It is, of course, very gratifying both for the cryptozoologist in question and us Forteans and cryptozoologists in general to have the “mainstream” scientific community name a newly described animal species of an itself only recently known group after a cryptozoologist. Zoologist and cryptozoologist Karl Shuker certainly has every right to be proud of loriciferan _Pliciloricus shukeri_ named for him.

However, this brings us to the question of just what is–or isn’t–a cryptid, and thus the proper subject matter of cryptozoology. Bernard Heuivelmans himself, as most of us know, defined cryptozoology as “The scientific study of hidden animals, i.e., of still unknown animal forms about which only testimonial and circumstantial evidence is available, or material evidence considered insufficient by some.” You yourself have defined it as “the study of hidden animals (whether large or small, to date not formally recognized by what is often termed Western science or formal zoology but supported in some way by testimony (in its broadest definition) from a human being.” You also cited the “general feeling” that an “important element” is “the input of local, native, explorer, and traveler traditions, sightings, tales, legends, and folklore of the as-yet unverified animals.” You added that it is “for this very reason” that “most, but not all, of the animals under pursuit are large ones”–e.g., Bigfoor, Yeti, Kaptar, Orang Pendek, “Nessie,” Sea Serpents, Mokele-Mbembe, Chupacabras, Mystery Pumas.

These definitions, however, do not seem particularly applicable to Karl Shuker’s microscopic namesake, _Pliciloricus shukeri_, or any of its relatives in the phylum Loricifera. They are microscopically small animals living in sea-bottom habitats, which until their quite recent discovery and description by marine biologists were quite unknown to “testimony (in its widest definition from a human being.” There was never any “input of local, native, explorer, and traveler traditions, sightings, tales, legends, and folklore” about Loricifera, certainly no native legends or travelers’ takes about _Pliciloricus_! In this respect, the Loricifera are QUITE unlike Bigfoot, “Nessie,” or Mokele-Mbembe!

–Cheers, T. Peter