Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 1

message: Okapi wasn't disbelieved by Western scientists, they just hadn't heard of it. (The platypus, on the other hand, was first thought to be a fraud by Europeans who were sent stuffed specimens.) Oh, and can you identify yourself if you write long entries that start "I'm not going to tolerate". --Vicki Rosenzweig
:This isn't exactly true; initial reports of the okapi were dismissed by the vast majority of scientists as nothing more than native folklore; even the few who took it seriously as a real animal believed it was a species of primitive horse. Another good example is the Mountain Gorilla, the existence of which was utterly ridiculed (natives called it the 'great forest ogre'). 80.255 07:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okapi & Platypus 

message: Where are the angels, demons, djinn, devas, Tennin and so forth from religion and mythology? Is this the wrong page for them, or what? Sam Spade  21:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly don't merge. Take a look at Draco's response in the above paragraph. While it is difficult to define the organisms appropriate for cryptozoology (this happens way too arbitrarily btw, i.e. not scientifically valid), there must be some occasional "reporting" and "credibility". Mythologies of nature-people (cfr. papoeas or pygmies...ebu gogo etc.) are looked at in a very different way as those of non-nature-people (the rest of the world, including your angels, djinnis etc.). There is also a huge difference between heathen, folk and urban mythology and religion (and Dungeons and Dragons). But then still... the Beast of Bodmin and Gévaudan, Nessie, giant cats in England etc. are western things. Kaboldermannikin ort whatnot are folk mythology but imho have no place in this list. Phlebas 13:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritual entities 

message: *Legendary creatures
*List of legendary creatures
*Index of fictional species
*List of species in folklore and mythology
Should these pages be merged?
Sam Spade  21:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly don't merge. Take a look at Draco's response in the above paragraph. While it is difficult to define the organisms appropriate for cryptozoology (this happens way too arbitrarily btw, i.e. not scientifically valid), there must be some occasional "reporting" and "credibility". Mythologies of nature-people (cfr. papoeas or pygmies...ebu gogo etc.) are looked at in a very different way as those of non-nature-people (the rest of the world, including your angels, djinnis etc.). There is also a huge difference between heathen, folk and urban mythology and religion (and Dungeons and Dragons). But then still... the Beast of Bodmin and Gévaudan, Nessie, giant cats in England etc. are western things. Kaboldermannikin ort whatnot are folk mythology but imho have no place in this list. Phlebas 13:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger?

message: umm...
Aquatic Ground Bat??? That has to be a joke...
Amazingly enough, I got a hit for it: 
  http://www.cryptozoology.com/gallery/display_picture.php?id=1992
Anyone got a 1979 National Geographic to check this against? PerlKnitter 12:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aquatic Ground Bat 

message: What is folk's opinions on having all those names in the lists wiki'ed?  If there is an article on them I can understand that, but otherwise its a bunch of red links or ambiguous links.  For example, Bessie is linked though Bessie is a disambiguation page with no article for Bessie (Lake Erie Monster) or whatever.
I can understand if the contributing editors to this page want to have the red links to remind folks that some articles haven't been written here. --Syrthiss 19:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikis in the lists? 

message: Who is the admin for this page?  I want to be able to submit edits and not find them all gone
the next day.
I am a major, well-known cryptozoologist, and curator of a CZ museum 
Jon-Erik Beckjord
beckjord
Beckjord 21:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not exist for people to present their own opinions. See the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Furthermore, Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, so your changes very well may disappear right away -- that's the whole point of this place. If you are doing things that violate policies, as apparently you are from the edits I have seen, your edits will be undone, regardless of how important you think you are (and a quick Google search shows you to be far more famous for causing trouble than for making valuable contributions to anything). Go to the Community Portal link on the left and learn how this place works. DreamGuy 07:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beckjord comment

message: is it possible an expert on the subject resort the list into animals that might possibly exist (living tasmanian tigers, hobbit humans, giant sloths, chupacabra etc) from mythical and folklorish animals (goatman, lizardman, devil bird etc.) --Phil 18:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is basically only a matter of opinion as to whether some cryptids are more likely than others. What can be done, however, is to remove some creatures which clearly are not a genuine unknown species. I would highly suggest removing the cabbit, hyote, squitten, winged cats, and the jackalope since they are merely deformed animals of a known species. And yes, rabbits with horn like growths due to disease have existed, but are certainly not cryptids. Other than that, the list is fine (though a bit short). Cameron 00:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorting 

