Cryptozoology is Not Claimed by Traditional Biologists!

Cryptozoology is a term composed of several 'root' terms: 'Crypto-' meaning hidden, 'zoo-' referring to animals and '-ology' being equivalent to 'the study of' a particular field. The study of hidden animals has met with much academic disfavor even though the actual sciences involved and the puzzles that the evidence presents seem to tantalize the minds of many people in the public. Their tantalization in some becoming more than simple curiosity or inquiry.

Cryptozoology is often sneered at due to the more popularized things it does research. Subjects such as Big Foot, Yeti, Loch Ness, Ogopogo, Chupacabra are common place in people's languages as they speak of mysteries or the unknown. This seems to place the study of hidden animals in the real of what it is to be human or part of the human condition: speculation of the unknown and the plausibility of its existence.

There are many other 'cryptids' (hidden animals) that cryptozoology looks for and the subject matter is indeed worthy of searching for either through books or internet sites. Examples can range from Giant Spiders, Giant Centipedes, the North American Indian Thunderbird and Giant Octopus to Giant Turtles, Giant Lizards, Giant Snakes and even Killer Koalas (It takes all kinds!).

Because the main focus of cryptozoology is on the analysis of myth and legend and the collection of evidence with the end product, the identification of the species by accredited biological/zoological scientists, being removed from the cryptozoologists sphere of expertise, the field often finds ridicule and scorn in the eyes of those very same scientists they rely on for species identification. So the animosity seems to create a no win situation for the cryptozoologist or the biological sciences, even though cryptozoological inquiries (Analysis of local myth and legend) have found some interesting species: Komodo Dragon, Mountain Gorilla, Okapi, Coelocanth and the recent Onza.

The big problem with cryptozoology's acceptance seems to be its necessary reliance on the testimonials of first, subsequent and repeated sightings prior to any real investigation. This speculation that seems to be so useful seems to be the main reason why science shuns the cryptozoologists. If science does not want anything to do with that type of speculation, there are some fields which deal with legends and myths and would benefit from speculation into biology, namely, Philosophy and Humanities Studies.

The humanities already encompass the philosophical (belief systems) associated with mythology and zoomythology (the study of mythological creatures), as well as finding interest in the 'scientific' mythology surrounding historical interaction with and use of animals in society for various purposes (zooarchaeology). Adding the cryptozoology field to the humanities does not really diminish anything as the humanities are largely seen as esoteric anyway. Though it should be noted that professionals such as the author are doing their very best to try to change that situation.

Philosophy in itself is the field of the study of speculation. Welcome, Cryptozoologists, to the philosophy camp. Here in Philosophy, we prize the ability to see beyond what is deemed as real and look into deeper meanings of those things that seem to mystify us or captivate our attention. The study of myth is par for the course and we absolutely love opposition (That is the soul of debate, as well as adaptive evolution).