العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolCRYPTOZOOLOGY
'Cryptozoology' (from Greek: κρυπτός, ''kryptós'', "hidden"; ζῷον, ''zôon'', "animal"; and λόγος, ''logos'', "knowledge" or "study" – ''c.f.'' zoology) is the search for animals hypothesized to exist, but for which conclusive proof is missing. The field also includes the search for known animals believed to be extinct.
People who study or search for such animals are called ''cryptozoologists'', while the hypothetical creatures involved are sometimes called "cryptids", a term coined by John Wall in 1983.[1]
Invention of the term "cryptozoology" is often attributed to
noted zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans. But in his book, ''In the Wake of Sea Serpents'', Heuvelmans attributes coinage of the term to the late Scottish explorer and adventurer Ivan T. Sanderson.[2] Heuvelmans' 1955 book, ''On the Track of Unknown Animals'', traces the scholarly origins of the discipline to Anthonid Cornelis Oudemans[3] and his 1892 study, ''The Great Sea Serpent''. Heuvelmans argued that cryptozoology should be undertaken with scientific rigor, but with an , interdisciplinary approach. He also stressed that attention should be given to local, urban and folkloric sources regarding such creatures. While often layered in unlikely and fantastic elements, folktales can have small grains of truth and important information regarding these organisms.
Loren Coleman, a modern popularizer of cryptozoology, has chronicled the history and personalities of the science in his books.[4]
Another notable book on the subject is Willy Ley's ''Exotic Zoology'' (1959). Ley was best known for his writings on rocketry and related topics, but he was trained in paleontology, and did write a number of books about animals. Ley's collection ''Exotic Zoology'' is of some interest to cryptozoology, as he discusses the Yeti and sea serpents, as well as reports of relict dinosaurs. The book's first section ("Myth?") entertains the possibility that some legendary creatures (like the sirrush, the unicorn or the cyclops) might be based on actual animals (or misinterpretation of animals and/or their remains). The most rigorously scientific analyses of cryptids can be found in the works of British zoologist and cryptozoologist Dr Karl Shuker, who has published 12 books and countless articles on numerous cryptozoological subjects since the mid-1980s.
Many cryptozoologists strive for legitimacy – some of them are respected scientists in other fields – and discoveries of previously unknown animals are often subject to great attention. However, cryptozoology ''per se'' has never been fully embraced by the scientific community. One can not earn a degree in cryptozoology from any college or university. Some cryptozoologists align themselves with more scientifically rigorous fields like zoology, while others tend toward an anthropological slant or even a Fortean perspective – however, cryptozoology is often considered a pseudoscience by skeptical mainstream zoologists and biologists .
Most criticism – and occasional ridicule – from the scientific mainstream is directed at proponents for the existence of the more "famous" mega-fauna cryptids (like Bigfoot, the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster), whose existence is generally regarded as highly unlikely. As historian Mike Dash[5] notes, few scientists doubt there are thousands of unknown animals, particularly invertebrates, awaiting discovery. However, most cryptozoologists are uninterested in researching and cataloging newly-discovered species of ants or beetles. As Dash writes, cryptozoologists focus their efforts towards "more elusive" creatures that have often defied decades' work aimed at confirming their existence, and which are furthermore regarded by mainstream scientists as the animals ''least'' likely to remain undetected. Mainstream scientific sceptics have argued that larger cryptids such as Bigfoot would not only have to evade close contact with humans to remain undiscovered, but would have to do so in great numbers in order to maintain a viable breeding population and gene pool of perhaps hundreds of the supposed creatures[6]. Despite cryptid sightings reported all over the world, and the supposed creatures' significant size, no unambiguous physical evidence (such as a specimen) has ever been presented of the more sensational cryptids.
Sceptics also assert[7] that the legendary lake "monsters" thought to be prehistoric reptiles would have to live undetected even in lakes too cold for any known aquatic reptiles – and with too little space and food to sustain a viable population. Aquatic animals with lungs like mammals and plesiosaurs would need to surface for air, making their ability to remain undetected very unlikely.
However, cryptozoologists do point out that much of the planet remains unexplored, especially deep oceans, and cryptozoological claims about oceanic species may be given more credence. By plotting the discovery rate of new species, Paxton[8] found that as many as 47 large oceanic species remain undiscovered. Indeed, the comparatively recent discoveries of the Coelacanth and the megamouth shark show that large deep-sea animals can remain undetected.
