| Cryptozoology |
Website Links For Cryptozoology |
Information AboutCryptozoology |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT CRYPTOZOOLOGY | |
| cryptids | |
| cryptozoology | |
| pseudoscience | |
| protosciencecryptids | |
| cryptozoology | |
| pseudoscience | |
| protoscience | |
| subfields of zoology | |
| forteana | |
| protoscience | |
|
People who study or search for such animals are called ''cryptozoologists'', while the Hypothetical creatures involved are sometimes called " Cryptids ", a term coined by John Wall in 1983. Coleman, Loren and Clark, Jerome.''Cryptozoology A to Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras, and Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature''. New York: Fireside/Simon and Schuster, 1999 OVERVIEW Invention of the term "cryptozoology" is often attributed to noted , Interdisciplinary approach. He also stressed that attention should be given to local, urban and Folkloric sources regarding such creatures. While often layered in unlikely and fantastic elements, folktales can have small grains of truth and important information regarding these organisms. Loren Coleman , a modern popularizer of cryptozoology, has chronicled the history and personalities of the science in his books.Coleman, Loren. '' Tom Slick : True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology''. Fresno, California: Craven Street Books/Linden Press, 2002. Another notable book on the subject is Willy Ley 's ''Exotic Zoology'' (1959). Ley was best known for his writings on Rocket ry and related topics, but he was trained in Paleontology , and did write a number of books about Animal s. Ley's collection ''Exotic Zoology'' is of some interest to cryptozoology, as he discusses the Yeti and Sea Serpent s, as well as reports of Relict dinosaurs. The book's first section ("Myth?") entertains the possibility that some Legendary Creature s (like the Sirrush , the Unicorn or the Cyclops ) might be based on actual animals (or misinterpretation of animals and/or their remains). The most rigorously scientific analyses of cryptids can be found in the works of British zoologist and cryptozoologist Dr Karl Shuker , who has published 12 books and countless articles on numerous cryptozoological subjects since the mid-1980s. MAINSTREAM SCIENCE AND CRYPTOZOOLOGY Pierre Denys De Montfort , 1801, from the descriptions of French sailors reportedly attacked by a Kraken off the coast of Angola .]] Many cryptozoologists strive for legitimacy – some of them are respected scientists in other fields – and discoveries of previously unknown animals are often subject to great attention. However, cryptozoology ''per se'' has never been fully embraced by the scientific community. One can not earn a degree in cryptozoology from any college or university. Some cryptozoologists align themselves with more scientifically rigorous fields like Zoology , while others tend toward an Anthropological slant or even a Fortean perspective – however, cryptozoology is often considered a Pseudoscience by skeptical mainstream zoologists and biologists . Most criticism – and occasional ridicule – from the scientific mainstream is directed at proponents for the existence of the more "famous" mega-fauna cryptids (like s or Beetle s. As Dash writes, cryptozoologists focus their efforts towards "more elusive" creatures that have often defied decades' work aimed at confirming their existence, and which are furthermore regarded by mainstream scientists as the animals ''least'' likely to remain undetected. Mainstream scientific sceptics have argued that larger cryptids such as Bigfoot would not only have to evade close contact with humans to remain undiscovered, but would have to do so in great numbers in order to maintain a viable breeding population and Gene Pool of perhaps hundreds of the supposed creatureshttp://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/bfhunting.html. Despite cryptid sightings reported all over the world, and the supposed creatures' significant size, no unambiguous physical evidence (such as a specimen) has ever been presented of the more sensational cryptids. Sceptics also assert Sjögren, Bengt, ''Berömda vidunder'', Settern, 1980, ISBN 91-7586-023-6 that the legendary lake "monsters" thought to be Prehistoric reptiles would have to live undetected even in lakes too cold for any known aquatic reptiles – and with too little space and food to sustain a viable population. Aquatic animals with lungs like mammals and Plesiosaur s would need to surface for air, making their ability to remain undetected very unlikely. However, cryptozoologists do point out that much of the planet remains unexplored, especially deep oceans, and cryptozoological claims about oceanic species may be given more credence. By plotting the discovery rate of new species, PaxtonPaxton, C. G. M. 1998. A cumulative species description curve for large open water marine animals. ''Journal of the Marine Biologists Association'', U.K. 78, 1389-1391. found that as many as 47 large oceanic species remain undiscovered. Indeed, the comparatively recent discoveries of the Coelacanth and the Megamouth Shark show that large deep-sea animals can remain undetected. Cryptozoology supporters have noted that in the early days of , Giant Squid , Mountain Gorilla , Grizzly-polar Bear Hybrid and Komodo Dragon are but a few creatures whose existence was denied by reputable scientists, who often refused to consider the evidence seriously. Supporters also argue that the mainstream scientific response to much cryptozoology represents a frustrating ed articles on cryptozoological subjects in their rejections of the subject, yet, simultaneously, Scientific Journal s – the main forum for evaluation of scientific claims – mostly refuse to publish articles on cryptozoological matters. Additionally, supporters often argue that evidence is evaluated not on its merits or failings, but rather based on '' Ad Hominem '' opinions of researchers, or on prevailing Paradigm s or World View s. For example, scientists like Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum have cited ample physical evidence that they contend strongly supports the reality of Bigfoot . Yet despite the fact that Krantz and Meldrum are recognized experts in their fields, their arguments regarding Bigfoot have largely been ignored by other scientists. Another well-attested cryptid that was largely ignored by scientists was the so-called Minnesota Iceman of the 1960ssee Coleman and Clark, 1999, and the Minnesota Iceman page for more information, purportedly an unidentified hominid corpse inspected by two recognized experts, Sanderson and Huevelmans, who offered detailed descriptions and photos of the creature; despite their efforts and evangelizing the case, very few scientists expressed an interest. Sceptics of cryptozoolgy counter that their scepticism regarding the subject prevents an unwarranted flood of misidentified animal sightings attributed to cryptids. As in other fields, cryptozoologists are often responsible for disproving their own objects of study. For example, some cryptozoologists have collected evidence that disputes the validity of some facets of the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon.see ''The Sasquatch and other unknown hominoids''; Markotic, Vladimir and Grover Krantz, editors; Calgary : Western Publishers, 1984; and ''The Scientist looks at the Sasquatch II'', Sprague, Roderick and Grover S. Krantz, editors; and Napier, John Russel ''Bigfoot : the yeti and sasquatch in myth and reality'' New York : Dutton, 1973, c1972 There are several animals cited as examples for continuing cryptozoological efforts:
LIST OF CRYPTIDS See Also: List of Cryptids SEE ALSO
NOTES AND REFERENCES FURTHER READING
EXTERNAL LINKS Organizations
Lists and monster directories
|
|
|