FT269


Charles Paxton has argued that compiling ‘monster manuals’ of cryptid types essentially adds nothing to crypto­zoology and that a more scientific approach should reject the notion of the cryptid altogether, favouring instead reports as the fundamental unit of analysis. While Paxton’s arguments have merit, ‘formulating cryptids’ – i.e. theorising on the identities and affinit­ies of ethnoknown (folkloric) organisms – if done rigorously, can be scientific­ally valuable in a way that ultimately complements Paxton’s approach.

Science is driven by data, as it is through data (observations and measure­ments) that hypotheses and theories about the way the world works can be tested against reality. It is only logical therefore that scientists with an interest in cryptozoology should be disproport­ionately concerned with data. Up until recently, the notion of what actually constituted data in cryptozoology was ambiguous, and it is in resolving this question that Paxton has made what is arguably the most significant contribut­ion to cryptozoology since Bernard Heuvelmans penned On the Track of Unknown Animals.[1] Paxton argued that anecdotes can be data; in other words, if treated rigorously and cautiously, ‘anecdotal’ collect­ions of reports on unknown animals can be used to test certain hypotheses, for instance concerning behaviour.[2] However, science is about more than just data, as scientists also need to be able to use hypotheses and theories in guiding data collection and interpretation.

One of the most coherent definitions of cryptozoology is that it is a targeted research methodology that utilises various convergent lines of evidence in elucidating the identities of organisms known anecdotally (through reports or via deduction) and ethnozoologically (through myths or folklore).[3] Crypto­zoologists must therefore posit theories and hypotheses that can be either confirmed or disconfirmed based on evid­ence. Crypt­ids are a prime example of such theorising, as a cryptid represents an attempt at combining the commonalities associated with a set of reports (such as location and characteristics) with ideas about poss­ible taxonomic affinities (relations to known organisms). The problem with this kind of theorising in crypto­zoology is that it has been of wildly variable quality. Heuvelmans has (rightly) been taken to task over some of his proposed cryptid categories, such as the super-otter, which has all the hallmarks of a preconceived idea backed only by the distortion of reports possessing no real commonalities.[4] This is by no means the most egregious example of ill-conceived theorising in crypto­zoology; that particular accolade belongs to some of the more sensationalist applications of the ‘prehistoric survivor paradigm’ to explain the Loch Ness Monster or Caddy.[5]

An excellent example of how zoo­logic­ally informed cryptid formulat­ion led to the discovery of a novel species is the case of the Madagascan hawk moth, whose existence was predicted by Charles Darwin in 1862 [6] on the basis that a moth possessing a proboscis of 25cm would be required to pollinate the deep-flowered comet orchid. Indeed, some 41 years later, just such a moth was discovered and described.[7] In this instance, theory was allowed to guide research to great effect as a new species was eventually elucidated. While such successful conclusions to crypto­zoological research are undoubtedly rare, this example illustrates precisely why it would be unwise for crypto­zoologists to throw their cryptids out with the proverbial bathwater and focus instead, as Paxton suggests, on the raw data. Properly formulated cryptids can be used to effectively guide research.

Prime examples of potentially useful contemporary cryptids include the double-dorsal-finned ‘rhinoceros dolphins’ observed by Jean-René Quoy and Joseph Gaimard in 1819,[8] and the double-dorsal-finned ‘magenta whale’ observed in 1867 by Enrico Giglioli.[9] In both cases, the individuals making the observations were highly competent naturalists; furthermore, there are compelling grounds for ruling out the possibility that what they saw were simply mutants of known species. While a solitary specimen possessing an extra dorsal fin might easily be dismissed as a freak, the ‘rhinoceros dolphins’ for example were observed in a school, suggesting that the trait is characteristic of a new species. Likewise, the ‘magenta whale’ exhibited characteristics not found in the morphologically similar blue whale, again suggesting that mutat­ion is an unlikely explanation.[10] Treating what these naturalists observed as mere reports is disingenuous, in that there is sufficient detail to posit theories about what is being seen (i.e. undiscovered cetacean species), theories which can even be used to guide efforts at discovery.

It is clear from the history of crypto­zoology that there are examples of theor­etically unsound cryptids just as there are examples of theoretically sound ones. The existence of bad theor­ies cannot be used to justify ridd­ing crypto­zoology of cryptids. Scient­ific crypto­zoologists should not simply limit themselves to the analysis of reports, as, while this is a significant endeavour, it is only part of what crypto­zoology strives to achieve. Armed with both good crypt­ids and good data, crypto­zoology would be in a better position than ever to take the lead in the search for undiscovered species.



Notes
1 Bernard Heuvelmans: On the Track of Unknown Animals, 1958.
2 Charles Paxton: Journal of Zoology 279, 381–387, 2009.
3 Chad Arment: Cryptozoology: Science and Speculation, 2004.
4 Lars Thomas: Fortean Studies 4, 234–236, 1996; Charles Paxton et al: Archives of Natural History 32, 1–9, 2005.
5 Peter Scott & Rob Rines: Nature 258, 466–468, 1975; Edward Bousfield & Paul LeBlond: Amphipacifica 1, 1–25, 1995; Darren Naish: Fortean Studies 7, 75–94, 2001.
6 Charles Darwin: On the Various Contrivances by Which Orchids are Fertilized by Insects, 1862.
7 Walter Rothschild & Karl Jordan: Novitates Zoologicæ 9, 1–972, 1903.
8 Jean-René Quoy & Joseph Gaimard: Voyage Autour du Monde Exécuté sue les Corvettes de S.M. l’Uranie et la Physicienne Pendant les Années 1817, 1818, 1819 et 1820, 1824.
9 Enrico Giglioli: Note Intomo Alla Distribuzione Della Fauna Vertebrata Nell’Oceano Prese Durante un Viaggio Intorno al Globo, 1865–1868, 1870.
10 Michel Raynal & Jean-Pierre Sylvestre: Aquatic Mammals 17, 31–36, 1991.