I think Charles is right on target with his suggestion that “by coining the term “cryptozoology”, Sanderson, Blancou, Heuvelmans or whoever invented the term actually did not do the topic any favours”.

Whether it is called Natural Philosophy or anything else, the study of our environment is as old as humanity, and its mothers and fathers care not if their own names are remembered or not.

Still, my nominations are almost the same as yours. I would suggest a troika, essentially a triangle as the modern “God-Fathers of Cryptozoology.
At the top of that triangle would be Willy Ley. In the 20th century he was the first famous, successful and widely read scientist to ever write about unknown animal mysteries. And without losing any of his scientific credibility, btw. . Like to think that encouraged both Sanderson and Heuvelmans. Anyway, those are my three “Godfathers.”

Oudemans seemed to take more of an interest in things cryptozoological.

There’s no denying that a lot of people have not only kept cryptozoology evolving, but have worked to keep it in the eye of the “civilian.” Definitely the list up there–everyone has put their stamp on cryptozoology and deserves recognition for their efforts.

Bernard Heuvelmans is definitely at the top of the heap in cataloguing such creatures, however, his is one of those works I’ve only read after it was translated and re-released. Now, I have of course read a lot of him in excerpts in other persons’ works–B H has to be one of the most quoted men when it comes to cryptozoology works.

However, my first introductions to Cryptozoology were Sanderson, Dinsdale, Costello, and Gould thanks to my local library. In fact, the very first book I read as a kid was Monsters, Giants, and Little Men From Mars by Daniel Cohen. That and the In Search of series, and David Wolper Presents got me undeniable hooked on Nessie and the rest.

I think Bernard Heuvelmans extrapolated and advanced the cryptozoology arena, but I would have to vote for Oudemans as the Father of Cryptozoology.

On the other side, I’ll vote for Constance Whyte as the Mother of Cryptozoology who wrote “More Than A Legend” and summarized most of the Nessie lore.

Of course interest in controversial creatures as opposed to known creatures dates back to Renaissance and individuals like Pare, Kircher, Gesner and Aldrovandi. Prior to that it is difficult to ascertain whether animals are controversial or not.

But I would argue in fact by coining the term “cryptozoology”, Sanderson, Blancou, Heuvelmans or whoever invented the term actually did not do the topic any favours because by giving it a distinct name (rather than the “animal oddities” etc.) it allowed the topic to be marginalised in a way it did (and does) not have to be.

The history of a field is always complex, but a handful of people stood out.

First came the great turn of the century theoretician, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Call him the grandfather. Without him, the field would still have emerged, but in fits and starts and much more slowly.

He laid the mathematical groundwork for turnign science fiction into reality and provided inspiration for the three fathers:
Hermann Oberth, who furthered the theory but, most importantly, was the first to explain the science in a popular book. Oberth also mentored and taught Wernher von Braun.
Robert Goddard, who turned the theory into the first liquid-fueled rockets and made hundreds of other advances.
Sergei Korolev, who turned the theory into the first Soviet rockets and carried that line of development through Sputnik 1 and Yuri Gagarin.
These men taught and inspired countless more in the modern generation.

In cryptozoology, I give the grandfather spot to Linneaus. He was the first man, anywhere in the world, to collect the entire available lore of creatures known and alleged and truly systematize it. That he went too far in accepting reports of things that turned out not to exist really doesn’t detract from his contribution. He was hardly the first important naturalist, but he inspired and empowered the generations of naturalists and then zoologists after him.

The three 20th-century fathers: Ley, Heuvelmans and Sanderson. To carry the analogy further, Ley is a bit like Oberth, the first popularizer, while Heuvelmans and Sanderson were also important popularizers but carried the work further: Heuvelmans, in theorizing and analysis, Sanderson in these areas plus in fieldwork. It is hard to imagine there is a cryptozoologist alive who was not inpired by one or more of these men.

That carries the parallels back to space travel. Every satellite engineer, rocket builder, astronaut, cosmonaut, etc. owes a debt to one of more of the fathers: Oberth (though his pupil von Braun may have been the direct inspiration), Korolev, who almost singlehandedly created the Soviet program by sheer force of will, and Goddard, the indispensable inventor.

So there you have it. I give the grandfather role to Linneaus and the inseparable role of fathers to Ley, Heuvelmans, and Sanderson (I am not quite sure where to put Oudemans.)

Thanks to Loren for bringing up this thought-provoking topic.