Cryptozoology supporters have noted that in the early days of western exploration of the world, many native tales of unknown animals initially dismissed as superstition by western scientists, were later proven to have a basis in biological fact1, and that many unfamiliar animals, when initially reported, were considered hoaxes, delusions or misidentifications1: the platypus, giant squid, mountain gorilla, grizzly-polar bear hybrid and Komodo dragon are but a few creatures whose existence was denied by reputable scientists, who often refused to consider the evidence seriously.
Supporters also argue1 that the mainstream scientific response to much cryptozoology represents a frustrating paradox or Catch 22: sceptics often cite a lack of peer reviewed articles on cryptozoological subjects in their rejections of the subject, yet, simultaneously, scientific journals – the main forum for evaluation of scientific claims – mostly refuse to publish articles on cryptozoological matters. Additionally, supporters often argue1 that evidence is evaluated not on its merits or failings, but rather based on ''ad hominem'' opinions of researchers, or on prevailing paradigms or world views. For example, scientists like Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum have cited ample physical evidence that they contend strongly supports the reality of Bigfoot. Yet despite the fact that Krantz and Meldrum are recognized experts in their fields, their arguments regarding Bigfoot have largely been ignored by other scientists. Another well-attested cryptid that was largely ignored by scientists was the so-called Minnesota Iceman of the 1960s[9], purportedly an unidentified hominid corpse inspected by two recognized experts, Sanderson and Huevelmans, who offered detailed descriptions and photos of the creature; despite their efforts and evangelizing the case, very few scientists expressed an interest. Sceptics of cryptozoolgy counter that their scepticism regarding the subject prevents an unwarranted flood of misidentified animal sightings attributed to cryptids.
As in other fields, cryptozoologists are often responsible for disproving their own objects of study. For example, some cryptozoologists have collected evidence that disputes the validity of some facets of the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon.[10]
There are several animals cited as examples for continuing cryptozoological efforts:
★ The Coelacanth, a "living fossil" which represents an order of fish believed to have been extinct for 65 million years, was identified from a specimen found in a fishing net in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. (The coelacanth was well known to Comoros fishermen as the Gombessa, but unknown to scientists). According to Dash[5], the Coelacanth is a good case for paying close attention to natives' knowledge of animals: though the fish's survival was a complete surprise to outsiders, it was so well known to locals that natives commonly used the fish's rough scales as a sort of sandpaper.
★ There was a 1976 discovery of the previously unknown megamouth shark, discovered off Oahu, Hawaii, when it became entangled in a ship's anchor. Some have cautioned against applying the "megamouth analogy" too broadly to hypothetical creatures, noting that while "the megamouth does show that the oceans have a lot of secrets left to reveal ... the Megamouth is a deepwater fish, easily hidden in the world's oceans, and not comparable with other creatures reported, such as surviving marine reptiles. While the Megamouth is not a useful analogy to support the existence of marine 'cryptids' in general, it does demonstrate the resistance of science to identify new large species of marine animals without a corpse. Sightings of Megamouths now number approximately one a year. Before the discovery, one could argue this consistent sighting record was also present, but that the sightings were ignored or discredited as of some other animal."[12]
★ The 2003 discovery of the remains of ''Homo floresiensis'', a descendent of ''Homo erectus'', took the anthropological community completely by surprise. Legends of a strikingly similar creature, called Ebu Gogo by the natives of Flores, persisted as late as the nineteenth century, but it was not until 2003 before the fossil remains of this species were actually found. In addition, human folklore is full of references to small forest people, called dwarves, elves, fairies, gnomes, leprechauns or menehune.
★
★ Cryptid
★ Cryptobotany
★ List of megafauna recently discovered
★ List of fictional species
★ Legendary creature
★ List of legendary creatures
★ List of notable figures in cryptozoology
★ Monster
★ Cryptic (zoology) - animals that are difficult to observe due to their behaviour or camouflage
★ Pseudoscience and protoscience - due to some fields of study in cryptozoology
★ Xenobiology
1. Coleman, Loren and Clark, Jerome.''Cryptozoology A to Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras, and Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature''. New York: Fireside/Simon and Schuster, 1999
2. Heuvelmans, Bernard. ''In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents''. New York: Hill and Wang, 1968.
3.
