Cryptozoology is apseudoscience andsubculture that searches for and studies unknown, legendary, or extinct animals whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated,[1] particularly those popular infolklore, such asBigfoot, theLoch Ness Monster,Yeti, thechupacabra, theJersey Devil, or theMokele-mbembe. Cryptozoologists refer to these entities ascryptids, a term coined by the subculture. Because it does not follow thescientific method, cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by mainstream science: it is neither a branch ofzoology nor offolklore studies. It was originally founded in the 1950s by zoologistsBernard Heuvelmans andIvan 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 withYoung Earth creationism) noted parallels in cryptozoology and other pseudosciences such asghost hunting andufology, and highlighted uncritical media propagation of cryptozoologist claims.
As a field, cryptozoology originates from the works ofBernard Heuvelmans, aBelgian zoologist, andIvan T. Sanderson, a Scottish zoologist. Notably, Heuvelmans publishedOn the Track of Unknown Animals (French:Sur la piste des bêtes ignorées) in 1955, a landmark work among cryptozoologists that was followed by numerous other similar works. In addition, Sanderson published a series of books that contributed to the developing hallmarks of cryptozoology, includingAbominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life (1961).[2][3] Heuvelmans himself traced cryptozoology to the work ofAnthonie Cornelis Oudemans, who theorized that a large unidentified species of seal was responsible for sea serpent reports.[4]
Cryptozoology is 'the study of hidden animals' (fromAncient 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 termcryptozoology to Sanderson.[2][5] Followingcryptozoology, the termcryptid was coined in 1983 by cryptozoologist J. E. Wall in the summer issue of theInternational Society of Cryptozoology newsletter.[6] According to Wall "[It has been] 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."[7]
TheOxford English Dictionary defines the nouncryptid as "an animal whose existence or survival to the present day is disputed or unsubstantiated; any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist".[8] While used by most cryptozoologists, the termcryptid is not used by academic zoologists.[9] 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".[10]
While biologists regularly identify new species, cryptozoologists often focus on creatures from thefolkloric record. Most famously, these include theLoch Ness Monster,Champ (folklore),Bigfoot, thechupacabra, 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".[2] 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.[2]
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 writerDaniel Loxton and paleontologistDonald Prothero, "[c]ryptozoologists have often promoted 'ProfessorRoy 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 includeGrover Krantz,Karl Shuker, andRichard Greenwell.[11]
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.[12]
Cryptozoologists have often led unsuccessful expeditions to find evidence of cryptids. Bigfoot researcherRené Dahinden led searches into caves to find evidence of sasquatch, as early sasquatch legends claimed they lived in rocky areas. Despite the failure of these searches, he spent years trying to find proof of bigfoot.[13]Lensgrave Adam Christoffer Knuth led an expedition intoLake Tele in the Congo to find theMokele-mbembe in 2018. While the expedition was a failure, they discovered a new species of green algae.[14]
A subset of cryptozoology promotes the pseudoscience ofYoung Earth creationism, rejecting conventional science in favor of a literalBiblical interpretation and promoting concepts such as "living dinosaurs".Science writerSharon A. Hill observes that the Young Earth creationist segment of cryptozoology is "well-funded and able to conduct expeditions with a goal of finding a living dinosaur that they think would invalidate evolution".[15]
Anthropologist Jeb J. Card says that "[c]reationists have embraced cryptozoology and some cryptozoological expeditions are funded by and conducted by creationists hoping to disprove evolution."[16] In a 2013 interview,paleontologistDonald Prothero notes an uptick in creationist cryptozoologists. He observes that "[p]eople who actively search forLoch Ness monsters orMokele Mbembe do it entirely as creationist ministers. They think that if they found adinosaur in theCongo 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."[17]
Citing a 2013 exhibit at thePetersburg, Kentucky-basedCreation Museum, which claimed thatdragons 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 "[c]ryptozoology has a long and curious history with Young Earth Creationism, with this new exhibit being just one of the most recent examples".[18]
Academic Paul Thomas analyzes the influence and connections between cryptozoology in his 2020 study of the Creation Museum and the creationist theme parkArk Encounter. Thomas comments that, "while the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter are flirting withpseudoarchaeology, coquettishly whispering pseudoarchaeological rhetoric, they are each fully in bed with cryptozoology" and observes that "[y]oung-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."[19]
Media outlets have often uncritically disseminated information from cryptozoologist sources, including newspapers that repeat false claims made by cryptozoologists or television shows that feature cryptozoologists as monster hunters (such as the popular and purportedly nonfiction American television showMonsterQuest, which aired from 2007 to 2010). Media coverage of purported "cryptids" often fails to provide more likely explanations, further propagating claims made by cryptozoologists.[20]
There is a broad consensus among academics that cryptozoology is apseudoscience.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] The subculture is regularly criticized for reliance on anecdotal information[29] and because in the course of investigating animals that most scientists believe are unlikely to have existed, cryptozoologists do not follow thescientific method.[30] No academic course of study nor university degree program grants the status ofcryptozoologist and the subculture is primarily the domain of individuals without training in the natural sciences.[31][32][33]
