Are We Making Cryptozoological Discoveries?

Howdy, the first half-dozen or so of my posts act as mirrors for Reddit posts and adhere largely to that style, just modifying the contents of these posts slightly, I will eventually come back and amend these when I decide on a cohesive format for my posting


One of the key traits which separates science from non-science is progress (Thagard, 1978) - whether an area of inquiry is making, or has the potential to make, new contributions to a broader body of knowledge. If cryptozoology is a science, it should be finding new things; this means discovering and describing cryptids. Is that occurring?

The answer to this is complex, best summed up as "ehhh..kinda?". To answer this question you first have to establish what counts as discovering.

Cryptozoology is an inherently an anthropological discipline, it is dealing with the knowledge of people and their role in shaping it. Although a significant portion of cryptozoological anecdotes are describing zoological species, there are equally as many (if not more) which are purely social constructs. There is no Bigfoot, there is no Nessie. If cryptozoology's goal is to understand the root cause of these anecdotes, any further understanding ought to count as a discovery. Explanations for individual sightings, inquiry into the mechanisms which prompt sightings, literature reviews tracing the folklore of a specific being back to its inception and so on surely must count as cryptozoological victories, right? Finding out what causes sightings of Bigfoot is just the same as finding Bigfoot itself.

The issue with these kinds of discoveries is that they aren't full discoveries, they cannot generally be confirmed completely. They are best guesses, as opposed to finding an unknown animal which leaves no room for doubt or alternatives. Furthermore, there are always new causes and influences which shape cultural beliefs and cause them to evolve - the simple progress of time may render these discoveries outdated, something that isn't the case for an animal discovery. The differences between the kinds of confirmation at play can, at times, make counting these as discoveries tenuous (though does not invalidate them in any capacity, I'd argue that these discoveries are more important than discoveries of new animals).

If we rely solely on zoological discoveries, cryptozoology's track record looks disappointing at a glance. The Nandi Bear, Thunderbird, and Trinity Alps Salamander have very standard explanations. Bigfoot, Nessie, Tsuchinoko, and other such figures are part of a complex web of folklore, misinterpretation, and popular culture. To quote Sharon Hill:

“It’s obvious to critical researchers that most popular cryptids are not new animals that have avoided being scientifically identified. We simply ARE NOT finding new animals that were previously considered legendary cryptids. (Please do not trot out all the pre-1950s examples. It’s the 21st century now.) It is unreasonable to state that we have missed finding the iconic Yeti, Bigfoot, Nessie, or sea serpent. The evidence, from all fields of science, is not there."

If you dig deeper though, discarding the big cryptids we've come to know and love, there is, in fact, some discovery going on. A survey of Heuvelmans' list of cryptids from 1986 (Heuvelmans 1986) and Karl Shuker's 2003 reprint of a supplement to the checklist (Shuker 2003) reveal some things which have been discovered. Starting with some not-strictly-cryptozoological mysteries, confirmation of the presence of many albino animals in the Shennongjia province, identification of the maker of the Devil Bird’s cries, genetic analysis confirming the affinities of the Onza, and the observation of the likely adults of the Bigfin Squid have occured since the publication of these lists. There's also a set of traditional cryptozoological confirmations - the Kellas cat (Francis, 1996), Hoan Kiem turtle (Farkas & Webb, 2003), and Beebe's Manta (Ari, 2014). It's worth clarifying, though, that these discoveries are not completely new species - Beebe's Manta constitutes previously unidentified behavior, the Kellas cat is a hybrid, and the Hoan Kiem turtle currently sits in taxonomic limbo. A bit disappointing, but a step in the right direction. 

A survey of additional, post-2003 literature reveals discoveries such as the Kipunji (Jones et al., 2005), Odedi (Lecroy & Barker, 2006), Michigan's Saga pedo (Cunningham, 2009), Sand Octopus (Jesus, et al., 2021), and Benin Tree Hyrax (Oates et al., 2021). These are new species or rediscoveries of old populations, much reason to celebrate. But wait, there's another red flag - these were not discovered by self-professed cryptozoologists. Do these count as cryptozoological discoveries? Some would, reasonably, argue no. 

This question becomes more polemic with intermediate cases like Kani maranjandu (Kumar et al., 2017), a species of arboreal crab from India’s Western Ghats. The crab was first reported on by freelance journalist and cryptozoologist Matt Salusbury in a recap of his expedition for the Kallana, published in the May 2013 issue of Fortean Times. To quote this recap article -

“As often happens in the hunt for mystery animals, the search for one cryptid throws up reports of another. I talked to award-winning wildlife photographer Sali Palode, who said the local Kani tribal people had shown him the mystery tree crab and he'd been able to photograph it. There were then photos by Sali of the mystery tree crab on his website (in the "insects" section!)

Sali in my interview – with his agent, Badhan Madhavan, translating from English to Malayalam – told how Kani elder Kamalsanan had led him to the tree crabs, and how the Kani used parts of the tree crab as a medicine for ear complaints. The Kani have an excellent reputation for traditional medicine. The receive royalties for medicines made from the leaves of the "jeevani" shrub, which grows in their lands, which turns out to me a miracle wonder drug stimulant.

