Cryptozoologicon: Volume I Read online

  irregularbooks.co

  About the Authors

  John Conway

  Artist

  John Conway is a palaeontological and fine artist, whose work has been used by National Geographic, Discovery Channel and the American Museum of Natural History, among others. His work has recently appeared in Dinosaur Art: the World's Greatest Paleoart and All Yesterdays: Unique and Speculative Views of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Animals.

  Website: johnconway.co

  Twitter: @nyctopterus

  Facebook: facebook.com/nyctopterus

  C.M. Kosemen

  Artist & Author

  C. M. Kosemen holds a Media and Communications Masters' degree from Goldsmiths College, and has worked as an editor in Benetton Company's Colors magazine. He has had several exhibitons of his evolution-themed fine art at galleries and science festivals internationally. Kosemen's areas of specialization are speculative & real zoology, history and unusual things in general. His previous work includes Snaiad, a self-initiated web project about life on an alien planet.

  Website: www.cmkosemen.com

  Facebook: facebook.com/memo.kosemen

  Darren Naish

  Author

  Darren Naish is a palaeozoologist and science writer based at the University of Southampton (UK) who mostly work on dinosaurs, pterosaurs and Mesozoic marine reptiles. He co-described the early tyrannosaur Eotyrannus, the new pterosaurs Vectidraco and Eurazhdarcho, and the Cretaceous ichthyosaurs Acamptonectes and Malawania. He is interested in all tetrapods and writes widely about amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals for his world-famous blog, Tetrapod Zoology (currently hosted at Scientific American). His several previous books include Walking With Dinosaurs: The Evidence (with David M. Martill), The Great Dinosaur Discoveries, and Tetrapod Zoology: Book One. He has a long-standing interest in cryptozoology and has published extensively on this subject.

  Website: blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/

  Twitter: @TetZoo

  Cryptozoologicon

  The Biology, Evolution and Mythology of Hidden Animals

  Volume I

  By John Conway, C. M. Kosemen and Darren Naish

  Introduction

  Cryptids

  Yeti

  Orang Pendek

  Bigfoot

  Row

  Canvey Island Monster

  De Loys's Ape

  Chupacabra

  Waitoreke

  Beast of Gévaudan

  Bunyip

  Zuiyo Maru Creature

  Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu

  Long-necked Seal

  Kelpie

  Dingonek

  Cadborosaurus

  Tizheruk

  Buru

  Hoop Snake

  Megalodon

  Ahool

  Trinity Alps Salamander

  Goatman

  Mngwa

  Minhocão

  Gambo

  Con Rit

  Flying Rods

  Postscript

  Introduction

  The term 'cryptozoology' - originally coined in the 1950s and now considered fairly mainstream - is most usually associated with spectacular monsters from remote places, like the Yeti, Bigfoot and the gigantic horse-headed sea-serpents of lore. Despite this association with monsters, cryptozoology has most clearly been enunciated as the study of any animal known from anecdotal data: that is, from sightings, stories or published accounts, but unknown (as yet) from specimens that have been retained and are available for study. Defined as such, cryptozoology is not necessarily 'monster hunting', but the study of any creature known from anecdote. Contrary to stereotype, the targets of cryptozoology aren't all 'monsters', since cryptozoologists routinely investigate small mystery birds (Raynal 2006), dull, marmot-like mammals and small cats (Heuvelmans 1986), small lizard-like reptiles (Shuker 1997a), and even small mystery fish (Shuker 1996) and insects (Raynal 1996).

  In an extensive but often arcane literature, cryptozoologists have collected, collated and analysed the reports, legends and stories that seemingly describe mystery creatures or 'cryptids' before going on to determine what sort of animals they might be, how they might have evolved, and how they might fit into their local ecosystem. The study of cryptids can be said to extend back into antiquity. However, cryptozoology as we know it today owes its popularisation to several prolific authors, all of whom essentially agree that eyewitness reports of mystery creatures can be interpreted as reliable descriptions of encounters with unknown species. These people have often argued that the inventory of animal species currently accepted by science is much incomplete, and fundamentally and frustratingly restrained by the arrogance, resistance and cynicism of mainstream scientists.

  In the wake of Bernard Heuvelmans

  Cover of one of the several editions of Bernard Heuvelmans's famous and oft-cited cryptozoological classic of 1968. Heuvelmans essentially 'invented' modern cryptozoology.

  We mostly owe this view of a cryptid-filled world to Belgian zoologist and author Bernard Heuvelmans (1916-2001), widely regarded as the 'Father of Cryptozoology'. Heuvelmans was a trained zoologist whose PhD work focused on aardvark dentition. He published a single, uninfluential paper on that subject (Heuvelmans 1939) and, between 1941 and 1943, five additional papers on sirenian dentition. After the early 1940s, however, he did not contribute to the 'mainstream' technical zoological literature, but became dedicated to cryptozoology. In his 1958 book On the Track of Unknown Animals (originally published in 1955 as Sur la Piste des Bêtes Ignorées) and its 1968 follow-up In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents (also translated and modified from a French language predecessor), Heuvelmans wrote at length about the Yeti, Orang Pendek, New Zealand's otter-like Waitoreke, Australia's Queensland tiger, and about possible dinosaurs and pterosaurs in the Congo, gargantuan marine eels, weird long-necked seals, and Basilosaurus -like whales and Mesozoic-style marine reptiles that had perhaps survived to the modern day. Heuvelmans inspired many other researchers by showing that detailed analyses of cryptid reports, when combined with zoological and ethnological expertise, could allow the scholarly cryptozoologist to theorise to life the existence of all manner of unknown creatures.

  Heuvelmans wrote many other books on cryptids (many still not translated into English) as well as several significant and often bold technical articles on cryptozoology and specific cryptids (Heuvelmans 1969, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1990).

  Heuvelmans was heavily inspired by, and frequently gave credit to, Ivan T. Sanderson (1911-1973). Thanks to TV and radio shows, and numerous popular books, Scottish-born Sanderson became an American celebrity known for his immense knowledge of animals and their world. He was also deeply interested in UFOs, the paranormal, and cryptids, and wrote several books on these subjects. Like Heuvelmans, his role as a populariser cannot be underestimated and many ideas that persist today - about Yetis, sea monsters and the like - largely originated with him.

  Viewed critically, Sanderson's writings often contain bizarre claims, he sometimes boldly pronounced things that were flat-out wrong, and he was prepared to accept ideas and accounts that probably warranted more scepticism. Like Heuvelmans, he was convinced of the veracity of the Minnesota Iceman (a hominid corpse, frozen in ice, and displayed as a carnival sideshow) and he was fooled into claiming that gigantic penguins (4.5m tall) were visiting the Florida coastline after a series of hoaxed tracks were discovered. Actually, Sanderson even claimed a sighting of one of the giant penguins himself, one of many cases in which he reportedly witnessed cryptids first-hand.

  There is no doubt that both Heuvelmans and Sanderson could be regarded as walking encyclopedias of zoological information, and as important popularisers of exotic zoology. From a sc
ientifically-minded viewpoint, however, it is obvious and inescapable that both were essentially outside the sphere of scientific research, both were predominantly involved in popularisation more than technical work, and both were strongly attached to ideas that were and are highly problematic (not because they were or are strange, but because they were or are poorly supported and difficult to accept).

  Following Heuvelmans's lead in particular, several authors produced similar collections and analyses of data on cryptids. Roy P. Mackal, a qualified biochemist, published an influential On the Track -style book in 1980 titled Searching for Hidden Animals (Mackal 1980). He also published books on the Loch Ness Monster (Mackal 1976) and on the supposedly dinosaur-like monsters of the Congolese swamps (Mackal 1987). Loren Coleman, a writer and investigator with special interests in Bigfoot, Forteana as well as the psychology and sociology of murder and suicide, is an internationally known writer of cryptozoology-themed books, all of which both evaluate cryptids and provide huge quantities of information on the people who search for them (Coleman 1989, 2003, Coleman & Clark 1999, Coleman & Huyghe 1999, 2003). Coleman has also produced a huge number of cryptozoology-themed popular articles and has an enormous online presence. Finally, Karl Shuker - a qualified biologist regarded by Heuvelmans as "the most brilliant of [his] disciples" - is similarly prolific, well known both for his many extremely popular books (Shuker 1989, 1991, 1995, 1997b, 2008a, b), substantial number of popular articles, and internet presence.

  Beyond Heuvelmans: science and the ISC

  Many other authors have also contributed to the cryptozoological literature. What is obvious is that, despite the technical qualifications held here and there by cryptozoological proponents, the majority of published cryptozoological hypotheses and evaluations are published in the popular literature; they are not technically evaluated nor subject to the standards of support expected for scientific contributions. The major role that creationists play in modern cryptozoology is seriously detrimental to the field, as is the fact that anybody who expresses an interest in mystery animal research suddenly becomes labelled a cryptozoologist.

  Having said that, it would be unfair to imply that cryptozoology does not receive attention from people who really do work in the biological sciences. Comments on cryptids (some favourable, some less so) have often appeared in the scientific literature, and a large number of biologists, palaeontologists and other scientists have expressed opinions on cryptids. In 1982, Mackal and Richard Greenwell set up the International Society of Cryptozoology (ISC) for this very reason, aiming to both bring scientific respectability to the subject, and to provide a venue for the publication of peer-reviewed, technical cryptozoological research (the ISC's peer-reviewed journal is titled Cryptozoology). The ISC went into decline during the 1990s and eventually folded in 1998.

  Another peer-reviewed journal (albeit desktop-published), The Cryptozoology Review, ran from 1996 to 2004, and another, Kraken: Archives de Cryptozoologie, saw print between 2008 and 2011. Since then, a few working scientists (including one of us) have published papers on cryptozoological subjects in the mainstream scientific literature (e.g., Woodley et al. 2010) and another peer-reviewed journal, The Journal of Cryptozoology, has appeared on the scene. At the time of writing, it has only seen a single issue.

  Cryptozoology journals past and present. The Cryptozoology Review and Kraken are both defunct; The Journal of Cryptozoology (at the time of writing) is brand new.

  Cryptozoology vs science and scepticism

  While a large number of scientists are interested in cryptozoology, and were even much inspired by it in their younger years, the subject is generally treated with a large amount of scepticism and is even labelled a pseudoscience by some. Indeed, the majority of scientists - and maybe even the majority of people in many sectors of society - regard cryptids as the stuff of lore, legend and ridicule, not reality. Good evidence that the nessies, sea monsters, mystery primates and so on of the cryptozoological literature really exist has never been put forward and the evidence that has been put forward is problematic and unsatisfying.

  Self-professed sceptics have always been interested in the claims of the cryptozoological literature and have often criticised such crypto-icons as Bigfoot and Nessie. However, sceptical views on cryptids often appear unsatisfactory because they frequently appear cursory and do not come from people familiar with cryptozoological data nor with the extensive cryptozoological literature.

  Cover of Meurger and Gagnon's significant 1988 volume. Michel Meurger has been described as the "scourge of the cryptozoological literalists".

  In recent years, this trend has changed. In 1988, Michel Meurger and Claude Gagnon's Lake Monster Traditions: A Cross-Cultural Analysis was published in English (Meurger & Gagnon 1988). This heavily illustrated, complex and data-filled book argued that tales of Canadian water monsters could all be linked to age-old, archetypal ideas about dangerous bodies of water. Lake monster sightings, they argued, were not descriptions of unknown or new large animal species, but interpretations of events shaped by a long and complicated cultural, 'mythified' view of the world. In other words, the literalist interpretations of cryptozoologists like Heuvelmans and Mackal were woefully naive. This point of view is vehemently disliked by some cryptozoologists but looks increasingly likely to those with a sceptical approach.