★ Heuvelmans, Bernard. ''On The Track Of Unknown Animals''. New York: Hill and Wang, 1959.
4. Coleman, Loren. ''Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology''. Fresno, California: Craven Street Books/Linden Press, 2002.
5. Dash, Mike, ''Borderlands: The Ultimate Exploration of the Unknown'', Overlook Press, 2000
6. http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/bfhunting.html
7. Sjögren, Bengt, ''Berömda vidunder'', Settern, 1980, ISBN 91-7586-023-6
8. Paxton, C. G. M. 1998. A cumulative species description curve for large open water marine animals. ''Journal of the Marine Biologists Association'', U.K. 78, 1389-1391.
9. see Coleman and Clark, 1999, and the Minnesota Iceman page for more information
10. see ''The Sasquatch and other unknown hominoids''; Markotic, Vladimir and Grover Krantz, editors; Calgary : Western Publishers, 1984; and ''The Scientist looks at the Sasquatch II'', Sprague, Roderick and Grover S. Krantz, editors; and Napier, John Russel ''Bigfoot : the yeti and sasquatch in myth and reality'' New York : Dutton, 1973, c1972
11. Dash, Mike, ''Borderlands: The Ultimate Exploration of the Unknown'', Overlook Press, 2000
12. http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bz050/megalodon.html
★ Arment, Chad. ''Cryptozoology: Science & Speculation''. Landisville, Penn.: Coachwhip, 2004.
★ Arment, Chad, ed. ''Cryptozoology and the Investigation of Lesser-Known Mystery Animals''. Landisville, Penn.: Coachwhip, 2006.
★ Bille, Matthew. ''Rumors of Existence''. Surrey, B.C.: Hancock, 1995.
★ Clark, Jerome. ''Unexplained! 347 Strange Sightings, Incredible Occurrences, and Puzzling Physical Phenomena''. Detroit: Visible Ink Press, 1993.
★ Coghlan, Ronan. ''Cryptosup''. Bangor: Xiphos, 2005.
★ Coghlan, Ronan. ''Dictionary of Cryptozoology''. Bangor: Xiphos, 2004.
★ Coghlan, Ronan. ''Further Cryptozoology''. Bangor: Xiphos, 2007.
★ Coleman, Loren. "Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America". New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003.
★ Coleman, Loren. "Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology". Fresno: Linden Press, 2002.
★ Coleman, Loren and Jerome Clark. "Cryptozoology: A to Z". New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.
★ Eberhart, George M. ''Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology''. 2 vols. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2002.
★ Newton, Michael. ''Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide to Hidden Animals and Their Pursuers''. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, 2005.
★ Shuker, Karl. ''In Search of Prehistoric Survivors''. London: Blandford, 1995.
★ Shuker, Karl. ''From Flying Toads To Snakes With Wings''. St. Paul, Minnesota: Llewellyn, 1997.
★ Shuker, Karl. ''The Beasts That Hide From Man: Seeking the World's Last Undiscovered Animals''. New York: Paraview Press, 2003.
★ Weidensaul, Scott. ''The Ghost with Trembling Wings: Science, Wishful Thinking, and the Search for Lost Species''. New York: North Point Press, 2002.
★ Arnold, Neil. ''MONSTER! The A-Z Of Zooform Phenomena''. Bideford: CFZ Press, 2007.
★ Bates College: Cryptozoology Out Of Time Place Scale
★ British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club
★ Centre for Fortean Zoology
★ GUST- Global Underwater Search Team (Swedish, English)
★ ★ class=wikiexternal target=_blank>/internationalsocietyofcryptozoology.org/ The International Society of Cryptozoology (archived website)
★ Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society
★ [1] The Legend of Standing Jack
★ Cryptomundo Latest news on cryptozoology
★ American Monsters
★ The Global Lake Monster Database
★ The Cryptid Zoo
★ Cryptozoolgical Realms
★ Cryptozoology.com
★ Loren Coleman The Cryptozoologist
★ Cryptozoology links
★ Open Directory Project - Cryptozoology
★ Planet Cryptozoology
★ The Shadowlands
★ Strangeark
★ New Zealand Cryptozoology
★ MONSTER! The A-Z Of Zooform Phenomena
★ MONSTERS OF KENT
★ BEASTS OF LONDON
★ Cryptoworld Cryptozoology and Fortean News
People who study or search for such animals are called ''cryptozoologists'', while the hypothetical creatures involved are sometimes called "cryptids", a term coined by John Wall in 1983.[1]
| Contents |
| Overview |
| Mainstream science and cryptozoology |
| List of Cryptids |
| See also |
| Notes and references |
| Further reading |
| External links |
| Organizations |
| Lists and monster directories |
Overview
Invention of the term "cryptozoology" is often attributed to
noted zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans. But in his book, ''In the Wake of Sea Serpents'', Heuvelmans attributes coinage of the term to the late Scottish explorer and adventurer Ivan T. Sanderson.[2] Heuvelmans' 1955 book, ''On the Track of Unknown Animals'', traces the scholarly origins of the discipline to Anthonid Cornelis Oudemans[3] and his 1892 study, ''The Great Sea Serpent''. Heuvelmans argued that cryptozoology should be undertaken with scientific rigor, but with an , interdisciplinary approach. He also stressed that attention should be given to local, urban and folkloric sources regarding such creatures. While often layered in unlikely and fantastic elements, folktales can have small grains of truth and important information regarding these organisms.
