Cryptozoology and Me
I admit it; I have an interest in cryptozoology or the study of hidden animals. Not so much on the discovery of mythical creatures like the Kraken or unicorns but the possibility that there still exists as yet, undiscovered animals. The poster child for this is the Coelacanth. This is a fish that was discovered in 1938 of the coast of South Africa, 66 million years after it was believed to have become extinct. Second place would probably go to the discovery of the Mountain Gorilla in 1902. These discoveries, and others, have shown that even as humans moved in to all corners of the earth, still some mysteries remained. The scale of the world’s oceans and their enormous depths has meant that we are still discovering new species or variations of species as we improve our abilities to visit these locations. This challenge is somewhat removed though when looking at terrestrial animals. Insects, birds and other small animals do get discovered from time to time but there has not been an animal of a significant size. Although the Tapanuli orang-utan was classified as a distinct species as late as 2017.
It is fairly safe to say that cryptozoology and cryptids in general do generate a lot of controversy over the veracity of claims made by amateur researchers about the existence of some creatures. Science has a prescribed methodology based on gathering data and testing a hypothesis to prove if something is either true or not. Anecdotal evidence is not suitable as a type of data. For example, there may be Sasquatch footprints collected by the public but unless there is evidence of what made the print then it is simply not usable data. This is where a paradox exists. Something undiscovered but known through anecdotal evidence does not mean that it does not exist altogether. This was certainly the case of the Mountain Gorilla and the Komodo Dragon. However, in these cases, a living or dead body was produced to verify that what people had claimed existed actually did. Does this mean that all the anecdotal evidence on other cryptids that have yet to produce a body are false? This can only be answered with a maybe.
The specific cryptids that are of particular interest to me are those of a hairy hominid that may exist. In particular the Sasquatch, Yeti and the Alma. This is not to say I believe in their existence but I am interested enough to want to believe in them. It is true to say that nearly every continent on Earth has a hairy hominid of some description. Some can be discounted quite easily as misidentification or simple folklore. The Yowie of Australia is possibly the weakest as far as anecdotal evidence were as Sasquatch would be at the other end of the scale. On a side note, there was anecdotal evidence of a small race of humans that existed in Indonesia through the myths and storytelling of the indigenous population. This proved to be factual with the discovery of the ‘Hobbit’ people on the Island of Flores in 2004. Despite rigorous scientific debate over the skeletons and the possible causes of their small size, Homo floresiensis was eventually classified and has since meant that the evolution of humanity followed many and varied paths. Stories about the Oreng Pendak in Sumatra may also prove to be justified if remains or a living specimen can be found.
Returning to Sasquatch, Yeti and the Almas, there are certainly some compelling stories and anecdotal evidence that something may exist in North America, Tibet and southern Russia. To date though, there is no data available to support the fact that these creatures remain as cryptids. The existence of them tends to be more real in people’s imaginations and the wanting to believe that there are large hairy hominids still to be discovered. Sasquatch in particular, has numerous websites, podcasts, organisations and even conferences for the believers to send in their stories or to mix with like-minded people. Now we shouldn’t be critical of these ‘Squatchers’ for believing in the existence of something that has only been proven through anecdotal evidence without any tangible proof of it being real. If we were to be critical, then the same criticism should be leveled at every religious group on the planet. Do we want to have a world were faith is non-existent? Not really. People have clung to myths and stories for millennia and will probably do so for many years to come.
So, in the meantime I will sit and wait to read of evidence that a previously unknown hairy hominid has been discovered. The ramifications for such a find would be immense in regards to how it is protected, ecological arguments around habitat and the inevitable economic impact a discovery may make. This belief in the possibility comes down to an argument between head and heart. The rationalistic view that it is unlikely and the human view that there just may be something there.
