Open Season on Cryptozoology?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 2nd, 2005

How About An Open Season – via Emails to the Editors – on Bad Editorials?

A closed-minded, unnamed editorial writer at the San Antonio Express-News has jumped on the skeptical bandwagon against cryptozoology.

In a worthless use of printer’s ink called “Open season on unicorns,” the unnamed soul does the usual ridicule piece on the Swedish monster hunting ban being lifted, and then extends their foolish remarks by penning:

“There are no protections on mythical creatures in South Texas. But that hasn’t made the Chupacabra or La Lechusa any less prolific. For that matter, there are no measures to preserve the Yeti, Sasquatch or Nessie. And for good reason. Their numbers are abundant in their natural habitat — the fertile minds of credulous human beings.”

Of course, such a short-sighted person has apparently not read a word about the evidence that is extant for such cryptids. An individual such as this one would have denied the fact the ivory-billed woodpecker was still in existence, the gorilla, okapi and giant panda were real animals, or the “mythical Kraken” that we know today as the giant squid was alive and well in the oceans.

Show your displeasure with such editorial stupidity with an email to the San Antonio Express-News feedback board. And share your comments with us here. Thank you!

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.


16 Responses to “Open Season on Cryptozoology?”

  1. wmmott responds:

    I just left them feedback–but I wouldn’t count on them putting it online or in print. It follows:
    ——-
    Your writer on cryptozoology is a narrow-minded, non-scientifically-minded, rationality blighted moron.

    New species are found, in the hundreds, every year. The panda was a myth until the 20th century; the gorilla was a myth until the late 19th century. A new species of great ape was discovered in Africa last year.

    Someone should tell him/her that this month’s National Georgraphic features an article on “Sea Monsters,” both prehistoric and modern.

    Geographic also did a story on homo floresiensis, a very recent (and possibly still-existing) hominid/humanoid, back in April of this year.

    Let’s see–National Geographic, or an Anonyous Hack writing in your rag. Which publication has more credibility, after all?

    -W. M. Mott

  2. Nena responds:

    Well, part of the reason the Storsjöodjuret (= Storsjö-beast) was added to the protection list was because of the great monster hunts of the late 1800’s – early 1900’s (which didn’t capture it, by the way). People were coming from all over to get their hands on it. Another reason for it being protected is that it is a important part of local culture.
    I don’t see a problem with protecting a species that isn’t proven to be real, what do they have to lose? It’s better to be safe than sorry, considering the people who now say they want to go and search for its “eggs”.

  3. Batgirl responds:

    Oh here we go again. The usual thing of course is to discredit something you’ve never seen. And although you may not be able to prove its existence, you most certainly CAN NOT disprove it. And as for Unicorns…in the midst of some region, where trees grow tall and man rarely venture…there may be some horned horses…or at least their fossils.
    Never say never.

  4. Cameron responds:

    The article was one sided, but the reaction to there seems to be an absurd amount of over-reaction. The name calling is extremely immature and this manner should be dealt with at least some level of dignity and respect for the author and his/her opinions. In responce to wmmott, it should be pointed out that the National Geographic only mentioned sea monsters, its stance on them was quite skeptical. Also, it should be pointed out that the Bondo apes belong to the known subspecies Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii, and merely represent an extremely inbred population.

  5. Brindle responds:

    The history of science is rife with individuals who form, and unfortunately publish, opinions on that which they have no knowledge. Occasionally such a critical opinion is held by some one who does have knowledge of the subject but is so married to an opinion he is unable to separate himself from it in spite evidence to the contrary. It becomes a face saving matter. I suspect our unnamed editor is also our uninformed editor.

  6. Brindle responds:

    By the way, we should also respect wmmott’s opinion. At least his heart is in the right place.

  7. wmmott responds:

    Cameron,

    Do you like being called “credulous”?

    That was an insult of demeaning type from the anonymous editor at the website in question. Essentially, the statement is the same as saying that if you consider the possibility of unknown animals existing, then you must be some sort of gullible idiot.

    Now _that’s_ insulting.

    BTW, the Bondo apes have not been identified utterly. They may be an inbred species, or they may be a gorilla-chimp hybrid with the ability to reproduce (which would make them a _new_ species). Or they may be something related to chimps and gorillas, but distinct. The inbred theory is, well, a theory. They exhibit characteristics of both chimps and gorillas, and no final determination (as far as I know) has been made. Theories still abound, however.

    -W.M. Mott

  8. wmmott responds:

    Link 1

    Link 2

  9. Cameron responds:

    But gullibility and idiocy are not the same thing, I interpreted that statement as merely speculating on the origin of the animals. I think the proper responce from the crypto-community would have been to point out that there are scientifically minded people out there, and that there is some evidence to indicate they exist outside of people’s minds. I think that the name calling and presumptions made about the author would do nothing but hurt Cryptozoology’s credibility.

