Comments on: Fossil Dwarf Buffalo Discovered

By: benjiealfon

benjiealfon — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:34:41 +0000

I beleive this is a very important find, my birth place has always been known for it’s high rate of endemism, plants and animals though it’s quite unfortunate that my ancestors have a very poor record in environment protection.

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:22:54 +0000

Almost half of the “new” finds in Paleontology in recent years have come from researchers rummaging through museum basements. Many field paleontologists, especially in previous centuries, were looking for that big, dramatic find, and so were liable to not spend much time on a scrap of what they thought was some small turtle, or deer, or whatnot. Other fossils, recieving only a cursory glance because more interesting things were present, have been mislabeled.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:56:05 +0000

I agree, shumway10973. There could be fossils languishing in a drawer somewhere, or sitting in someone’s bookshelf, that hold the key to our knowledge of some creature’s existence.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:59:07 +0000

kittenz, what you said may be true, the only problem I have is that those first guesses get taught in school as fact and then by the time that more info can be found the scientists that find it are students of the original idea (as fact) and few are willing to go against the flow, as it were. I’m just glad to see there are some who are willing to at least look, question and study what they can. Without those few, the discoveries of the last few years would not have happened. Now if we could only find the funding for some of us to do the searching here at home. This story also shows something that normally happens as well. 50 years ago the fossils are found and a friend donates them to those who make the discovery. I just wonder how many other fossils have been overlooked and just put away somewhere and forgotten.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:34:36 +0000

In defense of paleontologists, there is much that can be inferred by a trained, experienced scientist, from a single tooth or scrap of bone. Many prehistoric animals are known, at least at first, from such meager finds alone. Sometimes the initial conclusions drawn from such fossils are later proven wrong after more fossils of the same type come to light. Often the fossils are fought over for years by scientists whose viewpoints differ.

The difference in those fossil animals and cryptids is that the fossils are available and they are known to be fossils of an animal that actually existed… hard physical evidence, no matter what its interpretation by experts, for further study. The material is unquestionably (in most cases) a fossil of SOMETHING.

For most cryptids, the evidence may be there in sometimes almost overwhelming quantity, but the quality of the evidence still leaves much to be desired. There are a lot of sightings and other anecdotal accounts, but most of the physical evidence has not held up to close scrutiny, or else it is so ambiguous in nature that it cannot be used to conclusively say, “This is definite evidence that this creature exists”.

All animals, cryptids included, leave their mark on the environment, of course, and sooner or later those traces will come to light. It’s true also that evidence left by animals can go unrecognized in some cases. I beleve that there is a strong possibility that many currently cryptid species will be proven to exist beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If a creature doesn’t exist, it just doesn’t exist, and no amount of wishing will change that. But it’s a mistake to say that a creature does not exist just because the evidence for its existence is flimsy. The next spectacular find may be right around the corner.

By: Jeremy_Wells

Jeremy_Wells — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:57:06 +0000

skunkape_hunter,
Interesting observation. I’ve often wondered about that myself, the fact that “real” scientists will infer amazing things from a single jaw bone or tooth or ankle, but discount cryptids for a “lack of evidence”.

By: joppa

joppa — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:11:51 +0000

I think giganto ate the dwarf buffalos. They were easier to catch.

By: skunkape_hunter

skunkape_hunter — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:45:44 +0000

I think the thing that strikes me the most about this story is the fact that the fossil record is not complete. Which, in my opinion, tends to negate the argument that BF does not exist because there is no fossil record for them. Please correct if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that all they have for proof of Giganto is some teeth ? No fossils, no bones, just teeth.
How many other species are out there that leave only scant remains behind ?

By: Bob Michaels

Bob Michaels — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:25:30 +0000

Perhaps the Species is still living on one of the Thousand Islands of the Philipines. I hope so!.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:28:28 +0000

Every time some scientist says “That animal could not have those features because … (fill in the blank)”, some new find turns up and proves that statement wrong.

You’d think they’d learn to never say never.