Comments on: Cryptozoology’s Subdivisions

By: TheLibrarian

TheLibrarian — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:37:55 +0000

May I humbly suggest that your definition be submitted to Wikipedia? Really, improving available resources on the internet begins with concerned experts. While someone googling would hopefully find your site, many go straight to Wiki for information more and more.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:33:35 +0000

cryptozoologyshop- That’s a good one. I myself am interested in folklore and mythology in relation to real creatures both known and unknown. Fascinating stuff to me.

By: cryptozoologyshop

cryptozoologyshop — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 02:37:57 +0000

I personally study what I call ‘cryptomythology’ or sometimes ‘zoomythology’. The study of mythology as it relates to animals cryptozoological, zoological, and mythological.

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:30:26 +0000

Well said, Terry W. Colvin. My sentiments exactly. Diversity is what it’s all about.

By: DinomanPhil

DinomanPhil — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:17:17 +0000

Hello Loren!

Another branch of cryptozoology is the study of dinosaurian cryptids. I guess some people would call it draconology though.

By: Terry W. Colvin

Terry W. Colvin — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:26:28 +0000

Defining and naming subdivisions of cryptozoology reflects on the personality, interests, and education of the individual making same. This is essentially lumpers or splitters territory, or if you prefer, generalists and specialists. Bottom line: diversity of opinions adds much to the fray.

By: DWA

DWA — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:37:55 +0000

Lisa Shiel:

Cryptozoology is a branch of zoology.

And just because a bunch of astronomers took a vote using some goofy definitions doesn’t mean Pluto isn’t a planet.

If you get my general drift.

By: DWA

DWA — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:21:17 +0000

M_m: points taken.

And remember; I never said “always.” Just “too much to suit me.”

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:49:12 +0000

DWA- I certainly agree that there can be some frustrating close mindedness within the scientific community. However, I think we should not be too hasty to brush off all of mainstream scientists as having a need not to believe. I think that there are scientists out there who have no problem believing in marvels, the thing is that they do not have the luxury of coming forward and presenting such ideas to their peers without concrete proof. Some cryptozoological claims do not sit well with what is known about the natural world and no matter how much a scientist might think these things are possible, to claim these things requires they have to show why a theory holds water. They are required to provide physical evidence that is irrefutable and can stand up to critical scrutiny, and unfortunately there is a lack of such evidence a lot of the time in this field.

So I do think there are a lot of scientists that are willing to believe. It’s just that they work in an area that places a high premium on tangible, reproducible results. A person who wants to believe can speculate all they want with fellow cryptozoologists and have few repercussions. A mainstream scientist, if they want funding and to be taken seriously, must present some extraordinary things to show why something is not the way our current scientific knowledge tells us it is. If this happens, I think you’ll find scientists very willing to study these things. Who WOULDN’T want to be in on such epic finds? So while some in a scientific field may seem to be dismissive, I have a slightly different perspective on why that might be.

This is not a defense of some of the inflexible dogma that can pop up, just an appeal that not all scientists are neccesarily naysayers.

By: LAShiel

LAShiel — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:14:13 +0000

I hate to burst your collective bubble, but cryptozoology is not a branch of zoology. Just because the users of a discussion board think it is does not make it so.

Look at these sites for a list of the real subdivisions of zoology:

International Society of Zoological Sciences
http://www.globalzoology.org/index-new/branches-of-zoology.htm

Course offerings in zoology at Michigan State University
https://www.reg.msu.edu/read/UCC/Updated/nsczol.pdf

I could list more, but these prove the point pretty well. We may all wish cryptozoology would become a branch of science, but it just ain’t so…yet.

Lisa A. Shiel
Bigfoot Quest blog
http://www.BigfootQuest.com