Loren Coleman, a modern popularizer of cryptozoology, has chronicled the history and personalities of the science in his books.[4]
Another notable book on the subject is Willy Ley's ''Exotic Zoology'' (1959). Ley was best known for his writings on rocketry and related topics, but he was trained in paleontology, and did write a number of books about animals. Ley's collection ''Exotic Zoology'' is of some interest to cryptozoology, as he discusses the Yeti and sea serpents, as well as reports of relict dinosaurs. The book's first section ("Myth?") entertains the possibility that some legendary creatures (like the sirrush, the unicorn or the cyclops) might be based on actual animals (or misinterpretation of animals and/or their remains). The most rigorously scientific analyses of cryptids can be found in the works of British zoologist and cryptozoologist Dr Karl Shuker, who has published 12 books and countless articles on numerous cryptozoological subjects since the mid-1980s.
Mainstream science and cryptozoology
"The Colossal Octopus", a pen and wash drawing by malacologist Pierre Denys de Montfort, 1801, from the descriptions of French sailors reportedly attacked by a Kraken off the coast of Angola.
Many cryptozoologists strive for legitimacy – some of them are respected scientists in other fields – and discoveries of previously unknown animals are often subject to great attention. However, cryptozoology ''per se'' has never been fully embraced by the scientific community. One can not earn a degree in cryptozoology from any college or university. Some cryptozoologists align themselves with more scientifically rigorous fields like zoology, while others tend toward an anthropological slant or even a Fortean perspective – however, cryptozoology is often considered a pseudoscience by skeptical mainstream zoologists and biologists .
Most criticism – and occasional ridicule – from the scientific mainstream is directed at proponents for the existence of the more "famous" mega-fauna cryptids (like Bigfoot, the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster), whose existence is generally regarded as highly unlikely. As historian Mike Dash[5] notes, few scientists doubt there are thousands of unknown animals, particularly invertebrates, awaiting discovery. However, most cryptozoologists are uninterested in researching and cataloging newly-discovered species of ants or beetles. As Dash writes, cryptozoologists focus their efforts towards "more elusive" creatures that have often defied decades' work aimed at confirming their existence, and which are furthermore regarded by mainstream scientists as the animals ''least'' likely to remain undetected. Mainstream scientific sceptics have argued that larger cryptids such as Bigfoot would not only have to evade close contact with humans to remain undiscovered, but would have to do so in great numbers in order to maintain a viable breeding population and gene pool of perhaps hundreds of the supposed creatures[6]. Despite cryptid sightings reported all over the world, and the supposed creatures' significant size, no unambiguous physical evidence (such as a specimen) has ever been presented of the more sensational cryptids.
Sceptics also assert[7] that the legendary lake "monsters" thought to be prehistoric reptiles would have to live undetected even in lakes too cold for any known aquatic reptiles – and with too little space and food to sustain a viable population. Aquatic animals with lungs like mammals and plesiosaurs would need to surface for air, making their ability to remain undetected very unlikely.
However, cryptozoologists do point out that much of the planet remains unexplored, especially deep oceans, and cryptozoological claims about oceanic species may be given more credence. By plotting the discovery rate of new species, Paxton[8] found that as many as 47 large oceanic species remain undiscovered. Indeed, the comparatively recent discoveries of the Coelacanth and the megamouth shark show that large deep-sea animals can remain undetected.
