Product Code Database
Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and subculture that searches for and studies unknown, legendary, or extinct animals whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated, particularly those popular in folklore, such as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, the chupacabra, the Jersey Devil, or the Mokele-mbembe. Cryptozoologists refer to these entities as cryptids, a term coined by the subculture. Because it does not follow the scientific method, cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by mainstream science: it is a branch of neither zoology nor folklore studies. It was originally founded in the 1950s by zoologists Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson.
Scholars have noted that the subculture rejected mainstream approaches from an early date, and that adherents often express hostility to mainstream science. Scholars studying cryptozoologists and their influence (including cryptozoology's association with Young Earth creationism) noted parallels in cryptozoology and other pseudosciences such as ghost hunting and ufology, and highlighted uncritical media propagation of cryptozoologist claims.
Cryptozoology is 'the study of hidden animals' (from Ancient Greek: κρυπτός, kryptós "hidden, secret"; Ancient Greek ζῷον, zōion "animal", and λόγος, logos, i.e. "knowledge, study"). The term dates from 1959 or before— Heuvelmans attributes the coinage of the term cryptozoology to Sanderson.Additionally, see discussion at "cryptozoology, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2016. Web. 25 October 2016. Following cryptozoology, the term cryptid was coined in 1983 by cryptozoologist J. E. Wall in the summer issue of the International Society of Cryptozoology newsletter.Regal (2011b: 197–198). According to Wall "It suggested that new terms be coined to replace sensational and often misleading terms like 'monster'. My suggestion is 'cryptid', meaning a living thing having the quality of being hidden or unknown ... describing those creatures which are (or may be) subjects of cryptozoological investigation."Wall, J. E. (1983: 10): "The Spring, 1983, issue featured an interview with Paul LeBlond and Forrest Wood, in which it was suggested that new terms be coined to replace sensational and often misleading terms like "monster." My suggestion is "cryptid," meaning a living thing having the quality of being hidden or unknown. As far as I know, this would be an entirely new word, describing those creatures which are (or may be) subjects of cryptozoological investigation."
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the noun cryptid as "an animal whose existence or survival to the present day is disputed or unsubstantiated; any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist"."cryptid, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2016. Web. 25 October 2016. While used by most cryptozoologists, the term cryptid is not used by academic zoologists.Paxton (2011: 7–20). In a textbook aimed at undergraduates, academics Caleb W. Lack and Jacques Rousseau note that the subculture's focus on what it deems to be "cryptids" is a pseudoscientific extension of older belief in monsters and other similar entities from the folkloric record, yet with a "new, more scientific-sounding name: cryptids".Lack & Rousseau (2016: 153, cf. p. 272).
(1934). Like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster has historically been of significant interest to cryptozoologists.]]While biologists regularly identify new species, cryptozoologists often focus on creatures from the folklore record. Most famously, these include the Loch Ness Monster, Champ (folklore), Bigfoot, the chupacabra, as well as other "imposing beasts that could be labeled as monsters". In their search for these entities, cryptozoologists may employ devices such as motion-sensitive cameras, night-vision equipment, and audio-recording equipment. While there have been attempts to codify cryptozoological approaches, unlike biologists, zoologists, botanists, and other academic disciplines, however, "there are no accepted, uniform, or successful methods for pursuing cryptids". Some scholars have identified precursors to modern cryptozoology in certain medieval approaches to the folkloric record, and the psychology behind the cryptozoology approach has been the subject of academic study.
Few cryptozoologists have a formal science education, and fewer still have a science background directly relevant to cryptozoology. Adherents often misrepresent the academic backgrounds of cryptozoologists. According to writer Daniel Loxton and paleontologist Donald Prothero, "cryptozoologists have often promoted 'Professor Roy Mackal, PhD.' as one of their leading figures and one of the few with a legitimate doctorate in biology. What is rarely mentioned, however, is that he had no training that would qualify him to undertake competent research on exotic animals. This raises the specter of 'credential mongering', by which an individual or organization feints a person's graduate degree as proof of expertise, even though his or her training is not specifically relevant to the field under consideration." Besides Heuvelmans, Sanderson, and Mackal, other notable cryptozoologists with academic backgrounds include Grover Krantz, Karl Shuker, and Richard Greenwell.Loxton & Prothero (2013: 304–305).