message: There have been a lot of additions to the list of cryptids, but a great portion of them are questionable. If there is no mention of any possible sightings in the link, I think that is grounds for deletion, at least temporarily. Also, I think that some folklore-type animals are deletable because their "types" are already being covered (Wendigo-->Bigfoot, Behemoth-->Living Dinosaurs, etc). Currently I am considering the deletion of: Humanzee, Unicorn/Elasmotherium, Leviathan, Passenger pigeon, Hoop Snake, Dodo, Carolina Parakeet, Elephant Bird, Harpagornis, Great auk, Drop bear, Behemoth. If anybody has any reasons why these should be considered cryptids and should remain on the list, please discuss it here and please don't start any revert wars. Cameron 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well here are my reasons for why those "cryptids" should not be on the list. The "humanzee" is a hypothetical creature made from two known creatures, and is not consistent with the usual meaning of "cryptid". Several of the extinct animals (Elephant Bird, Harpagornis, Seriema) are known from no sightings whatsoever and are not present on any of the cryptid lists, which I think is certainly sufficient grounds for deletion. There have been proposals for late surviving passenger pigeons, carolina parakeets, dodos, and great auks, but I have not seen it proposed for them to survive to the modern day. I suppose "just to be safe" they should be kept on the list. The drop bear and hoop snakes are fairly folklorish animals (about on the same level as the wild haggis) and the fact that they aren't mentioned on two extremely extensive cryptid lists is grounds for deletion for me. The purple kangaroo is more of a "forgotten" animal, and since it is a real animal with a valid scientific name (Petrogale purpureicollis) now it shouldn't be on a list of unknown animals either. Cameron 06:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't there be some distinction made between extinct known animals that are thought by some to still exist and animals whose existance has never been proved? Penismightierthanthesword 22:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, do you think putting a note in parentheses would be appropriate, or should another category be established? Cameron 15:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: User:70.226.159.194 is yet another another vandal and I would also recommend reverting anything he/she does in the future. Cameron 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding and deleting cryptids 

message: Have any animals which were labeled under cryptozoology turned out to be real?  Any?  At all?  Real as in they exist now, as opposed to being extinct.
:The onza cat was a creature (a strange puma) that was known from historical reports and had a book written on it by Robert E. Marshall in '61. However, I cannot find any references to Marshall being aware of cryptozoology, or anyone calling themself a cryptozoologist regarding this animal as a "cryptid" before its discovery in '86. Cryptozoologists often claim some discoveries as being successes despite them not being involved, such as the Vu Quang ox, the mountain gorilla, giant squid, coelacanth, et cetera. Long answer short: no. Cameron 15:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results? 

message: I've created the subsections "Former cryptids", "Previously thought extinct", and "Discredited" under the "Noted cryptids" section for creatures that don't (or no longer) fit the strict definition of cryptids but are of cryptozoological interest.  --Coyoty 02:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cryptozoological interest

message: 202.152.162.215, I can't find any reference to a giant koala sighting on the species' page, not can I find any reference to it on cryptid lists. Can you list any references to sightings of this creature? Cameron 16:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Giant koala?

message: Has there been documentation that it still exists?  I can't find anything on the web that there is.  --Coyoty 19:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have heard that referenced in a few books, namely Richard Ellis' Monsters of the Sea and Coleman/Huyghe's Field Guide to Sea Serpents (I mentioned it on the Sea Serpent page). There supposedly have been vague sightings not only off it's old territory as well, but also in the Arctic and Greenland. So I think it's definitely worth keeping. Cameron 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth keeping, but until there's confirmed evidence it's still around, its status is the same as the thylacine's, and shouldn't be under "Previously thought extinct".  I'll move it.  --Coyoty 15:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh, I screwed up. I was thinking of how steller's sea cow was basically a "prehistoric survivor" when it was found, sorry for misinterpreting the category there! Cameron 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steller's Sea Cow

message: I'd like to suggest that you have a seperate section for animals that were known to have existed and are now presumed to be extinct. The "bold" is not visible through the hypertext and is therefore a bad way of distinguising those animals. Since these animals were known to have existed at one time, they should not be in the same category as animals who cannot definitively have been said to ever exist. Otherwise, viewers may get confused and think that these animals also cannot be definitively said to have existed.
I'd think it would be better just to write something befor or after the name such as ex.-Nintendonien 22:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold for Presumed Extinct Animals Not Visible