  Not only has evidence for cryptids failed to materialise, but studies have shown that the origin, evolution and perpetuation of ideas about mystery creatures are tightly linked with hoaxes, portrayals in popular culture, fiction, and mythology, and are also characterised by remarkable credulity, poor logic, and special pleading. Authors involved in making these arguments include Ronald Binns, Ulrich Magin, Benjamin Radford, Brian Regal and David Daegling. Most recently, Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero have critically examined the stories behind the Yeti, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Cadborosaurus and Mokele-Mbembe (Loxton & Prothero 2013).

  Cryptozoology as speculative zoology

  It is against a background of both knowing the cryptozoological literature, and of having a sceptical approach grounded in the biological sciences, that our current project - the Cryptozoologicon - emerged. Familiar as we are with the cryptozoological literature and with the claims and beliefs of cryptozoologists, we are enormously sceptical of the evidence that cryptozoologists are prepared to accept and see major problems with the speculations and assumptions inherent to the cryptozoological literature. If people work from the assumption that cryptids most likely exist, they need to be explained as real creatures, and here we come to the extensive amount of speculation that characterises cryptozoology.

  Inspired by the success of our previous collaboration (All Yesterdays, a book that focuses on speculative depictions of fossil animals), we wanted to produce a work that features outstanding depictions of cryptids as if they're real animals and, in addition, focuses on speculative ideas about the identities and evolutionary histories of these creatures.

  In creating cryptids from eyewitness accounts and other sources, cryptozoologists have indulged in an incredible amount of speculation about the identities of the creatures concerned. A cryptid is not just allocated to a specific group of organisms: its evolutionary history, biogeography and ecology are hypothesised about as well. In short, cryptozoologists can be accused of 'theorising' hypothetical animals to life. There are an enormous number of excellent examples of this phenomenon. Many are discussed in this book but, for classic examples, we point in particular to Heuvelmans's ideas on the identities and the evolutionary histories of sea-serpents (Heuvelmans 1968). What cryptozoologists need to appreciate is that the cryptids that they endorse are speculative entities, and that ideas about the evolution, biology and ecology of such hypothesised creatures is essentially an exercise in speculative fiction.

  Heuvelmans (1968) analysed sea monster reports and concluded that nine distinct species were represented in the accounts, five of which are shown here (from left to right: super-eel, merhorse, marin
e saurian, many-humped and long-necked). There are many problems with his conclusions.

  It is this speculative aspect of cryptozoology that really appealed to us. And, thus, the Cryptozoologicon was conceived: the idea being that we indulge in the same game, providing speculative backgrounds and identities to a select list of cryptids.

  What the Cryptozoologicon does

  For each cryptid, our entries consist of three sections. We consider it important that people understand exactly what we have done. In the first section of text, we briefly review what people have said beforehand about the given cryptid. We refer to the key accounts and describe what the creature is supposed to look like. In the second section, we present an evaluation of the reports, essentially concluding as to what the given cryptid might be, and whether the accounts that describe it refer to a real creature or not. Given that we have included quite a range of mystery animals in our book - some of which are fairly ridiculous and others of which have essentially been debunked - our conclusions range from the open-ended to the 'case closed' type.

  Finally, we include a third section of text in which we deliberately jump onto the bandwagon of speculation, and wax lyrical about the identity, evolution and biology of the cryptid concerned, tongue firmly planted in cheek. Sometimes we could only agree with the speculations that already exist in the literature, but on other occasions we invented novel hypotheses of our own. We hope that people who know the cryptozoological literature will recognise the inspirations for many or even all of our speculations, since we have frequently made deliberate homage or reference to published ideas. We have written these speculative sections as if we ourselves are confident, true-believer cryptozoologist authors, hence the strong, misguided 'anti-science' vibe that emanates from some of the text (and which, sorry to say, echoes comments genuinely made by real cryptozoologists).