Cryptozoology supporters have noted that in the early days of western exploration of the world, many native tales of unknown animals initially dismissed as superstition by western scientists, were later proven to have a basis in biological fact1, and that many unfamiliar animals, when initially reported, were considered hoaxes, delusions or misidentifications1: the platypus, giant squid, mountain gorilla, grizzly-polar bear hybrid and Komodo dragon are but a few creatures whose existence was denied by reputable scientists, who often refused to consider the evidence seriously.
Supporters also argue1 that the mainstream scientific response to much cryptozoology represents a frustrating paradox or Catch 22: sceptics often cite a lack of peer reviewed articles on cryptozoological subjects in their rejections of the subject, yet, simultaneously, scientific journals – the main forum for evaluation of scientific claims – mostly refuse to publish articles on cryptozoological matters. Additionally, supporters often argue1 that evidence is evaluated not on its merits or failings, but rather based on ''ad hominem'' opinions of researchers, or on prevailing paradigms or world views. For example, scientists like Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum have cited ample physical evidence that they contend strongly supports the reality of Bigfoot. Yet despite the fact that Krantz and Meldrum are recognized experts in their fields, their arguments regarding Bigfoot have largely been ignored by other scientists. Another well-attested cryptid that was largely ignored by scientists was the so-called Minnesota Iceman of the 1960s[9], purportedly an unidentified hominid corpse inspected by two recognized experts, Sanderson and Huevelmans, who offered detailed descriptions and photos of the creature; despite their efforts and evangelizing the case, very few scientists expressed an interest. Sceptics of cryptozoolgy counter that their scepticism regarding the subject prevents an unwarranted flood of misidentified animal sightings attributed to cryptids.
As in other fields, cryptozoologists are often responsible for disproving their own objects of study. For example, some cryptozoologists have collected evidence that disputes the validity of some facets of the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon.[10]
There are several animals cited as examples for continuing cryptozoological efforts:
★ The Coelacanth, a "living fossil" which represents an order of fish believed to have been extinct for 65 million years, was identified from a specimen found in a fishing net in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. (The coelacanth was well known to Comoros fishermen as the Gombessa, but unknown to scientists). According to Dash[5], the Coelacanth is a good case for paying close attention to natives' knowledge of animals: though the fish's survival was a complete surprise to outsiders, it was so well known to locals that natives commonly used the fish's rough scales as a sort of sandpaper.
★ There was a 1976 discovery of the previously unknown megamouth shark, discovered off Oahu, Hawaii, when it became entangled in a ship's anchor. Some have cautioned against applying the "megamouth analogy" too broadly to hypothetical creatures, noting that while "the megamouth does show that the oceans have a lot of secrets left to reveal ... the Megamouth is a deepwater fish, easily hidden in the world's oceans, and not comparable with other creatures reported, such as surviving marine reptiles. While the Megamouth is not a useful analogy to support the existence of marine 'cryptids' in general, it does demonstrate the resistance of science to identify new large species of marine animals without a corpse. Sightings of Megamouths now number approximately one a year. Before the discovery, one could argue this consistent sighting record was also present, but that the sightings were ignored or discredited as of some other animal."[12]
★ The 2003 discovery of the remains of ''Homo floresiensis'', a descendent of ''Homo erectus'', took the anthropological community completely by surprise. Legends of a strikingly similar creature, called Ebu Gogo by the natives of Flores, persisted as late as the nineteenth century, but it was not until 2003 before the fossil remains of this species were actually found. In addition, human folklore is full of references to small forest people, called dwarves, elves, fairies, gnomes, leprechauns or menehune.
List of Cryptids
See also
★
★ Cryptid
★ Cryptobotany
★ List of megafauna recently discovered
★ List of fictional species
★ Legendary creature
★ List of legendary creatures
★ List of notable figures in cryptozoology
★ Monster
★ Cryptic (zoology) - animals that are difficult to observe due to their behaviour or camouflage
★ Pseudoscience and protoscience - due to some fields of study in cryptozoology
★ Xenobiology
Notes and references
1. Coleman, Loren and Clark, Jerome.''Cryptozoology A to Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras, and Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature''. New York: Fireside/Simon and Schuster, 1999
2. Heuvelmans, Bernard. ''In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents''. New York: Hill and Wang, 1968.
3.