message: I added Deinotherium and mammoth to the cryptids, since Bernard Heuvelmans covered them both in his "On the Track of Unknown Animals". (Danielos2). 16 feb 2006.
:Heuvelmans did briefly mention it as a "water-lion" candidate, but he never seems to have mentioned it again (it wasn't on his cryptid list). I was under the impression that the reports were widely regarded as "saber toothed cats", so maybe if there is an article on their possible survival, the "elephant" theory could be mentioned. I'm very uneasy about putting up individual candidates for reports under the cryptid list, and I think that the different opinion would be better discussed under a native name, hence I deleted the "deinotherium". Cameron 14:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New additions

message: I'll reiterate why this is not a former cryptid:
* Cryptids are initially known from inconclusive evidence.
* The first record of this species is an unintentional discovery by Le Souef. There is no indication that sightings ever took place before the discovery. His evidence was conclusive and unambiguous enough to name a new species (probably carcasses). 
* Nobody has ever expressed disbelief in this animal (neck pigment is present on other species), the only discussions over it were regarding which subspecies it belonged to, or if it should be its own species.
So I think it would be somewhat dishonest to proclaim this a former cryptid since it implies that this is a sort of "victory" for cryptozoology, when it really isn't. It's fairly weak supporting evidence of the notion of large "megamonsters" still roaming about unnoticed, since this species is small and easy to confuse for others (and it was discovered 8 decades ago). I think that putting it in that category is really a stretch, and I think that there are better examples. Cameron 21:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One example of what I would consider appropriate is the Lord Howe's Stick Insect. The species was widely assumed to be extinct, but there were reports of the creature and enigmatic droppings, and it was eventually re-discovered. The story is covered on page 6 of this issue of NABR. I'll try and find some more examples of what can fit into this category. Cameron 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the "Purple Kangaroo" is not a former cryptid

message: Re. the statement in the article:  "A cryptozoologist may propose that an interest in reports of animals does not entail belief, but a detractor might counter that accepting unsubstantiated sightings is itself a belief." -- It seems to me, from my (not very extensive) reading in other sources as well as from various comments in this discussion page, that "accepting" is an incorrect term.  I think it is correct, as a general statement, that "accepting unsubstantiated sightings is itself a belief."  But in this context, my understanding is that serious cryptozoologists do not "accept" unsubstantiated sightings; instead, they try to determine whether reported sightings can be substantiated by scientific methods.  In other words, cryptozoologists keep an open mind, which is different from believing without corroborating evidence.  So how about changing "accepting unsubstantiated sightings" to something like "accepting the possibility of unsubstantiated sightings"? --Which is a cumbersome phrase, I know. Does anyone else have any ideas, or am I parsing the text too closely? Z Wylld 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just changed it to "accepting unsubstatiated sightings without skepticism".  I hope that makes it clearer.  --Coyoty 15:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in a way.  I get what you mean, but actually I don't think "accepting without skepticism" makes sense, because one can't really accept something while being skeptical about it.  Acceptance is based on either faith (or trust, if you will) or evidence (from research or some verifiable/corroborated experience).  A skeptic doesn't accept something on faith, but will only credit evidence.  So a serious cryptozoologist would proceed with healthy skepticism. Z Wylld 16:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity in criticisms?

message: I got most of them sorted out, but there are some which I'm not so sure of. I'm not sure what to do with the "humanzee", it doesn't really even seem to qualify as a "Cryptid" to me anyways, more or less just a theoretical creature. The Minnesota iceman should probably be left in this category, since there is discussion as to whether he came overseas or not. Moehau appears to be a place name in New Zealand, can anybody find references to the name being applied to a hominid?Cameron 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknown residences

message: On a somewhat related topic to the one above, what are people's feelings on talking about classification systems? A "neo-giant" is a propesed category by Sanderson/Hall/Coleman/Huyghe et cetera for hominids on multiple continents. Should cryptozoology on wikipedia discuss these classifications, or should we continue to write pages on local outcroppings of the phenomenon? On the "Sea Serpent" page I wrote up about all of the major classification systems, but the hominid coverage isn't as centralized and I think it could be a lot harder to do. Any ideas or suggestions?Cameron 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification systems

message: Most of this article consist of several long lists. The lists are great, but maybe it could be a good idea to move all those "notable cryptids" to a new separate article linked from this site. Then we could concentrate on giving more text-background to cryptozoology and the justifications and criticism of it in this article. What do you think? --Danielos2 21:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a good idea to me, it definitely seems like the lists of cryptids can be very distracting. Out of curioustiy, do you think that we should start being a little more critical of what is a cryptid on the list? I mean, a lot of the separate listing (especially for hominids) appear to just be regional variations. Cameron 22:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion