Comments on: Shunka Warak'in: DNA Results?

By: richw9090

richw9090 — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:44:44 +0000

The ringdocus is clearly just a black wolf, and looks odd for two reasons: it was poorly mounted in the first place, and it has deteriorated badly since then.

It is no longer owned by a museum different from the one in which it is displayed. The Idaho Museum of Natural History deaccessioned the mount and conveyed ownership to the person who had previously borrowed it. So the museum in Enis is the only one preventing a DNA test from being done, if anyone at all is preventing it.

For anyone claiming to be interested in pursuing cryptozoology from a scientific standpoint, advocating against doing DNA testing in order to preserve some sort of “mystery” is a clear sign of a P. T. Barnum approach to the subject, not a scientific one. My good friend J. Richard Greenwell would have been appalled!

By: afigbee

afigbee — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:30:37 +0000

Seems to have the certain something you see in the Tasmanian Devil.

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Wed, 27 May 2009 23:24:41 +0000

And people always wonder why cryptozoology has such a hard time coming up with anything…between actually finding something and then having to wade through politics, red tape, and just plain old fashioned pride, it’s a wonder anything ever gets discovered.

Since I’m on a tirade, I may as well add on to it…I watched the show entitled “Link” the other night about the primate skeleton. What bothered me the most was the first few minutes where the main guy (I forget his name, but then I am like that with names if I don’t say it at least five or six times…), went to a trade show–he talked about how real fossil finds are often snatched up by private collectors and never see the light of day…I know it happens and I understand the black market, but it ticks me because in all likelihood there could be some solid evidence for all kinds of things sitting in people’s private vaults and homes and we’ll never see it…

like the supposed 30′s footage of Nessie that has apparently been partially shown, and then locked in a vault by the owners (who I understand have died).

Alright, I’m done venting, but I’m still ticked by all the of the “red tape” that goes on in this world…go get ‘em Loren!

By: graybear

graybear — Wed, 27 May 2009 22:39:42 +0000

The Shunka Wara’kin is very obviously a canid; from the looks of it I’d guess that it’s most likely a wolf-coyote hybrid. Possibly it had some puppyhood disease, malnutrition or trauma which was responsible for the other physical oddities. Most of those oddities might very well have been due to poor (or possibly very deliberate and deforming) taxidermy. Then, too, it might simply have been an unfortunate, misshapen sport. A lot of people seem to forget just how different some members of any species might be from the norm for that species (think elephant man). In fact, my wife and I once had an old cat which had a facial profile which was almost identical to the slope of the Shunka Warak’in’s face; this was the result of the man (?) who owned her before she came to live with us using her as a target for thrown (empty) quart beer bottles.
There isn’t necessarily anything cryptic about some deformed individuals; visit a Veterans’ hospital if you think different. Trauma can explain an awful lot, especially if it is years old and mostly recovered from.
There is also the idea that DNA testing can explain anything. It can’t. There has to be an accepted model for DNA results to be compared against. It isn’t like a pregnancy test where blue means safe and pink means pregnant, no blue is wolf, pink is dog, purple is coyote, green is fox, brown is dire wolf.
The best that DNA tests on the Shunka Warak’in would show would be wolf, coyote, dog, some mixture of the three, or unknown canine. Until someone has a clue about what the Shunka Warak’in might be (other than a known canine of some sort) and there is a standard model of this creature to compare it to, DNA testing would be virtually useless.

By: norman-uk

norman-uk — Wed, 27 May 2009 22:03:00 +0000

One thing about hair, it provides a very good refuge for DNA protecting it from both decay and contamination within the strands. Mitochondrial DNA is favoured, but nuclear DNA is also found. Hair is not usually treated with preservatives is it and if it was any DNA might still be intact because of the natural protection given. Personally i’m rather sceptical of DNA results which deal with cryptids!

I also wonder if there is any connection with the ‘mississippi hyena’ and less likely the ‘maine mutant’. Both on this site.

Greg102 I think you’ll miss all the fun if you want your facts straight ie without any mystery. Bit like a flower in black and white!

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:11:33 +0000

Unfortunately most museums and places that show off the weird and so far unexplained make their money that way. You kill the mystery and there is a good chance they lose a lot of money. They are not usually run by “true cryptozology” seekers.

By: Greg102

Greg102 — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:53:21 +0000

Any honest, truth seeking person in cryptozoology wants to get to the TRUTH no matter the result, whether that confirms a cryptid or a known animal. They need to do a DNA test and get to the bottom of this. Anyone not wanting a DNA test in my opinion doesn’t want the true facts to surface. Why? I guess that tells a lot, but for the people who have no time for lies, hoaxes, and mystery, and only want the truth would see absolutely no rational decision not to do the test.

By: maeko

maeko — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:00:33 +0000

the likelihood of viable DNA seems to be low, given the method of preservation. as i mentioned before, an x-ray may yield clues that are interpretable by an expert, but open-ended enough to leave spectulation for those that wish to see it. it may be a more palatable first step to the museum. should something unusual be found, they may jump on the DNA test.