Cryptozoology has 3 catogories of Cryptids.

1. Hidden species
2. Species thought to be extinct but have been discovered to exist.
3. Misidentifications. This Dolphin falls into this catagory. It was thought to be one of the known bottlenose dophins but found to be a new species.

All the best. Bryan

I was simply Joking. Though if some Pseudo skeptics think they can get away with trying to lay the blame for the Mothman (5-7 feet tall, bat wings) on a common Barn owl (18 inches tall, feathered wings), which is a commonly known and witnessed animal, including in the region where the sightings occurred (and therefore hardly to be confused with a 5-7 foot mutant mothman, anymore than a dog, which is also common, could be confused with an Andrewsarchus), then I think the jab is, though not a literal poke (I would never think that even Michael Shermer would ever dispute a find like this), is a symbolic one.

DWA

I agree: I can hardly see how this finding could shed light on the Bigfoot case. Its only a reminder that, not only are there animal species out there that have yet to be discovered, but some, like the Forest elephant, are right under our noses, ie. that are listed as an already known animal, when it could be something more.

Scopi

Remember: I am not dissing real Skeptics. A True Skeptic merely takes an agnostic view on such phenomena as Cryptids until final proof one way or the other is shown (not buying into it being either false or true until enough evidence either way is collected and revealed): a Pseudo-Skeptic goes of the mindset that A. no matter what, no matter the evidence, it is false, and B. how can I better fix the evidence to show this to the public, my intended target. It is one thing to make a good argument against say Chupacabras (Sightings and bodies of mangy canines, mix species or pure wolf, coyotes, Dogs, etc, and combined with the Chupa fervor in Puerto Rico, which may or may not have been based on the movie “Species”) or Bigfoot (why hasn’t one been hit by a car) and another to be pig headed about such phenomena (Bigfoot is not real, therefore it does not exist, therefore I am the arbiter of its (hopeful) debunking).

Your responses, and your straw man attacks on “Pseudo skeptics,” are very illuminating of the cryptozoological mindset, though.

I long suspected the African forest elephant to be a different species from the bush elephant. It looks as different from the latter as the Indian elephant does.

And no, I’m not on the bandwagon saying that this is ‘hope for bigfoot.’ Some finds are (the saola, for example). But most science is performed on what is already known. The constant study of the animals we know, to find out more about them, will inevitably yield things like this. Even tiny animals are found when we are doing intensive studies of places either known or new – particularly when previous finds tell us to look for animals like them where we haven’t looked before.

Like the elephant example you give, no one argued that these dolphins did not exist. They just didn’t know they were genetically different. Big difference between something like that and saying there is a Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot roaming the woods.

How would a Pseudo Skeptic respond to this Dolphin discovery?

“Hmm, they’re seeing Planet Venus.”, perhaps while sniffing swamp gas