field doesn't mean anything, really, unless they bring back a body or body part.

Mike

PS Toilet tents obviously make good hides. On another occasion, in an entirely different part of Africa, she had a Thompson's gazelle run through the toilet shelter whilst she was sitting on the toilet, followed by 3 African wild dogs. They caught and killed it in the kitchen tent.

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh, but there are civet specimens in museums, zoos, etc. Not to mention the pictures - good pictures with good provenance. This means some zoologists managed to get them. Some teams did not, as expected, but other did. I even bet some teams grabbed civets while looking for something else, while other were looking for civets and found some other critter.

In the meanwhile, still no bigfoot, living dinosaurs (other than birds), chupacabras, lake monsters... They are just not out there. Note also the size difference between bigfoots, living dinosaurs and civets.

And if we take in to account other factors such as the area these animals would need to forage and the need for a minimum number of breeding specimens for population survival, "they are not there" becomes the unescapable answer to the question "why there are no reliable pieces of evidence?"

 

[The Shrike]

Sure Mike, but the difference is that the anecdote you provided is that of one biologist on one study. While I'm sure we could amass lots of similar stories from biologists of the rare thing they saw that they can't prove, Correa Neto is alluding to the thousands of biologists, geologists, etc. who are in the field, worldwide, all the time. Those people have been doing that kind of natural history work for, conservatively, a good 200 years.

 

[MikeG]

You miss my point. All I am saying is that if a biologist saw a cryptid, any cryptid, then there is still no evidence for its existence. Until or unless they get hold of a dead one, of whatever it is, the species can't be described, and the biologist's observation is of little consequence.

Mike

 

[Resume]

If the cryptid Bigfoot were distributed as alleged (everywhere and nowhere) wouldn't there necessarily have to be be a lot more sightings made by field biologists?

 

[Correa Neto]

Not just sightings, but also reliable evidence. If not a specimen, pictures, DNA from scat, etc. This is my point. If these animals were around, we would have something better than sighting reports.

And this is also valid for living dinosaurs (other than birds), chupacabras, yetis, strange felines, megalodons, lake monsters, thunderbirds, living pterosaurs, etc. I think probably I would even extend this to thylacines, unfortunately.

 

[MikeG]

In the case of something like a thylacine (a smallish mammal in a huge habitat with other smallish mammals), it is perfectly possible that evidence could be overlooked because it is simply so similar to other known animals. Their scat may (or may not be, I have no idea) similar to dingoes or feral domestic dogs, and so perfectly good evidence might be being overlooked simply because no-one is on the look-out for any oddities in the area. Any footprints or hairs might be similarly overlooked. Even a decayed corpse might be dismissed as a dog, perhaps, unless seen by a specialist.

Talking of scat and DNA, as Correo was, it is my understanding that only very fresh scat is of any use for obtaining DNA of the source animal, in that a few cell from the wall of the gut come away with each dropping, but are soon degraded (sun, rain, microbes etc). Can someone tell me if this is right, and how fresh it has to be before scat ceases being of any use for DNA sampling purposes?

Mike

 

[Mudcat]

Now, Giant Squid have panned out to be real.

On that note, I believe that many sea-based cryptids stand a decent chance of being real. Obviously not sirens or mermaids, but the sea is vast and largely unexplored so maybe we might find a sea serpent somewhere or maybe even a meglodon.

 

[Weak Kitten]

But the talking drunkard part is perfectly acceptable, right?

Of course! But not singing drunkard. Everyone knows that snakes can't carry a tune.

Actually, I missed that part of the myth. It's amazing how a sighting of what may have just been a pregnant or cancerous snake can be embellished by the tellers over the years. Quite a few cryptid photographs have turned out to simply be ordinary animals who lost their fur due to illness.

 

[Damien Evans]

We may be overcomplicating things.

A well placed bullet or some road kill is all it would take to establish that this species exists, (presuming that it isn't visually identical to some other species). Frankly, it doesn't seem a lot to ask.

Mike

One of the very few sightings of the Night Parrot was as roadkill in 1990. I think they've only been seen 3 or 4 times since. They're probably the least known bird in all of Australia.

 

[Damien Evans]

In the case of something like a thylacine (a smallish mammal in a huge habitat with other smallish mammals), it is perfectly possible that evidence could be overlooked because it is simply so similar to other known animals. Their scat may (or may not be, I have no idea) similar to dingoes or feral domestic dogs, and so perfectly good evidence might be being overlooked simply because no-one is on the look-out for any oddities in the area. Any footprints or hairs might be similarly overlooked. Even a decayed corpse might be dismissed as a dog, perhaps, unless seen by a specialist.

Talking of scat and DNA, as Correo was, it is my understanding that only very fresh scat is of any use for obtaining DNA of the source animal, in that a few cell from the wall of the gut come away with each dropping, but are soon degraded (sun, rain, microbes etc). Can someone tell me if this is right, and how fresh it has to be before scat ceases being of any use for DNA sampling purposes?

Mike

Thylacines aren't small, they were the size of a large Dog, about 60 centimetres at the shoulder and 25 or so kilograms on average.

Dingos never made it to Tasmania, I have no idea what the prevalence of feral dogs is though.

Bones would be almost impossible for the layman to distinguish from a dog but an intact corpse would be reasonably easy, no dog has the sort of markings the Thylacine had.