Which in a way points up *why* we consider science to have an ‘all-seeing eye.’

Whales can be particularly difficult animals to identify without specimens in hand. I’d agree with Fhqwhgads that we have (to use his model) a “no,no,no” with practically all of the recent whale discoveries. Even such a celebrated animal as the kouprey qualifies, in my opinion, as a “no,no,no” as the type specimen had to grow out of calfhood for the ID to finally be made by trained scientists (and it didn’t really involve shifting any paradigms, just “this cow is actually a different species, now that we got a close look”). The saola may have been frequently sighted by servicemen in Indochina (a “no” on 2), and I’m not sure a new genus is a paradigm shift (“no” on 3). (I consider, say, the discovery of Eris to be a paradigm shifter, as it was bigger than a known “major” planet, which no longer is considered “major.” If we ever discovered a bird with no feathers, or a mammal with no hair, they’d shift paradigms too.)

When, however, we are picking fly crap out of pepper with the regularity that scientists do with ‘new’ kinds of known animals, it’s easy for laymen – whom scientists have to make nice with to build their careers – to get the opinion that science sees all, knows all, because how the *heck* could you figure out that this is a new whale, unless you’re watching for it all the time? How are you finding new MICE, ferpetes, without a magnifying glass constantly combing the earth? Thus the reaction to animals like the sasquatch and yeti (“someone would HAD TO HAVE [x] by now…”).

Most scientific research is unearthing new facts about things science already knows (e.g., “new” species of accepted animal types). When one starts talking yetis and sasquatch, however, one gets into a fundamentally different kind of science, the researching of the unknown and not accepted. The rules are completely different. It’s sort-of-expected now to find variations in known animal types. A new whale in the ocean? Can happen. A new species of tree frog? Sure. Apes, however, do not live in the temperate zone, period. So everyone laughs at the notion rather than looking at the evidence and asking, does this point to the reality of something we don’t accept yet?

When no one expects to find it, it can usually be expected that no one will.

When a discovery of a new species of large animal is made, it is appropriate to ask 3 questions.

1. Would a trained biologist know at first glance that this creature is new to Western science?

2. Would a layman of average education believe at first glance that this creature is new to Western science?

3. Does the present existence of this creature force a paradigm shift in biology?

If a real Bigfoot carcass were found as a type specimen, the answers would be Yes, Yes, and Yes. If a Mothman were captured, the answers would be Yes, Yes, and Yes. If a surviving plesiosaur were found, the answers would be Yes, Yes, and Yes. I don’t think it’s unfair to say that cryptozoology only has to do with those cases where all 3 answers are Yes. The platypus is a perfect example of an animal for which the answers were all Yes.

For the coelacanth, though, the answers would be Yes, No, Yes. For the kha-nyou, Laonastes aenigmamus, the answers are probably Yes, No, No. For this new species of whale, the answers are No, No, No.