    All of the mentioned articles on the Bili ape are out of date. Mitochondiral DNA tests have shown only Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii to be present.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_Ape

  10. shercute responds:

    I don’t know much technical words but I do not believe it should be open season on any animal proven or not. How could some one shoot or kill something that could be the last on earth. Just to say they can. They are wrong. Shame on them.

  11. wmmott responds:

    Cameron, you said:

    “All of the mentioned articles on the Bili ape are out of date. Mitochondiral DNA tests have shown only Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii to be present.”
    No, this is not conclusive.
    As stated here:

    —–

    Link

    “We compared fecal samples from this unknown animal to the DNA of captive gorillas, bonobos, and chimps,” Louis said. “Our preliminary data shows that the mitochondrial DNA is chimp-like.”
    But mitochondrial DNA is passed down only from the mother’s side. So if this species or sub-species is a hybrid of a chimp mother and a gorilla father, current DNA would only identify information from the mother.

    Tests yet to come are nuclear DNA tests: This roadmap would come from both parents.

    ——

    So the ape could be a new hybrid, but if procreating within the “hybrid” population, then you have a “new species”. This is the way that some new species are believed to come about.

    As for hurting cryptozoology’s credibility, allowing the ignorant to trash the field and its adherents without being called to task is the surest way to do just that. In my opinion, anyway.

    -W.M. Mott

  12. Cameron responds:

    The nearest population of gorillas is several hundred miles away and is separated by several large rivers, so that would certainly hurt the case for a hybrid. Additionally, while closely related species in the same genus can occasionally form fertile hybrids, there is a considerable gap between the two tribes (subfamilies).

  13. wmmott responds:

    Actually, this speaks for the likelihood of the animals not being simply chimpanzees. You have “made the case”, so to speak.

    Note that the mitochondrial DNA is called “chimp-like.” This could mean that this animal represents a new variety of chimpanzee, or that it is simply closely related to the chimpanzee (as a hybrid would be). The animal, however, exhibits a ferocity which excells that of both chimps and gorillas, and many of the physical characteristics, and nesting habits, of gorillas.

    There is quite a bit of distance between the dwelling-places of lowland and highland gorillas, but this doesn’t mean that they are utterly unrelated from one another. Over time, human encroachment and environmental change have served to isolated and shrink the few populations which are left. The same thing could very well have happened with this animal, and in fact, it probably did. This would explain the likelihood of hybridization, making it very more likely to have occurred. The original parent populations of both chimps and gorillas are therefore gone, nearby or far-away relatives notwithstanding, and all we are left with is a new animal which is the result of hybridization due to isolation and shrinking gene-pools in the original two animal populations which were originally in the region.

    -W.M. Mott

  14. Cameron responds:

    I have not made the case for them being out of the ordinary, as I stated several times the concept of a hybrid is rather dubious, and the mtDNA is not “chimp-like” – it IS from a known subspecies. Please read this link from the same website which refutes the notion of them being genetically unique, only culturally.

    “These scientists came to the conclusion that while some of the chimps around Bili may have some interesting new cultural traits worth investigating, there was little evidence for a new species or even sub species.”

    “The DNA result, in form of mt DNA was done by three different labs arriving to the same conclusion. (The ground nesting chimps are clearly of the schweinfurthii subspecies).”

  15. wmmott responds:

    Cameron,

    We will agree to disagree on this one. All of the data certainly is NOT in.

    I suppose that you saw that a new mammal–a carnivore–was just discovered in Borneo. Looks like a lemur–or a skinny wallaby–or a cat–or, something.

    If you take a good look at the mystery ape, compare its physiognomy with that of both a chimpanzee and a gorilla; which one does it look like to you? A simple question, and surely your eyesight will reveal to you that the entire forestructure of the face, particularly the nostrils, eye-socket structure, etc., is gorillia-like. Completely.

    I’ll stick with the hybrid/new species hypothesis for now, and we’ll agree to disagree?

    Be careful about dogmatism when dealing with the unknown or the new. As Fort said:

    “The power that has said to all these things that they are damned, is Dogmatic Science.”

    Second time today I’ve had opportunity to post that one, and the next Fort quote, which is even more appropriate when it comes to finding strange, large, new animals in seemingly-familiar, taxonomy-certain locations (like Borneo, or Africa):

    “I hear three yells from some hitherto undiscovered, grotesque critter at the very entrance of the desert.”

    Best,

    -W.M. Mott

  16. Shaas responds:

    “We will agree to disagree on this one.”

    ..and so is the distinct sound of a member of the human species, beaten in the discussion game by a stronger kin.
    (then a change of subject usually follows)

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement

|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.