[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Living dinosaurs?
At 03:17 PM 09/08/00 -0400, ELurio@aol.com wrote:
Indeed that's true. But there is a large difference between, say, a largish
forest antelope and a bunyip. The weirder the large animal the less likely it
is to be found.
I would alter this somewhat. It is not that the saola (which is actually
closer to cattle than to antelopes) is more or less "weird" than a
bunyip. The big difference here is that the saola is simply not a
cryptid. It is not an animal rumoured to exist for years, reported by just
about everyone except scientists, without specimen evidence. The saola
(though it was certainly known to local villagers) was not even a glimmer
in a cryptozoologist's eye on the day that John MacKinnon's team arrived in
the Vu Quang area and found, on their first day, horns and skulls of the
animal hanging on hunters' walls. It moved from total unknown to
confirmed, specimen-backed discovery in one day.
That is usually the way discoveries like this are made. I am fond of
saying that despite all the discoveries of the past half-century not one of
Bernard Huevelmans' cryptids has turned up. That leads me to the belief
that cryptids by their very nature are the least likely creatures to really
be discovered, because, paradoxically, they are seen too often. Scientists
aren't, by and large, idiots, and the more an animal collects rumours
without scientific confirmation the less likely it is to be real.
BTW, it seems that every time I challenge cryptozoologists on this point I
get the giant squid tossed in my face. If the best story they can come up
with is over 120 years old, though, it doesn't say much for cryptozoology!
Ronald I. Orenstein Phone: (905) 820-7886
International Wildlife Coalition Fax/Modem: (905) 569-0116
1825 Shady Creek Court
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 3W2 mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org