Comments on: Cryptozoology, Cryptid and Hominology

By: SOCALcrypto

SOCALcrypto — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:15:42 +0000

Once again Loren does a great gob in describing the beginnings of these words and the men responsible for them. Although Bernard and Ivans books are great early readings on these subjects and terminology. I tend to go back to Loren Coleman and Patrick Huyghes book ” The Field Guide to Bigfoot And Other Mystery Primates”. This is a great reference book describing these upright creatures including their class, type and distinguishing characteristics. A must have book, in my opinion, on these creatures.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:47:18 +0000

While Colvin’s comment is not outside the emotional feelings I share for the importance of Bernard Heuvelmans, part of the problem is that in such a view of history (“shared coinage”), the appearance is given that this happened concurrently. But, indeed, Sanderson’s articles in 1947-1948 inspired Heuvelmans, who was searching for what he should do as a science writer next, to take on the quest of cryptozoology.

I’m certainly happy Heuvelmans did, but Sanderson was the mentor who became Heuvelmans’ colleague.

Of course, Sanderson acknowledged the significance of others, literally godparents and grandparents of cryptozoology, who created a foundation of “romantic zoology,” long before the humble beginnings of “cryptozoology” by Sanderson and Heuvelmans.

By: Terry W. Colvin

Terry W. Colvin — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:29:58 +0000

Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson should share coinage of cryptozoology. Both were delving into collecting reports and describing what others had reported.