Anthropologist Jeb J. Card summarizes cryptozoology in a survey of pseudoscience andpseudoarchaeology:
Cryptozoology purports to be the study of previously unidentified animal species. At first glance, this would seem to differ little from zoology. New species are discovered by field and museum zoologists every year. Cryptozoologists cite these discoveries as justification of their search but often minimize or omit the fact that the discoverers do not identify as cryptozoologists and are academically trained zoologists working in an ecological paradigm rather than organizing expeditions to seek out supposed examples of unusual and large creatures.[34]
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 asghost hunting andufology, and compares the approach of cryptozoologists to colonial big-game hunters, and to aspects of European imperialism. According to Card, "[m]ostcryptids are framed as the subject of indigenous legends typically collected in the heyday ofcomparative 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 inNew Age circles and dubious "Indian burial grounds" and otherlegends [...] invoked inhauntings such as the"Amityville" hoax [...]".[35]
In a 2011 foreword forThe American Biology Teacher, thenNational Association of Biology Teachers presidentDan 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."[36]Historian of scienceBrian Regal includes an entry for cryptozoology in hisPseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia (2009). Regal says that "as an intellectual endeavor, cryptozoology has been studied as much as cryptozoologists have sought hidden animals".[37]
In a 1992 issue ofFolklore,folklorist Véronique Campion-Vincent says:
Unexplained appearances of mystery animals are reported all over the world today. Beliefs in the existence of fabulous and supernatural animals are ubiquitous and timeless. In the continents discovered by Europe indigenous beliefs and tales have strongly influenced the perceptions of the conquered confronted by a new natural environment. In parallel with the growing importance of the scientific approach, these traditional mythical tales have been endowed with sometimes highly artificial precision and have given birth to contemporary legends solidly entrenched in their territories. The belief self-perpetuates today through multiple observations enhanced by the media and encouraged (largely with the aim of gain for touristic promotion) by the local population, often genuinely convinced of the reality of this profitable phenomenon."[38]
Campion-Vincent says that "four currents can be distinguished in the study of mysterious animal appearances": "Forteans" ("compiler[s] of anomalies" such as via publications like theFortean 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, likeparapsychology: 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".[38]
In herEncyclopedia of American Folklore, academicLinda 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".[39]
In his analysis of cryptozoology, folkloristPeter Dendle says that "cryptozoology devotees consciously position themselves in defiance of mainstream science" and that:
The psychological significance of cryptozoology in the modern world [...] serves to channel guilt over the decimation of species and destruction of the natural habitat; to recapture a sense of mysticism and danger in a world now perceived as fully charted and over-explored; and to articulate resentment of and defiance against a scientific community perceived as monopolising the pool of culturally acceptable beliefs.[40]
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)."[41]
According to historianMike 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 ofants orbeetles, instead focusing their efforts towards "more elusive" creatures that have often defied decades of work aimed at confirming their existence.[30]
PaleontologistGeorge Gaylord Simpson (1984) lists cryptozoology among examples of human gullibility, along withcreationism:
Humans are the most inventive, deceptive, and gullible of all animals. Only those characteristics can explain the belief of some humans in creationism, in the arrival of UFOs with extraterrestrial beings, or in some aspects of cryptozoology. [...] In several respects the discussion and practice of cryptozoology sometimes, although not invariably, has demonstrated both deception and gullibility. An example seems to merit the old Latin saying 'I believe because it is incredible,' although Tertullian, its author, applied it in a way more applicable to the present day creationists.[42]
Paleontologist Donald Prothero (2007) cites cryptozoology as an example of pseudoscience and categorizes it, along withHolocaust denial andUFO abductions claims, as aspects of American culture that are "clearly baloney".[43]
InScientifical 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 ofYoung 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 theghost seekers, 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."[44]
There have been several organizations, of varying types, dedicated or related to cryptozoology. These include:
The zoological and cryptozoological collection and archive of Bernard Heuvelmans is held at theMusée Cantonal de Zoologie inLausanne and consists of around "1,000 books, 25,000 files, 25,000 photographs, correspondence, and artifacts".[45]: 19
In 2006, theBates College Museum of Art held the "Cryptozoology: Out of Time Place Scale" exhibition, which compared cryptozoological creatures with recently extinct animals like thethylacine and extant taxa like thecoelacanth, once thought long extinct (living fossils). The following year, theAmerican Museum of Natural History put on a mixed exhibition of imaginary and extinct animals, including theelephant birdAepyornis maximus and the great apeGigantopithecus blacki, under the name "Mythic Creatures: Dragons, Unicorns and Mermaids".[45]: 18–19
In 2003, cryptozoologistLoren Coleman opened theInternational Cryptozoology Museum inPortland,Maine.[46] The museum houses more than 3000 cryptozoology related artifacts.[47]
Media related toCryptozoology at Wikimedia Commons
