Comments on: Cryptozoological Nomenclature

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:16:26 +0000

Yep, all those fancy words boil down to, “We need a body!”

Something tells me that there has to be some allowances for size here though, as I doubt there are drawers full of dessicated gorillas or mummified sperm whales somewhere. Of course, we do have articulated skeletons, and significant chunks ‘o mammals, like severed hands and heads and whatnot (so I suppose any hands of TRULY unknown origin would count).

On a complete sidenote, I absolutely LOVED Stumpke’s Rhinogrades when I was in High School, so much so I eventually had to hunt down my own copy of his book. A wonderful study in speculative evolution!

By: elsanto

elsanto — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:04:23 +0000

Whoops. That should have been “doesn’t leave one with the taint…” That’s what I get for posting under the influence of good sake and sushi.

By: elsanto

elsanto — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:12:54 +0000

A brilliant piece of orthodox scientist liturgy! It just goes to show the extent to which Philip Pullman was on the mark in writing science as religion in “His Dark Materials.” There’s something so satisfying about using the brand “pseudo science”. It leaves the believer feeling somewhat superior to those who follow the lesser dogma of religion (for no orthodox scientists are capable of recognizing that what they follow is, indeed, a religion) because “pseudo science” leave one with the taint of having screamed “heretic!” (Though the two are one and the same, ultimately). Separating Raynal’s reason from his religiosity, however, one finds that his reason is sound. For taxonomic purposes, DNA sequences will never suffice. The discipline of taxonomy by its very nature requires accurate assessment of physical features.

Just my two cents.

By: Bob Michaels

Bob Michaels — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:09:16 +0000

Bottom line, cryptozoologists you can name it, but we taxonomists can change it, upon examination of the genetic and anatomical evidence. It is what it is.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:20:11 +0000

This is a very interesting article. I certainly agree with the importance of having a body in order to properly document and classify organisms rather than relying on photos or descriptions. Not only does it confirm the existence of the creature, but a more accurate taxonomical assessment and classification can be made of it. I can accept photos as circumnstantial evidence and in some cases even pretty hard proof, but in the end a body is in most cases very importnant, in my opinion. A photo may show that something is there, but I feel taxonomy can be a tricky thing even with known species that have a specimen, so any attempt to classify the photographed organism without any physical body has a good chance of being off the mark. Even with the case of the tortoise mentioned in the article, a body was eventually involved in a complete description. The importance of a holotype when it comes to cryptids can not be over stated as far as I’m concerned. One thing that bothered me with the piece is the description of cryptozoology as a psuedo science. Just goes to show you what we are up against as far as the world of science goes.

By: joppa

joppa — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:31:41 +0000

Whew ! It is always interesting how certain folks declare thenselves to be the gate keepers of various scientific disciplines. I guess if you can make up enough fancy words and create your own secret language you become the warden. Well, we all do it. Lawyers have their own language, doctors do, and even Bigfoot researchers.

Whenever something big and hairy crosses the road in front of me or stomps around my campsite in the wee hours of the night, I prefer to use the most common form of:

” WHAT THE ****** WAS THAT !!!”

Fill in your own descriptive term based on the region of the country you are in or for that matter, where you are in the world.

By: Ranatemporaria

Ranatemporaria — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:17:54 +0000

Loren, I’m not sure if the author is claiming that Heuvelmans coined the word “cryptozoology”, but instead was the first to define it as new and separate discipline.

By: graybear

graybear — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:15:20 +0000

An exhausting entry all adding up to “ya gotta have a body.” This one decides it, folks. Photographs won’t be enough, body parts (hairs and scat and other DNA sources) won’t be enough. There has to be a body in a drawer somewhere, where any qualified scientist can examine it, in order to be properly described. And if it isn’t properly described, then it doesn’t exist. End of story.

I can only hope that the body is one found after a natural death, not after a bullet or poison brings a sas down. But, sadly, the odds are against it.