Cryptozoology According To Bernard Heuvelmans

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.

I’ve decided to compile and combine the key points and quotes from each of Bernard Heuvelmans’ ISC papers in one single post for ease of access - the goal of this post is to demonstrate what Bernard Heuvelmans viewed as cryptozoology. Having this information compiled in one place is key for any discussion regarding what cryptozoology is or is not. I’ve only included ISC remarks here, so this is not a complete review of his stances, which grew and changed over the course of his life. I hope to compile, translate, and share remarks from his other books and articles in the near future, which is difficult as I am not well versed in French, but to quote Bernard “No serious researcher ever overlooks a work because it is published in a language other than his own” (1984a). 

Works cited can be located here and here. There are additional remarks worth checking out. Heuvelmans’ texts are cited by year, Greenwell’s interview is cited as G1984.

Heuvelmans, 1982 - “What Is Cryptozoology?”, Cryptozoology vol 1

Heuvelmans, 1983 - “How Many Animal Species Remain To Be Discovered?”, Cryptozoology vol 2

Heuvelmans 1984a - “Letter To The Editor”, ISC Newsletter vol 3 no 1

Greenwell, 1984 - “Interview - The Father Of Cryptozoology Gives His Views On Many Matters”, ISC Newsletter vol 3 no 3

Heuvelmans, 1984b - “The Birth And Early History Of Cryptozoology”, Cryptozoology vol 3

Heuvelmans, 1986 - “Annotated Checklist Of Apparently Unknown Animals With Which Cryptozoology Is Concerned”, Cryptozoology vol 5

Heuvelmans, 1988 - “The Sources and Method Of Cryptozoological Research”, Cryptozoology vol 7

Heuvelmans, 1990 - “The Metamorphosis Of Unknown Animals Into Fabulous Beasts And Fabulous Beasts Into Unknown Animals”, Cryptozoology vol 9

Heuvelmans, 1991 - “Other Definitions Other Heresies (response to Bayanov)”, Cryptozoology vol 10

So what is cryptozoology according to Bernard Heuvelmans? 

Definitions & Methodology

“Cryptozoology - from the Greek roots kryptos (hidden), zoon (animal), and logos (discourse) - means simply “‘the science of hidden animals” (1982), more clearly “the scientific study of hidden animals, i.e., of still unknown animal forms about which only testimonial and circumstantial evidence is available, or material evidence considered insufficient by some” (1988). Alternatively, it has been phrased as “a systematized search for unknown species of animals about which some testimonial and circumstantial evidence is available” (1984b). While zoology haphazardly collects specimens, cryptozoology is precise and exact in its quarries (G1984). According to Bernard, zoology did not need cryptozoology until the end of the 18th century, as zoology relied on all sources of knowledge to discover new species and would incorporate circumstantial claims, what today would be called hidden animals, into zoological catalogs to later be elaborated on and verified. Cryptozoology first started when academics tried to classify and verify such hidden animals (1984b). Heuvelmans was quite frustrated with the fact that other ISC members, academics, and the general public failed to grasp the scope of cryptozoology or its methods, and the fact that these people tried to make their own cryptozoological definitions, especially long and cumbersome ones (1988).

“Hidden” animals, alternatively called “unknowns”, are more adequately termed animals “undescribed by science”, as they are known by local populations, at least sufficiently enough to know indirectly of their appearance and some aspects of appearance and behavior (1982), they are “those which are heard of either because they are named and described by natives, or reported to have been sighted by travelers, or merely because there are traditions or depictions extant of them” (1990). In some cases, these animals are known to science, but only in their fossil form - not as extant animals (1982). As such, these animals are never completely unknown; remember that On The Track Of Unknown Animals was originally published as “On The Track Of Ignored Beasts” in French (1991), ignored in this case by conservative zoologists. “Hidden” is intended with the double meaning of escaping scientific catalogues, and being obfuscated by the zoological establishment (1991). The prior human knowledge of an animal before its “official” existence is an absolute requirement for cryptozoology, and Bernard further stated that true cryptozoological research cannot be done without being assisted by “local peoples” (1984b). Species newly described but not known prior are not cryptozoological (G1984). Even so, non-cryptozoological discoveries can demonstrate the necessity of cryptozoology, Bernard cites the Iriomote cat, Chacoan peccary (1983), and megamouth shark (G1984) as examples. Bernard also demonstrates that some zoological discoveries could have been made much quicker via cryptozoology, such as the Malayan tapir, pygmy hippopotamus, lowland gorilla, giant panda, and coelacanth (1984b). For examples of proper cryptozoological successes, Bernard cites the Andean tapir, giant squid, and okapi (1984b). 

