Did you ever get the feeling that traditional taxonomy is straining under the limitations and shortcomings of an out-dated system? We say species in just about every sentence we speak, yet we still can’t adequately agree on a definition of what one is? Some say that it is a species if it can only breed with itself…well, that would mean that there’s no difference between Lions and Tigers, which is clearly nonsense. Heck, there’s a fish that breeds only with a related “species”, using their males to stimulate the production of an egg that is genetically-identical to its mother. How do you classify that? It CAN’T breed with itself (All females), but it exists.
Now, I’m not one to say we need to chuck the whole system out, but a revamp does seem overdue. Some scientists HAVE actually suggested replacing it (The International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature), which has placed them in a defensive position. My understanding of their Phylocode is that it appears much more like a revamp, placing genetic similarities above traditional physical ones in importance. None of this, of course, helps our case much at all.

Lamarkable, you mentioned the “us” or “them” polemic within Ufologists and other groups. It seems to me that even though the majority of the beliefs of the population lie well within the middle ground, we only ever hear about the fanatics at both extremes, regardless of topic. America has become polarized, or at least that’s the impression one gets from the news. Not to get too off-topic, but do you think the radicals just shout louder than the moderates, or is it more the case of the media over-simplifying issues by only talking with the totally yes and totally no people?
Craig, Loren, etc., you’ve all certainly had plenty of experience with representatives from the media, both good and bad, I’m sure, it would be interesting to hear your take on it…

Recently, ‘mobbing’ behavior is becoming part of the sociological vocabulary. This is a term taken from biology, such as when crows ‘mob’ an owl. A member of faculty who doesn’t fit in, who doesn’t conform, who is some how eccentric, or foreign, or outside the envelope, will suffer all kinds of petty harassment, leading up to false charges if necessary, in order to be expelled from the faculty.

Scientists face this. Any university professor with some time on the job, will be very sensitive and effective in navigating these treacherous waters.

As a result, not refuting a new monkey in Africa, is a much less risky business than showing any indication of taking north American apes or plesiosaurs seriously. IIRC, Jane Goodall once indicated interest in North American Apes, but then pulled out. It is not unreasonable to suppose she became concerned that showing up and becoming a participant, would seriously damage her scientific reputation, and the chance to receive grants to continue her research.

It isn’t so much that scientists are biggoted, but that they are -scared-.

That is why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - it isn’t a rule of logic, it is contrary to the rules of logic, but it does fit the nature of human behavior.

Which is why capturing or even shooting a north American ape is necessary, and photos, track casts, faeces, and hairs of undetermined primate origin are not enough.

I’m hesitant on shooting because we don’t know how intelligent they are, some have reported the feeling that they would have committed murder if they’d fired.

Capturing though rather more difficult, is I think safer, with such a small population that killing might lead towards extinction. We can calculate the body weight, extrapolate on primate metabolism, and have a reasonably appropriate dosage.

Normally, observing a colony would be better, but if they are solitary, like most orangutans, then that becomes non-feasible.

If they exist. The Bili ape required a great deal of evidence, and wasn’t really accepted until it was declared a chimp - something already well-known to exist.

The ivory-bill is another example. Even with observation and photographs by credentialed experts, it is still widely rejected in the ornithological community.

Peer review is a valuable scientific tool, but not when groupthink and various agendas prevent certain ideas and evidence from even being reviewed.

Peer review may be seen as a “backlash” or even hostile, but it is an essential part of the process.

The final phase of the over-all process is the integration of knowledge into a consensus among professionals — even then, there will be refinements or even “competing” theories before something becomes accepted (somewhat universally) as fact.

Dr. John MacKinnon of the WWF once spotted what he thought might be the footprints of an unidentied primate of the orang-pendek type, and he meets anyone’s criteria for an expert witness, but he didn’t photograph or cast the prints, so the enounter remains a mystery.

Someone on this list claimed he knew qualified biological scientists who had seen sasquatch. OK, who are they? (Matt Johnson is a psychologist, which gives him reliability points, but does not make him a primatologist.)

To get back to the original point, while there are only a couple of degreed experts actually looking for sasquatch, establishing the species without a body will take more than we need for a new monkey in Africa. It will take a combination of expert witnesses and good video evidence taken by, or in the presence of, experts who have no stake in it.

Read Gallagher’s book, The Grail Bird, on the ivory-bill. Solid sightings by experts were dismissed. It took expert sightings plus a video to get the rediscovery announced, and there is still a strong backlash from equally qualified experts saying the rediscovery was error and wishful thinking.

So even photographic/video evidence, unless from a source that is not affiliated with cryptozoology, is unlikely to be enough. That means, if sasquatch exists, the only things that will prove that to general scientific satisfaction are a tissue sample and/or video from a disinterested yet expert source (for example, if biologists out documenting the Oregon bear population were to film one and be willing to stand up and say so.) Even if one presumes the critter is real, it may be a very long spell before the right kind of proof comes in.

Matt Bille

Im not sure anyone, and certainly not everyone has been “Bashing” Chow here. The debate was simply one of accepted validity of similar evidence from what seem like only subtley different fields - BF versus kipunji.

And still I see the persistence of a “us” vs. “them” mentality and terms like “mainstream science”. Surely this only acts to ostracize those who seek credibility.

Mr. Chow has clearly stated that he doesn’t have the rights to the pictures - the photographer does. So this is really outside his control. I think he has been nice in giving people connected to this site the “inside scoop” and even guiding Peter Loh’s courtroom sketch-quality drawings. I don’t think its productive or very polite to bash him, seeing as how he seems to be doing everything in his power to feed quality information to us. I realize its difficult to be patient and wait for the breakthrough that’s said to be coming, but that’s the best course. (I also think it’s a good idea to temper one’s expectations, because a lot of expected breakthroughs seem to fall through in this field.)

Chymo-

A trained primatologist had an encounter with Orang Pendek. I don’t know her qualifications, but there doesn’t seem to be a rush to accepting the existence of that cryptid since then. In fact another poster stated recently on another thread that someone with academic credentials tried to submit a journal article on Orang Pendek and was basically suppressed as well.

So I tend to think that with the more “fantastic” cryptids - i.e. anything large or anything that would qualify as a member of the ape family - the “mainstream” scientific community would have to be virtually beaten over the head with very strong evidence. Basically, the equivalent of a Barbara Walters interview.