In a 2025 interview with science writer Sharon Hill "Cryptids have become cutified" ... The reason why cryptids are seeing a resurgence are because of the Internet, for example, the Flatwoods monster is seen in over 33 video games, but the real reason according to Hill is because for a while cryptids were thought to be real animals that some people had assigned magical powers to, and with some investigation the hope was that the magic could be stripped away and they would discover a real, perhaps unknown animal. “One of the reasons why I think that fell apart completely was because the International Society of Cryptozoology fell apart completely, so there were no longer any gatekeepers as of the early 1990’s to say ‘a cryptid is these animals that we are studying because we think it’s got a zoological basis’, those people were gone ... they were quite old, they died and there was nobody there to take over that gatekeeping aspect although some people tried. ... Then you saw an explosion of amateurs in the 2000s ... they became researchers that connected via the Internet. Now they start making media they can publish themselves ... it started to hit a younger and younger generation ... who love these creatures ... now everything can be a cryptid.”
Historically, notable cryptozoologists have often identified instances featuring "irrefutable evidence" (such as Sanderson and Krantz), only for the evidence to be revealed as the product of a hoax. This may occur during a closer examination by experts or upon confession of the hoaxer.Radford (2014: 161–170).
Anthropology Jeb J. Card says that "[Creationism|[creationists]] have embraced cryptozoology and some cryptozoological expeditions are funded by and conducted by creationists hoping to disprove evolution."Card (2016: 32). In a 2013 interview, paleontology Donald Prothero notes an uptick in creationist cryptozoologists. He observes that "people who actively search for Loch Ness monsters or Mokele-mbembe do it entirely as creationist ministers. They think that if they found a dinosaur in the Congo it would overturn all of evolution. It wouldn't. It would just be a late-occurring dinosaur, but that's their mistaken notion of evolution."Shea (2013).
Citing a 2013 exhibit at the Petersburg, Kentucky-based Creation Museum, which claimed that were once biological creatures who walked the earth alongside humanity and is broadly dedicated to Young Earth creationism, religious studies academic Justin Mullis notes that "cryptozoology has a long and curious history with Young Earth Creationism, with this new exhibit being just one of the most recent examples".Mullis (2019: 249).
Academic Paul Thomas analyzes the influence and connections between cryptozoology in his 2020 study of the Creation Museum and the creationist theme park Ark Encounter. Thomas comments that, "while the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter are flirting with pseudoarchaeology, coquettishly whispering pseudoarchaeological rhetoric, they are each fully in bed with cryptozoology" and observes that "young-earth creationists and cryptozoologists make natural bed fellows. As with pseudoarchaeology, both young-earth creationists and cryptozoologists bristle at the rejection of mainstream secular science and lament a seeming conspiracy to prevent serious consideration of their claims."Thomas (2020: 80–81).
Anthropologist Jeb J. Card summarizes cryptozoology in a survey of pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology:
Card notes that "cryptozoologists often show their disdain and even hatred for professional scientists, including those who enthusiastically participated in cryptozoology", which he traces back to Heuvelmans's early "rage against critics of cryptozoology". He finds parallels with cryptozoology and other pseudosciences, such as ghost hunting and ufology, and compares the approach of cryptozoologists to colonial big-game hunters, and to aspects of European imperialism. According to Card, "most cryptids are framed as the subject of indigenous legends typically collected in the heyday of comparative folklore, though such legends may be heavily modified or worse. Cryptozoology's complicated mix of sympathy, interest, and appropriation of indigenous culture (or non-indigenous construction of it) is also found in New Age circles and dubious "Indian burial grounds" and other ... invoked in such as the "Amityville" hoax ...".Card (2016: 24–27).