Animals which are highly visible are the most likely to be recognized as unknown (an ant the size of a vole is more striking than a minnow-sized fish, which would only be recognized by a trained zoologist) and traits which are truly singular, unexpected, paradoxical, striking, or emotionally upsetting lend themselves to mythification the easiest, resulting in the primary quarries of cryptozoology (1983). Bernard argued that there was “no need” to keep track of little forms, due to the sheer number of microfaunal organisms being discovered each year - the fast rate of new species discovery and the low likelihood of extinction are the exact opposite of the circumstances of many unknowns (1983). Even so, Bernard’s annotated list of cryptozoological subjects (1986) includes small marmot-like mammals, wildcats, and skink-like squamates. 

“Unexpected” animals, including species described but presumed extinct in recent memory (e.g. the Tasmanian thylacine), animals which may or may not be extinct (e.g. the Eastern cougar), and animals known from one region but not another (e.g. the Northern race of white rhinoceros), were regarded as “irrelevant” (1991) to cryptozoology, because they are so numerous (1986), have already been described by science as living species (1991), or are often simply stray or aberrant individuals (G1984). According to Bernard, papers on such subjects were accepted by the ISC’s journal because the methods used conformed to those of cryptozoology, not because their subjects fell under the scope of cryptozoology (1991).

Bernard’s list did not necessarily consist of new species awaiting discovery - many could plausibly be explained by misidentifications, exaggerations, or hoaxes - it simply acted as a list of subjects that were to be closely investigated to determine their relevance to cryptozoology. The list, furthermore, was not complete and Bernard hoped for future amendments from other researchers (1986), though he would not live to see the publication of the first additions by other cryptozoologists. 

The task of cryptozoology consists of demythifying the content of information in an attempt to help make the inventory of the planet’s fauna as complete as possible (1982), accelerating the discovery rates of medium-to-large species (1983), especially those in endangered habitats, before they go extinct and are lost forever (1982). Cryptozoology acted in defiance to the contemporary scientific norm of a reliance on a specimen - species described or advocated for without a specimen were shunned by the scientific establishment in an “arbitrarily selective” fashion (1982) according to Bernard and even the neutral state of waiting for a specimen to be acquired before admitting a new species could prove dangerous; he condemned this “sterile suspension of activity” (1982). Bernard was against the killing or taking of specimens, arguing that it is feasible to demonstrate the existence of unknown animals by other means (G1984). As an extension of this, Bernard hoped to establish strict protection for species even before they were scientifically recognized as a direct counter to science’s specimen-focused “wait and see” attitude (1982). Cryptozoology’s goals were compared to the prediction of planets and other cosmic bodies, being an ambitious prediction of the presence of something previously unknown but attested to indirectly (1984b).

The basic objective of cryptozoology, after tentatively locating a species still hidden, is the gradual accumulation of all the available information on it (1982). Cryptozoology relies on evidence such as eyewitness reports, indigenous lore and traditions, tracks, and other material evidence, and through the elaboration of such circumstantial evidence (1983). This evidence is compiled through exhaustive bibliography compilation, reading remarks from a variety of sources, and using the methodology of various disciplines to interpret said evidence. As such, cryptozoology is heavily interdisciplinary, requiring not only a thorough grasp of most of the zoological sciences, but also training in folkloristics, linguistics, archaeology, and history (1982). Bernard stated that cryptozoology is conducted more extensively in libraries, newspaper morgues, regional archives, museums, art galleries, laboratories, and zoological parks, rather than in the field (1982). The search for, and sorting out of, cryptozoological data was an academic undertaking best refined by a long practice, and Bernard stated that one cannot be a “real” cryptozoologist without having been first an ordinary zoologist (1984a, G1984). Bernard states that “some of the people who go out looking for Nessie, or Sasquatch, or dinosaurs, are not cryptozoologists at all” (G1984), and that “it is incontestably the methodology which defines and constitutes a new science or scientific discipline. Just as writing pleasant stories about animals does not make the writer a zoologist, reporting encounters with unidentified beasts, or traditions about them, does not make the reporter a cryptozoologist” (1984b). Even so, laymen can contribute to cryptozoology by surveying literature or aiding in field research (1984a), and that the wide multidisciplinary scope of cryptozoology actually encouraged people of various backgrounds to participate (1988). In general, cryptozoology aspires to true skepticism, that which opposes both an a priori incredulity, and a naive willingness to believe (1982). Bernard emphasized that cryptozoology was not an occult or arcane science; that cryptozoology was no more arcane, archaic, or obsolete than paleontology, that is to say not at all (1982). 

