Cryptozoology

[Chattiestspike2]

Cryptozoology is the study of mythical creatures that don't exist. To me, this sounds like a complete waste of time, energy, and money. Is there really a point to this field of study? I am open to have my mind changed because I honestly don't know. What do you guys think?

 

[TheExylos]

Cryptozoology (from Greek κρυπτός, kryptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals") refers to the search for animals which are considered to be legendary or otherwise nonexistent by mainstream biology. This includes looking for living examples of animals which are extinct, such as dinosaurs; as well as animals whose existence lacks physical support but which appear in myths, legends, or are reported, such as Bigfoot and Chupacabra;[1] and wild animals dramatically outside of their normal geographic ranges, such as phantom cats or "ABC"s (an acronym commonly used by cryptozoologists that stands for Alien Big Cats).


There is plenty of need for it, and its not a Fake science, it is there for a reason. With out it we would not know that a wood pecker that we had thought dead for 200 years was living in the rain forest.

 

[Chattiestspike2]

Cryptozoology (from Greek κρυπτός, kryptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals") refers to the search for animals which are considered to be legendary or otherwise nonexistent by mainstream biology. This includes looking for living examples of animals which are extinct, such as dinosaurs; as well as animals whose existence lacks physical support but which appear in myths, legends, or are reported, such as Bigfoot and Chupacabra;[1] and wild animals dramatically outside of their normal geographic ranges, such as phantom cats or "ABC"s (an acronym commonly used by cryptozoologists that stands for Alien Big Cats).


There is plenty of need for it, and its not a Fake science, it is there for a reason. With out it we would not know that a wood pecker that we had thought dead for 200 years was living in the rain forest.

Ok interesting. Well I stand corrected. Thank you

 

[grimord]

Cryptozoologists have actually discovered some species that were deemed "legend" or extinct. Can't really remember which but I know I found it out like one year ago by just googling a bit on the subject. Excuse me if I'm wrong but I believe the Giant Squids were one of those "legendary" animals that were discovered to, after all, be pretty much real.

 

[Brainwreck]

It may have nothing to do with this, but I saw a documentary once about Dragons. How their biology could be if they existed. Actually they even said a theory in which after they die their bones would be carbonized and that being the reason for not finding any bones to prove their existence even though the myth of dragons were practically all over the world.

I don't believe in dragons (lol) and it may be farfetched. But I believe we must cover it all, even what seems absurd, remember that in times thinking that the earth would move around the sun would be absurd. Give it a shot, research is always good.

 

[grimord]

Yet, there are many theories for the "legendary dragons". One of them, and to me the most probable, says that people might have found dinosaur bones all throughout history and, without understanding what they were, did what humanity does best: use their imagination.

Here's a little quote:

People have been finding dinosaur fossils for hundreds of years, probably even thousands of years. The Greeks and Romans may have found fossils, giving rise to their many ogre and griffin legends. There are references to "dragon" bones found in Wucheng, Sichuan, China (written by Chang Qu) over 2,000 years ago; these were probably dinosaur fossils.

Much later, in 1676, a huge thigh bone (femur) was found in England by Reverend Plot. It was thought that the bone belonged to a "giant," but was probably from a dinosaur. A report of this find was published by R. Brookes in 1763.

Source: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/First.shtml

 

[Laurens]

I think their efforts are commendable, if somewhat misdirected. They should, however, aim to discover genuine new species rather than look for non-existent mythical creatures.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Actual cryptozoology is a very important science. It's already made several important discoveries, and there's always a need for people willing to look for evidence where others only scoff. But the difficulty is in distinguishing the real cryptozoologists from the monster enthusiasts trying to pretend that they've proven that Bigfoot exists.

 

[Noscere]

I think Cryptozoology's 'credibility' would rest upon the methods used...

Confirming the existence of a species (simply yet unobserved alive/dead) or discovering new species can be done by experts in a field of study or by tripping over a fossil in your back yard.

Why even have such a field is my question...especially with a field beleaguered with hoax after hoax. Blindly chasing legends with no evidence makes me think pseudoscience.

What would the resume of a successful cryptozoologist even look like?

 

[simonecuttlefish]

It MUST be a real science! There is hours and hours of Loch Ness monsters, and leviathans and unicorns and dragons and T-Rexs fighting with humans in the DOCTOR Kent Hovind videos. And He's a DOCTOR so it must be true!

Kent Hovind Dinosaurs and the Bible (Part One of Sixteen!!1!!1!1!!!11!!!)

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

Cryptozoology isn't just about chasing legends, it's about looking for new species for which there is as yet only anecdotal evidence. This could be something as mundane as a species of frog that was previously undocumented by science.

The podcast MonsterTalk usually just deals sceptically with the more crazy myths, but this week they had an interview with actual scientist who amongst other things counts himself as a cryptozoologist. It was pretty interesting.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Cryptozoology is a real science, as has been pointed out already.

The discovery of the coelocanth would fall under this category.

This branch of science is not really about "legendary" animals - like dragons, etc - but about "hidden" ones: for example, there had been "legends" of "aggressive gorillas", which killed lions. These were discovered relatively recently and confirmed, with flatter faces and a more aggressive character.

There are also the new species of African elephant and orca.

In Central/South America, there are "legends" of a big cat which is leaner and more aggressive than the native ones - jaguar, puma, etc - which resembles the jaguarundi, called the onza.

Not to mention the British big cats - not so much the released/escaped animals, but the melanistic water/marsh cat in Scotland.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Cryptozoology is the study of mythical creatures that don't exist. To me, this sounds like a complete waste of time, energy, and money. Is there really a point to this field of study? I am open to have my mind changed because I honestly don't know. What do you guys think?

I'd argue that it's a SEARCH For such unproven Animals.

 

[borrofburi]

Cryptozoology is the study of mythical creatures that don't exist. To me, this sounds like a complete waste of time, energy, and money. Is there really a point to this field of study? I am open to have my mind changed because I honestly don't know. What do you guys think?

I'd argue that it's a SEARCH For such unproven Animals.

Congratulations, you bumped a thread that's been dead for eight months to point out something that's already been thoroughly clarified and discussed...

 

[Laurens]

*Applauds enthusiastically/mockingly*

 

[scalyblue]

[showmore=NSFW]



[/showmore]