Sali's description – of a quite large crab with long legs, purple in colour and with yellow front claws – turns out to have been entirely accurate. He also described how they moved very fast among the trees – as his website says, "the speed with which this crab scrambles up a tree is phenomenal."

This description of the animal's behaviour led some of the arthropod experts to whom I spoke to speculate that Sali was confusing it with yet another local cryptid – a large arboreal "tarantula-type spider" that remains as yet undescribed by science. Carl Marshall, an arthropod expert, told me he thought from its description this could be a Peocilatheria tarantula.

Sir David Attenborough was contacted by my colleague Richard Muirhead to ask him his opinion about the possibility of tree crabs living in the Keralan forests. He didn't have a problem with the idea, saying he'd found crabs living in the forests of Madagascar, saying "there is nothing strange about finding crabs in the Madagascan forests – or indeed in Kerala."

Sali described the crabs as living in "gaps" in trees, which turned out to be accurate too. Crabs need water to breed – this they do in hollows in the trees where rainwater gathers.

Recently, a survey of freshwater crabs in the region took place, begun in 2014 under the leadership of Dr Biju Kumar. The surveyors befriended the Kani, who led them to the arboreal tree crabs, known in the Kani language as "maranjandu." A male and a female specimen were captured, leading to the discovery that it was not just a new species of crab, but a whole new genus. It's been formally given the Latin name Kani maranjandu. One of the photos of the tree crabs in the report is by Sali Palode.”

This is an animal first reported during a cryptozoological expedition, supplemented by photographic evidence, whose existence was confused and questioned by relevant academic experts (though not intentionally mind you, academic malice towards things of this sort is more fiction than fact), but championed by a third party, only to later be discovered and described as a new genus. This is the exact process Bernard described and hoped for when he first started publishing on cryptozoology - but a cryptozoologist wasn't there all the way through. Does it count?

This opens up a big can of worms - the question of whether one can retroactively claim cryptozoological discoveries. Like all things cryptozoological, this is tenuous. If you can't, what do you call Thomas Jefferson's line of inquiry in the 1700s or the process used by Edward Blyth - "Nothing delights [Blyth] more than to get hold of some old tradition or natives' report, or to untomb some black-letter notice of antiquity regarding some unknown animal, and to bring his great knowledge to bear in expiscating its meaning and determining the species thereof."?

If you're like me, and a little lax with these kinds of things then yes, cryptozoologists are discovering a lot on the anthropological and zoological side of things. This includes new behaviors, new populations, new species, and the rediscovery of species long thought extinct. This work is done by a variety of academics in a variety of disciplines and is not strictly or solely zoological. Cryptozoological discoveries have been happening for a very long time. If you're more strict, the answer to this question may be a no, or at least no with an exception for Marc Van Roosmalen. I'm excited to hear what academics will have to say regarding this subject both now and in the future.

Citations

Ari, Csilla. “Rapid Coloration Changes of Manta Rays (Mobulidae).” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, vol. 113, no. 1, 15 July 2014

Cunningham, John. "The Saga Saga". Adaptation – NYBTA, 7 Sept. 2007

Farkas, B and Webb, R.G. 2003. "Rafetus leloii Hà Dinh Dúc, 2000 - an invalid species of softshell turtle from Hoan Kiem Lake, Hanoi, Vietnam (Reptilia, Testudines, Trionychidae)". Zool. Abhandl. (Dresden), 53

Francis, Di. My Highland Kellas Cats. Leicester: Ulverscroft, 1996.

Heuvelmans, Bernard. “Annotated Checklist of Apparently Unknown Animals with Which Cryptozoology Is Concerned.” Cryptozoology, vol. 5, 1986.

Jesus, et al. “Traditional Knowledge Aids Description When Resolving the Taxonomic Status of Unsettled Species Using Classical and Molecular Taxonomy: The Case of the Shallow-Water Octopus Callistoctopus Furvus (Gould, 1852) from the Western Atlantic Ocean.” Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 7, 21 Jan. 2021

Jones, et al. “The Highland Mangabey Lophocebus Kipunji: A New Species of African Monkey.” Science, vol. 308, no. 5725, 20 May 2005

Lecroy, Mary, and Barker, F. Keith. “A New Species of Bush-Warbler from Bougainville Island and a Monophyletic Origin for Southwest Pacific Cettia.” American Museum Novitates, vol. 3511, no. 1, 2006

Kumar, Appukuttannair Biju, et al. “Description of a New Genus and New Species of a Fully Arboreal Crab (Decapoda: Brachyura: Gecarcinucidae) from the Western Ghats, India, with Notes on the Ecology of Arboreal Crabs.” Journal of Crustacean Biology, vol. 37, no. 2, 1 Mar. 2017

Oates, John F, et al. “A New Species of Tree Hyrax (Procaviidae: Dendrohyrax) from West Africa and the Significance of the Niger–Volta Interfluvium in Mammalian Biogeography.” Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, vol. 194, no. 2, 16 Apr. 2021

Shuker, Karl. The Beasts That Hide from Man. Paraview Press, 2003.

Thagard, Paul R. “Why Astrology Is a Pseudoscience.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1978, no. 1, Jan. 1978