We will have to agree to disagree on a lot of things we talked about here. Having said that, you made some good points, particularly with the comparative DNA findings from multiple physical samples (if the DNA found in many of those examples are of the same species, that can indeed be a big help, hence the Ketchum DNA project).

OK the DNA source was a tiny bit of bone presumably the top joint of a small child’s small finger, though it is described differently in different places and there doesn’t seem to be a picture on line though casts were taken. DNA was also taken from a tooth. These two specimens meant very little without the DNA analysis and currently there are other anomalous bits of bone of different sorts from the general area. Without Dna these also mean very little and at present they remain interesting but unimportant. Now if DNA is found and analysed from any of these there might be more transformations in their interest and importance. There seems to be huge potential from this area for further discoveries which might include some of the ‘relic hominoids’ of cryptozoological interest. These DNA results are what have enabled scientists to identify denisovan man and initiated the growth in science in this area and linking matters.

The ‘type specimen’ for denisovan man is minimal and in fact apparently it still not decided fully where denisovan man belongs . But whatever it is it is clear that the DNA is of fundamental importance and the basis for more and more knowledge to be gained.

If there is a similar position with bigfoot, though I suspect there will be much more in the way of a type specimen than the not much more than a tokens as with Denisovan man. Useful nonetheless as a focus for starters. By means of DNA, validation should be given to many bits and pieces which are thought to belong to bigfoot from old and new sources including hair. These should at some point provide overwhelming probability that bigfoot is real even without easy access to bigfoot and directly getting specimens.

I don’t think we should portray science and scientists as sitting on thrones in the halls of academia passing judgement on the work of lessor beings and never being satisfied with what pearls of knowledge are laid before them somehow being aloof from the process. What we should expect is scientists to say Oh my god there is clearly a real and wonderful phenomenon here and we better rush out and find out what it is before it’s too late! History will think we are amazingly delinquent if we do not.

This process seems to be happening at last and I am optimistic that the science will move on and produce something extraordinary. So value that strange DNA while you have the chance and what a chance!

The DNA was identified from a finger bone and a tooth, not a bone shard. And it was bone, not a hair or a tiny piece of skin. True, DNA has made certain physical remains more significant than in the past (these bones wouldn’t make much news without the DNA with them), but it still outweighs anomalous hairs, teeny-tiny pieces of flesh, and tracks and eyewitness testimony.

However, let’s say we find a finger bone and or a tooth of a large primate in north America, a fossil, or an ancient bone not fossilized yet ancient (ice age, 12,000 BC). Would this prove Sasquatch to the scientific community? Well they might be more inclined to think that at least a giant ape is the source of the Sasquatch story, but they might very well conclude that it died out at the end of the ice age like the Giant Short Faced Bear (which would eat Sasquatch for a midnight snack), Scimitar toothed cat and the Mastodon (the latter two were found in forested environments, and likewise their ranges included the Pacific Northwest and Florida, two major Sasquatch hotspots). But they could still wiggle their way out of the discovery by saying:

A. there is no evidence that it walked upright (only finger bone and or tooth found)
B. Since we do not have a body or major parts of one in modern times, its not behind the current Bigfoot phenomena: those are hoaxes and misidentifications!

The only way to counter that would be to then compare the DNA of the bones or teeth (if they indeed have DNA: if not, the following trick would be moot) with that of anomalous hairs and other physical remains. That would be significant. But to say that science should accept a new species of such controversy and long history of hoaxing based on DNA and insignificant remains (Hair and tiny skin pieces, or poo) is not going to happen.

However, if a finger bone or a tooth of a large unknown primate is found, and especially if the DNA found with the remains (if it has it) is also unknown, and the remains are fresh…then we would have proper evidence to convince scientists that we mean business. Heck if the tooth or finger bone prove identical or nearly so to ancient species (Gigantopithecus Blacki) then that alone would shoot down the skeptics. But there is still bones and teeth in our hypothetical scenario, not insignificant physical remains.

Don’t worry about a massive killing effort to bag a Sasquatch: most people when seeing such a beast do not shoot, and for good reason: what if its a man in a suit? What if its a protected species, like a Grizzly? Though I feel one of the best way to prove Sasquatch is by shooting one, most people won’t take that bait.

If you do not want to kill a Sasquatch yet want to prove its existence, you need to snag one alive: tranq it. However, it would most likely be subjected to life in captivity. Or you can find one dead, which would need either luck or divine intervention to happen.

But science is not all lovey dovey. Science involves harming animals on a daily basis, and if one has to die in order to be discovered, then so be it. No matter how you or I or anyone feels, TPTB will not change the requirement of a type specimen in order to add a new species.