In a 2011 foreword for The American Biology Teacher, then National Association of Biology Teachers president Dan Ward uses cryptozoology as an example of "technological pseudoscience" that may confuse students about the scientific method. Ward says that "Cryptozoology ... is not valid science or even science at all. It is monster hunting."Ward (2011: 440). Historian of science Brian Regal includes an entry for cryptozoology in his Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia (2009). Regal says that "as an intellectual endeavor, cryptozoology has been studied as much as cryptozoologists have sought hidden animals".Nagel (2009: 50).
In a 1992 issue of Folklore, folkloristics Véronique Campion-Vincent says:
Campion-Vincent says that "four currents can be distinguished in the study of mysterious animal appearances": "Forteans" ("compilers of anomalies" such as via publications like the Fortean Times), "occultists" (which she describes as related to "Forteans"), "folklorists", and "cryptozoologists". Regarding cryptozoologists, Campion-Vincent says that "this movement seems to deserve the appellation of parascience, like parapsychology: the same corpus is reviewed; many scientists participate, but for those who have an official status of university professor or researcher, the participation is a private hobby".
In her Encyclopedia of American Folklore, academic Linda Watts says that "folklore concerning unreal animals or beings, sometimes called monsters, is a popular field of inquiry" and describes cryptozoology as an example of "American narrative traditions" that "feature many monsters".Watts (2007: 271).
In his analysis of cryptozoology, folklorist Peter Dendle says that "cryptozoology devotees consciously position themselves in defiance of mainstream science" and that:
In a paper published in 2013, Dendle refers to cryptozoologists as "contemporary monster hunters" that "keep alive a sense of wonder in a world that has been very thoroughly charted, mapped, and tracked, and that is largely available for close scrutiny on Google Earth and satellite imaging" and that "on the whole the devotion of substantial resources for this pursuit betrays a lack of awareness of the basis for scholarly consensus (largely ignoring, for instance, evidence of evolutionary biology and the fossil record)."Dendle (2013: 439).
According to historian Mike Dash, few scientists doubt there are thousands of unknown animals, particularly invertebrates, awaiting discovery; however, cryptozoologists are largely uninterested in researching and cataloging newly discovered species of or , instead focusing their efforts towards "more elusive" creatures that have often defied decades of work aimed at confirming their existence.
Paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson (1984) lists cryptozoology among examples of human gullibility, along with creationism:
Paleontologist Donald Prothero (2007) cites cryptozoology as an example of pseudoscience and categorizes it, along with Holocaust denial and UFO abductions claims, as aspects of American culture that are "clearly baloney".Prothero (2007: 13–15).
In Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers (2017), Hill surveys the field and discusses aspects of the subculture, noting internal attempts at creating more scientific approaches and the involvement of Young Earth creationists and a prevalence of hoaxes. She concludes that many cryptozoologists are "passionate and sincere in their belief that mystery animals exist. As such, they give deference to every report of a sighting, often without critical questioning. As with the Ghost hunting, cryptozoologists are convinced that they will be the ones to solve the mystery and make history. With the lure of mystery and money undermining diligent and ethical research, the field of cryptozoology has serious credibility problems."Hill (2017: 56–69).
In 2006, the Bates College Museum of Art held the "Cryptozoology: Out of Time Place Scale" exhibition, which compared cryptozoological creatures with recently extinct animals like the thylacine and extant taxa like the coelacanth, once thought long extinct (living fossils). The following year, the American Museum of Natural History put on a mixed exhibition of imaginary and extinct animals, including the elephant bird Aepyornis maximus and the great ape Gigantopithecus blacki, under the name "Mythic Creatures: Dragons, Unicorns and Mermaids".
In 2003, cryptozoologist Loren Coleman opened the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine. The museum houses more than 3000 cryptozoology related artifacts.
|
|