Bernard felt that cryptozoology information was of equivalent quality and value to physical specimens, and that zoology’s failure to consider them was unscientific, and further that zoology’s rejection of cryptozoology was hypocritical when ecology and ethology both used similar evidence in similar ways (1982). Cryptozoological evidence is accumulated into a coherent set of indicators which converge on a scientific description, an identikit picture consisting of information on ecology, habitat, and zoological identity with reasonable precision (1982). The cohesiveness of testimony provides statistical value, and ecological patterns further bolster any cryptozoological case (1988). With this information, a species could be reliably located. Identikit hypotheses were acknowledged by Bernard to vary in quality (1986), but even so he argued that cryptozoological reconstructions are no more fantastic or illegitimate than those of paleontology, both relying on interpolation, extrapolation, and conjecture (1982). Unlike paleontological reconstructions, cryptozoological reconstructions can be plausibly verified with the discovery of an unknown animal (1982). A key part of Bernard’s 1982 paper is the advocation for cryptozoological parataxa - a classificatory nomenclature for unknown animals. Bernard felt that such a system was necessary for achieving cryptozoology’s goals of classifying and conserving unknown animals. Bernard, however, was mistaken in his understanding of parataxa, science’s rejection of parataxa, and the relevance of ichnotaxa - I hope to cover the issues with these claims and subsequent developments in the future. Bernard regarded the cryptozoological process as similar to legal proceedings - a hidden animal is “put on trial”, with a cryptozoologist producing testimony, circumstantial evidence, material proof if available, precedents and related cases, and arguments against objections to prove the existence of an animal. A full case is necessary as a single piece of non-specimen evidence cannot demonstrate the existence of an unknown animal, much to the dismay of naive cryptozoological enthusiasts (1988). 

Bernard also regarded cryptozoology and paleontology as sister sciences, arguing that cryptozoological subjects are “hidden” in the same way paleontological subjects are - they are known to exist, but evidence for them has yet to be uncovered -, that both studies are founded on the exception - fossilization and observation of something unknown -, and that it is the goal of these fields to uncover their subjects to aid in completing the inventory of Earth’s animals (1982). Bernard was adamant that cryptozoologists truly studied their animals in the way paleontologists study extinct species - compiling an understanding of their species based on secondhand evidence in order to reconstruct a likely ecology and evolutionary history. Just as paleontologists do not directly observe and interact with their extinct subjects, cryptozoologists often do not directly engage with theirs - though unlike paleontologists there is the potential to, and that is the end goal of any cryptozoological investigation (1991). Upon discovery, a cryptozoological subject is passed onto standard zoology (1988). 

According to Bernard, many common objections to cryptozoology can be easily dismissed (1982). Key among these were folkloristic objections regarding the cultural origins of some cryptozoological subjects - his comments on the matter are reproduced below. These remarks have been separated from the above section due to the specificity of their content.

The Mythification Of Hidden Animals

Bernard objects to the idea that unknown animals are purely mythical, entirely made up by people. He instead argues that, due to the brief time of observation and the jarring anatomical traits of hidden animals, rationalistic processes take over and interpret unknown animals as monsters by filling in gaps from a witnesses’ culture and background memory (1982, 1990). Bernard calls this process of transformation “mythification”, and states that “the depth and scope of its action varies in direct proportion to the extent of our ignorance” (1988). He argued that these processes were genetic, hereditary, and built into our evolutionary history, and that these are emotional processes which run contradictory to the “rationalized knowledge” of science by being irrational in this way (1990). 