This has been the litmus test Science has demanded of Bigfoot researchers and other cryptozoologists. Those that do not make the effort to do so are not doing real science.

Whatever Dr Meldrum wrote in 2007, in 2010 the denesovan was identified by the DNA from a shard of bone then from a tooth. I wouldn’t think these items would constitute a body or sufficiently diagnostic body part in the traditional sense but in the light of modern understanding and availabilty of DNA a pragmatic position has been taken. Thus (I haven’t checked) there should be a unique entry in Genbank for denesovan man.

Consequently, in my opinion a similar niche should be utilised for relic hominoids should we get reliable DNA results. In the case of Sasquatch there would be a huge evidential matrix plus doubtless physical evidence even if this may fall short of the ideal, which would be the body of a sasquatch in good condition which has died from natural causes having lead a life fulfilling its potential.

If scientists continue to demand a body they are authorising harm to Sasquatch on a massive scale with the certainty of much wounding and killing without even possibly getting their type specimen. They should establish a type specimen from what material they have like hair and bones linked by DNA. The type specimen subject to improvement over time from additional material.

This can and should be done!

I am interested in the S island NZ moose which is surprisingly rare though apparently present and which has been confirmed from DNA. If it was not a moose and something new it would in my opinion be another case where it could be recognized from the DNA even with the source of the DNA being its dung!

Scientists doing real science simply don’t do all this advance crowing. Another thing: they understand that you can’t have a positive DNA result for a species for which no type specimen exists.

But, since we want to have some serious discussion on this site, let’s talk about those human! not human! posts up there.

We don’t know precisely what the sasquatch is. We can’t; we don’t have a type specimen. Primate seems reasonable. So does ape. The evidence allows intelligent speculation along those lines. But facts follow the type specimen.

I do think the evidence allows this intelligent speculation: if this sucker’s real, it ain’t Homo sapiens.

But that doesn’t mean that “human” can be ruled out utterly. Nor can a new branch of the primate tree, something that isn’t ape nor human. That sort of thing is routine in zoology.

We consider a number of fossil primates in the human lineage that, if someone saw one today, the sighting would wind up on a bigfoot database. (If the sighter ever talked, of course.) If and when this animal – these animals; who knows how many species we may eventually decide there are? – is confirmed, we may see the entire primate fossil record in a new light.

Betting, though, that this is a dead end. History simply suggests that.

Here are some quotes from Meldrum’s book about the need of physical proof beyond DNA;

“For this to be a real science you’ve got to have a body. That’s the way it works.”
Sasquatch, Legend meets Science, page 273, quoting Michael Shermer (though a famous debunker, see what Meldrum says right afterwards on the same page (see below).

“I should reiterate my acknowledgement that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species. On this point Shermer is in principle quite correct.”
lbid

“Cleary the question of Sasquatch’s existence is unlikely to be resolved conclusively without physical evidence. The conventions of zoological Taxonomy require a type specimen, traditionally in the form of a body or a sufficiently diagnostic physical body part, to decisively establish the existence of a new species. Whether DNA alone will ultimately satisfy that standard remains to be seen. I am doubtful. I am not aware of a precedent for determining a new species on the basis of DNA evidence, in the absence of a physical specimen. Subpopulations of recognized species have been differentiated based on DNA sequence differences and been given species status, but those subpopulations were previously known and sampled.”
ilbid, pages 269-270

Notice he is a bit open minded like you are about a possible change in taxonomic standards, but he is doubtful. He goes on to state that DNA evidence is a major target short of a body or significant part of one.

“While an indeterminate identification of an alleged “Sasquatch hair” is interpreted by some as indication of an unknown animal, it is more conservatively regarded by others as the lack of a comprehensive collection of hair samples from known species of animals with which to compare the strand in question. Indeed this would be the only reasonable outcome for hair that might in fact have come from a Sasquatch. Al that could be concluded is what species the hair did not appear to belong to. Conclusive identification depends on a match to a known sample of hair , i.e., an established standard. Without a confirmed sample of Sasquatch hair, any hair truly originating from a Sasquatch would necessarily languish in the indeterminate category. Such a standard is unlikely to be acknowledged until hair is pulled directly from a Sasquatch body by a qualified analyst.”
Ilbid, pages 261-262

Now if it were up to me, the fact that there are indeterminate hairs found of unknown species would get me on the ball to dig further, to see if there is some unknown species of animal from where the hair was found (anything from an unknown primate to a new species of squirrel, depending on what the DNA revealed about the owner of that hair). But I am not a scientist, and TPTB (the powers that be) in Science will continue to grow fat and lazy until proper evidence is rubbed in their face and shoved down their throat! Sorry, but I get irritated at the pseudo-skepticism of some scientists.

