What do you think about the Cryptozoology, have you read anything on this? Do you like this topic?

Answer 1

I think cryptozoology is very cool because I think it will never end. I had a friend that was very into cryptozooology and he always had something new to say about the topic. It may be one of the most interesting things a human can gain knowledge on

Answer 2

Cryptozoology is just nonsense for the gillible and those too lazy or ignorant to understand real zoology.

We'd better define our terms first. From the Skeptic's Dictionary:

Cryptozoology is, literally, the study of hidden animals. It is the study of such creatures as the Australian bunyips, Bigfoot, the chupacabra, and the Loch Ness monster. It is not a recognized branch of the science of zoology.

You can get a glimpse into this if you visit the website of Loren Coleman, a self-proclaimed cryptozoologist, giving advice on entering the field:

But I'm sorry to say that there are very few classes ever given in cryptozoology (I taught one in 1990) and no formal cryptozoology degree programs available anywhere. So my advice would be to pick whatever subject you are most passionate about (primates? felids? giant squids? fossil men?) and then match it up with the field of study that matches that subject (anthropology, zoology, linguistics, etc.). Pursue that subject, pick the college that is good in that arena, and you can develop your niche in cryptozoology and not go wrong. (I studied anthropology/zoology, and then moved on to more psychological graduate studies to understand the human factor.)

That pretty much sums it up. These folks do not get grants specifically to look for mythical beasts. The scientific grant review process is arduous and extremely critical, and any legitimate scientist would immediately reject searches for yetis, etc., as total nonsense. However, if you write a research proposal saying something like, "The Mgwango tribe of equatorial Africa believes that a large, brontosaurus-like beast called mokele-mbembe lives in their forest, and I wish to go to Africa to investigate this tribe," you might actually get a grant for it--not because the grantors believe you're going to discover a brontosaurus, but because you're promising to find out why the Mgwango tribe believes there's such a beast in their forest, which is an interesting bit of anthropology. If that qualifies as "goofy," then the entire anthropological profession would qualify, I suppose.

In other words, the anthropological side of this research is legitimate. But once someone starts calling themselves a cryptozoologist instead of an anthropologist, they've departed the realm of science. Don't get me wrong. Only a fraction of the world's species have been described in the scientific literature, and new critters are being discovered all the time, mostly tiny ones--bugs and worms and such. Finding more is a serious scientific project. But to go after legendary megafauna chiefly because they're legendary, without any real evidence that they exist--I'm sorry, this is the work of crackpots.

Jes said:>>>>One of my dearest friends from college has been
>>>>> working for years with a recently discovered primarily
>>>>>bipedal anthropoid primate in central Africa ...this
>>>>> primate... now it is fact.

This is total nonsense.

There is only one bipedal anthropid on this planet: Homo sapiens. There are no others, recently discovered or otherwise. Any such discovery would be front page news in every newspaper on Earth.

Jes is simply making this up, as cryoptozoology fans so often do. No such creature is known to science.

There is evidence of a troupe of slightly larger than normal chimps that were "discovered" in Africa some 70 years ago and photographed some 5 years ago, but they are in no way "primarily bipedal", in fact they have never been observed to move on two legs, ever.

Nor were these creatures subjects of horror stories. To the contrary, they are and always have been considered to be game animals and are frequently killed and eaten by local hunters.

Please Jes, try to stick to the facts and don't just, make things up that sound interesting. This sort of nonsense is all the evidence anyone needs to demonstrate that cryptozoology is only endorsed by those extremely ignorant of real zoology.

Answer 3

I think cryptozoology is incredibly interesting. It is also completely possible for there to be undiscovered species on the planet with us. People were discovering new animals in the early 1900s, it is impossible for us to have already come across and catalogged every creature currently in existence.

Answer 4

In terms of things like sasquatch/yeti, etc it would be interesting to pursue the claims of such species in the attempt of verification. For me, as a cultural anthropologist rather than a physical anthropologist, I would be more interested in the legends themselves and the settings in which they arise and are propogated.

In terms of unverified species that are 'discovered' but not specifically studied as of yet - it is a quite interesting field, especially in terms of physical anthropology and primatology.

One of my dearest friends from college has been working for years with a recently discovered primarily bipedal anthropoid primate in central Africa with some of the foremost researchers in the field (Shelley Williams primarily, though she has met with Jane Goodall as well because she is doing side work with bonobos).

This primate, for centuries, was the subject of legend and horror story in the central rainforest belt of Africa. Now it is fact. Pretty cool stuff!

Answer 5

It's interesting, but I could never be a Cryptozoologist.

Answer 6

i like the idea that man has not discovered all the worlds hidden secrets i';m facinated with big foot and nessie's