There is a fine line between myth and legend. Traditional dictionary sources draw that line
at “supernatural” or “paranormal” but those words themselves are gray areas.
The Free Dictionary (freedictionary.com) defines Myth as “A
traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings,
ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a
people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the
psychology, customs, or ideals of society.”
By this definition, most sea and lake “monsters” would be considered
myth, as they are generally fundamentally the same and are ancient in
origin. But the same source gives this
definition for legend: An unverified
story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be
historical. Lake monsters would fit that
definition as well. The one thing both
definitions have in common is that the stories (reports) are “unverified”.
Just what constitutes verification? Certainly the Sasquatch fits both legend and
myth definitions, but since footprints and various other bits of “evidence” are
present, does that make them verified?
It would seem that the presence of footprints verifies that something
indeed walked in a particular location.
How do we assign the print to Sasquatch?
What is it about that print that points to a legendary or mythological being
rather than a verifiable, biological creature?
Which brings up another big question; must an entity be biological to be
“real”?
Such is the nature of the study of Cryptozoology. Many legendary and mythological creatures
have been verified to exist biologically.
The Coelacanth, the Komodo Dragon, and the Giant Squid were ancient
legends—believed by many to be actually myths—and have now be substantiated by
tangible evidence.
George M. Eberhart has written of the difficulties of categorizing
“mystery animals”. He gives us ten
types of mystery animals that would be defined as cryptozoological.
1.
Distribution anomalies [known animals reported
outside their normal range, e.g. the
anomalous big cats of the U.K.];
2.
Undescribed, unusual, or outsized variations of
known species [e.g. the giant anacondas reported from Amazonia or the spotted
lions of East Africa];
3.
Survivals of recently extinct species [e.g.
Ivory Billed Woodpecker presumed extinct ca. 1960, or the Steller's Sea Cow
presumed extinct ca. 1770, both of which are occasionally claimed to have
survived to the present];
4.
Survivals of species known only from the fossil
record into modern times [e.g. the mokele-mbembe of central Africa, sometimes
described as a living dinosaur];
5.
Lingerlings, or survivals of species known from
the fossil record much later into historical times than currently thought [e.g.
the woolly mammoth, presumed extinct ca. 12,000 BCE but occasionally purported
surviving into later eras];
6.
Animals not known from the fossil record but
related to known species [e.g. the Andean wolf or the striped manta-ray
reported by William Beebe in the 1930s];
7.
Animals not known from the fossil record nor
related to any known species [e.g. North America's Bigfoot or most sea
serpents];
8.
Mythical animals with a zoological basis [e.g.
the Griffin, partly inspired by dinosaur fossils of Central Asia];
9.
Seemingly paranormal or supernatural entities
with some animal-like characteristics [e.g. Mothman, Black Dogs or some fairies
from folklore];
10. Known hoaxes or probable misidentifications
[e.g. the Jackalope, an antlered rabbit created as a hoax or prank, but
possibly inspired by rabbits infected with Shope papilloma virus, which causes
antler-like tumors].
Eberhart also gives us a good list of exclusions for
classification—or more simply, things that probably are NOT cryptozoological.
1.
Insignificance. "Cryptids must be big,
weird, dangerous or significant to humans in some way."
2.
Lack of controversy. "Someone needs to
observe a mystery animal and someone else needs to discredit the sighting.
Cryptozoologists function as interventionists between witnesses and skeptical
scientists."
3.
Erratics. "The out-of-place alligator […]
that turns up in an odd spot, undoubtedly through human agency, is not a
zoological mystery […] [I]f someone discovers a new species of alligator that
lives only in sewers, that is a different matter."
4.
Bizarre humans [e.g. zombies]
5.
Angels or demons […] "the paranormal or
supernatural is admitted only if it has an animal shape (a werewolf sighting,
which might involve a real dog or wolf, or a mystery canid)."
6.
Aliens "[unless such extraterrestrials]
arrived a long time ago and thus classify as residents."
Mr. Eberhart is a bibliographer and librarian for CUFOS
(Center for UFO Studies). He completed a degree in journalism at the Ohio State
University, then came to the University of Chicago for a Masters in Library
Science.. He is employed by the American Library Association headquarters in
Chicago as editor for the trade journal American Libraries. He belonged to a
natural history book club, and in 1959, read On the Track of Unknown Animals by
Bernard Heuvelmans. Eberhart’s book “Mysterious
Creatures: a Guide to Cryptozoology” can be previewed on Google Books and
purchased from Amazon for about $190.00.
To some, it may seem a matter of semantics. If cryptozoology is to progress out of the
label of “fringe science”, however, these definitions and criteria have to be made
and widely accepted by serious researchers.
It isn’t enough to go on a “bigfoot hunt” and call oneself a cryptozoologist.
No comments:
Post a Comment