This is why a body, major part of a body, or a live specimen is needed. The Erickson Project, if it has access to at least major body parts, has already won the battle (pending if the remains prove legit). DNA will be icing on the cake, but it is just the icing.

I cannot think of one instance where a new species was accepted by science based on a photograph or a track. Can’t think of one accepted by science based on Skin and hair either (Though “Skin and Hair” should be clarified: a pelt, a large amount of skin and hair, would indeed suffice. There is I believe a reward for the full hide of a super anaconda, for example, and the Saola was originally proven based on a pelt. But miniscule amounts of hair, skin, especially for something as controversial as Sasquatch, will not cut the mustard, no matter how good the DNA.). Jeff Meldrum has also stated that he knows no known process of accepting a new species based on DNA alone.

Now when it comes to Bones: Yes, a pelt would be as valuable as bones, but bones will outweigh any miniscule amount of skin or hair. And remember: without the bones discovered of the Denisovans, there would be no DNA available to prove their existence. I’m not even sure they would have accepted the Denisovans as a new species of Hominin if they got the DNA from tiny traces of skin tissue or remnants of blood (possibly, but You never know: Scientists will drag their feet. And Bigfoot is far harder for TPTB to accept than a New Species of Asian Hominid).

True, DNA have made species identification better, sharper, but for Sasquatch and other cryptids, without physical remains to back them up, any DNA result is ignored. Jeff Meldrum has hairs on physical display somewhere that have turned up unusual DNA that cannot be pinned down. There was even supposed Yeti DNA that was found in Asia that was likewise unidentifiable. Neither of these led to Science saying “I give I give!”

And for the Bigfoot community comments: Forgive my vagueness: I meant the usual scientific community, i.e. the usual suspects, if you will. They are the target audience one must prove Sasquatch to. They are the ones whose opinion matters in terms of Taxonomy. And they will not take anomalous DNA, no matter how advanced such DNA research is now: they will only take a body, major parts of a body, or a live specimen. Mr. Coleman will tell you that, Michael Shermer will tell you that, Jeff Meldrum will tell you that. TPTB will keep nodding their heads no, putting their fingers in their ears, singing “Koombayah, My Lord, Koombayah!” and dancing in wooden cloggers, until they are slapped in the face with the proper physical evidence.

I think historically new species have been identified in the past by very little such as a drawing or a photo. etc. No bag of bones or body or skull etc. needed. The denesova bits of bone meant very little until along came the DNA tests which meant everything and allowed Svante Sabo to propose a new species from sophisticated multiple tests and interpretations initially from the finger bone then the other bits. Until that point they were just bits of bone subsequently being linked with a tooth found much early and not identified. If you can appreciate the richness of information available now and in the future with the potential for whole body details hidden in the fully documented DNA of denesovan man you will appreciate how important and crucial it was in giving denesovan man an ID! It was not the bones that did it!

With Bigfoot there is a gigantic body of information giving a context and a matrix a which denesovan man does not have-unless it is one of the relic hominoids? If DNA is now discovered sourced from the many putative bigfoot samples then this would be wonderful and tremendously important as was the denesovan mans DNA. and it could and should do the same for bigfoot as was done for denesovan man. I am sure many more physical samples are available from bigfoot remains like skin and hair and teeth and bones and these could add to the evidence when identified by DNA

Anyway why shouldn’t skin for example be as good as bits of bone in helping identify bigfoot. You state the ‘bigfoot community’ wont accept anything less than a body, certainly some will not but a lot will! Clearly the ‘bigfoot community had to accept the evidence for denesovan man as they must when the DNA results come through and they are marshaled along with the vast body of evidence already available. It would be perverse to do anything else

Of course peer review is not perfect it much depends on the people who do it, sometimes they are sort of clones of the author where independence of thought is needed. Either to trim the report or refute it. But it seems like a useful tool giving international if not infallible credibility. It can be wrong both in being for or against. I think the latter has been more likely regarding bigfoot for many years but now the tide is turning, but either way it is not the final word.

Incidentally, I understood Dr. Wakefield’s work was to try to explain medical problems being suffered by children including a huge increase in autism in terms of the MMR vaccine. He was eventually condemned because he was regarded as using unethical methods. I am unaware of the grounds being fraudulent. The huge increase in autism has still not been explained.