★ Heuvelmans, Bernard. ''On The Track Of Unknown Animals''. New York: Hill and Wang, 1959.
4. Coleman, Loren. ''Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology''. Fresno, California: Craven Street Books/Linden Press, 2002.
5. Dash, Mike, ''Borderlands: The Ultimate Exploration of the Unknown'', Overlook Press, 2000
6. http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/bfhunting.html
7. Sjögren, Bengt, ''Berömda vidunder'', Settern, 1980, ISBN 91-7586-023-6
8. Paxton, C. G. M. 1998. A cumulative species description curve for large open water marine animals. ''Journal of the Marine Biologists Association'', U.K. 78, 1389-1391.
9. see Coleman and Clark, 1999, and the Minnesota Iceman page for more information
10. see ''The Sasquatch and other unknown hominoids''; Markotic, Vladimir and Grover Krantz, editors; Calgary : Western Publishers, 1984; and ''The Scientist looks at the Sasquatch II'', Sprague, Roderick and Grover S. Krantz, editors; and Napier, John Russel ''Bigfoot : the yeti and sasquatch in myth and reality'' New York : Dutton, 1973, c1972
11. Dash, Mike, ''Borderlands: The Ultimate Exploration of the Unknown'', Overlook Press, 2000
12. http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bz050/megalodon.html
Further reading
★ Arment, Chad. ''Cryptozoology: Science & Speculation''. Landisville, Penn.: Coachwhip, 2004.
★ Arment, Chad, ed. ''Cryptozoology and the Investigation of Lesser-Known Mystery Animals''. Landisville, Penn.: Coachwhip, 2006.
★ Bille, Matthew. ''Rumors of Existence''. Surrey, B.C.: Hancock, 1995.
★ Clark, Jerome. ''Unexplained! 347 Strange Sightings, Incredible Occurrences, and Puzzling Physical Phenomena''. Detroit: Visible Ink Press, 1993.
★ Coghlan, Ronan. ''Cryptosup''. Bangor: Xiphos, 2005.
★ Coghlan, Ronan. ''Dictionary of Cryptozoology''. Bangor: Xiphos, 2004.
★ Coghlan, Ronan. ''Further Cryptozoology''. Bangor: Xiphos, 2007.
★ Coleman, Loren. "Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America". New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003.
★ Coleman, Loren. "Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology". Fresno: Linden Press, 2002.
★ Coleman, Loren and Jerome Clark. "Cryptozoology: A to Z". New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.
★ Eberhart, George M. ''Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology''. 2 vols. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2002.
★ Newton, Michael. ''Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide to Hidden Animals and Their Pursuers''. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, 2005.
★ Shuker, Karl. ''In Search of Prehistoric Survivors''. London: Blandford, 1995.
★ Shuker, Karl. ''From Flying Toads To Snakes With Wings''. St. Paul, Minnesota: Llewellyn, 1997.
★ Shuker, Karl. ''The Beasts That Hide From Man: Seeking the World's Last Undiscovered Animals''. New York: Paraview Press, 2003.
★ Weidensaul, Scott. ''The Ghost with Trembling Wings: Science, Wishful Thinking, and the Search for Lost Species''. New York: North Point Press, 2002.
★ Arnold, Neil. ''MONSTER! The A-Z Of Zooform Phenomena''. Bideford: CFZ Press, 2007.
External links
Organizations
★ Bates College: Cryptozoology Out Of Time Place Scale
★ British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club
★ Centre for Fortean Zoology
★ GUST- Global Underwater Search Team (Swedish, English)
★ ★ class=wikiexternal target=_blank>/internationalsocietyofcryptozoology.org/ The International Society of Cryptozoology (archived website)
★ Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society
★ [1] The Legend of Standing Jack
Lists and monster directories
★ Cryptomundo Latest news on cryptozoology
★ American Monsters
★ The Global Lake Monster Database
★ The Cryptid Zoo
★ Cryptozoolgical Realms
★ Cryptozoology.com
★ Loren Coleman The Cryptozoologist
★ Cryptozoology links
★ Open Directory Project - Cryptozoology
★ Planet Cryptozoology
★ The Shadowlands
★ Strangeark
★ New Zealand Cryptozoology
★ MONSTER! The A-Z Of Zooform Phenomena
★ MONSTERS OF KENT
★ BEASTS OF LONDON
★ Cryptoworld Cryptozoology and Fortean News
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