According to Bernard, all myth has at least some foundation in fact - it is never “pure invention”, and further states that in many cultures myths are not regarded as fictional tales but what is “thought to be true” (1988). Some authors have quoted Bernard as saying myth is rigid, but he says the contrary - that mythical thought is “adaptive, comparable to the immunological defense systems of the body, designed to forearm the mind of men against the traumata associated with novel experiences” (1982). Unexpected or unexplainable experiences are “systematically distorted and completed according to deeply embedded mental stereotypes in such a way that it loses the frightening nature of the unknown, and, having thus become more familiar, is accepted without the risk of harming the mind’s balance and comfort” (1988). Bernard’s statements on the rigidity of myth are statements about the fact that all cultures, including the Western scientific culture, make myths (1982), and that myths generally fall into reliable, observable patterns, the “rigid mental molds” of Jungian archetypes (1982).

Hidden animals, due to their striking size or anatomy, and the incompleteness of observation, lend themselves to a sort of “forced mythification” (1982) - “they have to be largely mythicized to compensate for the disquieting gaps in our knowledge, their shape and behavior are subtly distorted according to the mythical ‘“‘monster”’ they best fit, and some of their attributes are borrowed from it” (1988), with Bernard citing the gorilla’s wildman-like depictions as an example (1982). Sometimes, an animal is mythified beyond recognition - for example the unicorn - but Bernard argues that the Unicorn is no more or less real because it is the end result of the transformation of a real animal, the rhinoceros, and “who can decide at what point the animal in the process of mythification ceases to be real?” (1982). He further argues all animals are at the mercy of mythification, no matter how well we know them, it’s simply a matter of how much. 

Bernard regards the two ends of mythification, a lived experience or a folkloric tradition, as easily and readily distinguishable - “no one is likely to mistake the traditional story told by a native for a personal testimony”, especially if they analyzed the scenario within its broader context (1982). The abundance of traits and the kinds of “fantastic and even supernatural traits” (1988) invoked are the process of mythification gone too far, filling in too much, and that more grounded accounts are closer to reality (1982). The two can readily be distinguished by the stereotyped nature of attributes which have been added, conforming to Jungian archetypes (1988). Even fictional and fantastical monsters can be analyzed to reveal the psychological fear at their core (1990). As such, the goal of cryptozoology is to “strip off of the resulting “monsters”, those attributes which have been borrowed from their mythological models” (1988). Bernard contrasts seemingly mythical attributes of the yeti - immense strength, a tendency for kidnapping women - with seemingly naturalistic attributes - consumption of moss and quadrupedal movement - to demonstrate that this figure is likely in the active process of mythification, slowly conforming to the wildman archetype; “In front of this heap of information on the mores of the alleged “‘snowman,” it does not take much shrewdness to separate the wheat from the chaff, to discard what is ascribable to an inescapable mythicizing process, and to make the animal in question appear like it really is” (1988). 

The sober-minded scientist’s and the narrow-minded folklorist’s (1990) tendency to disregard mythified animals as having as zoological basis is, according to Bernard, is “perfectly absurd” and would “lead them to conclude that anthropoid apes (the ‘‘wild men of the woods’’), meteorites (curses from heaven), and television (the magic mirror) do not exist but in our imagination” (1988). Bernard further states that newly discovered animals have consistently proved themselves to be the origin of certain monsters throughout zoological history, “rising from a sometimes ludicrous folkloristic reputation, and even a disputed cryptozoological fame, to a respectable and recognized zoological status”, with the manatee, formerly the mermaid or Central African vampire, given as an example (1990). Bernard argues that mythification happens even today, citing the sea serpent-turned-whale shark of the Philippines and the pinchaque-turned-Andean tapir as examples. This back-and-forth is the transformation of “the unknown to the fabulous and…the fabulous to the known” (1990), and it’s this transformation which cryptozoology seeks to harness.

“To summarize, mythification and rationalization succeed, overlap, and complete each other. Fact and folklore are so closely interwoven that it is often difficult to separate them sharply. As a result, to be able to understand mythology as well as science—or, under the circumstances, cultural folklore as well as cryptozoology— both approaches are imperative. Supported thus jointly by folklorists and cryptozoologists, monsters are not about to die. Not that they are eternal: surely they were born with human thought and will vanish with it. Yet, I wish a long survival to all the animals of flesh and blood that were successively embodied in them, that somehow fed them and kept them alive, all for the comfort of our souls. We owe them that at least” (1990).