Mammals and Cryptozoology: Objective Evidence vs. Circumstantial Claims

Mammals and Cryptozoology
Author(s): George Gaylord Simpson

Source: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 128, No. 1 (Mar. 30, 1984), pp.
1-19
Published by: American Philosophical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/986487 .
Accessed: 12/09/2013 15:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Philosophical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mammals and Cryptozoology

GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON
plete than thatof any otherclass of animals

withthe probable exceptionof birds.There
is littleor no good evidence thatthisroster
willbe supplementedor completedby cryptozoology.
ABSTRACT
is definedas the"sciryptozoology
ence" of unknown and of hidden

or undiscoveredanimals.It is being
increasinglypromotedas a classical supplementto paleontology,the science of extinct
animals, and to zoology, the science of
known and discoveredanimals. It relies on
circumstantial and testimonial evidence
ratherthan the objective and autopticevidence of paleontologists and zoologists.
Strictlyzoological evidence of livingmammalscan be enumeratedby datesoftechnical
definitionand naming of species, genera,
families,and still higher taxa. A rosterof
livinggeneraand familiesdiscoveredduring
the presentcenturyhas a grandtotalof 126
genera.The numberreached a highpointin
thefirstdecade but duringthelastfifty
years
it has fallen to less than one a year. Only
two entirelynew familieshave been discoveredso farin thiscentury.Additionally,
two generapreviouslyknownonlyas fossils
were discovered.Both are membersof previously known families, and the already
known fossilswere not more ancient than
late Pleistoceneor early Recent. There has
been no definiteand objectivediscoveryof
any living taxa that were previously unknown or hidden in the cryptozoological
sense. The pursuitof supposed mammals
lacking objective evidence is not a science
in an acceptable usage of that word. The
probabilityof futureobjective evidence of
truezoological taxa is small but real forspecies and is decreasingto zero higherin the
hierarchyof superspecifictaxa. The roster
oflivingmammalsis now morenearlycomPROCEEDINGS
OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL
THE DEFINITION
AND DESCRIPTION
OF "CRYPTOZOOLOGY"
The term"cryptozoology"was proposed
by BernardHeuvelmans in a large book in
French published in 1955, revised by the
authorand translatedintoEnglishby Rupert
Hart-Davis in 1958, and published in England and in the UnitedStatesin 1959. (See
Heuvelmans, 1955, 1959). He has since
published in Frenchanotherlarge book on
the cryptozoologyof Africa (Heuvelmans,
1978). In 1982 an InternationalSociety of
Cryptozoologywas founded with Heuvelmans as presidentbut with two Americans
as vice president and secretary-treasurer.
Thereis also a Board of Directors,twelvein
number, trulyinternationalbut with five
Americans.This societyhas startedpublication of Cryptozoology,
interdisciplinary
journalof theInternationalSocietyof Cryptozoology. The firstpart of Volume 1 was
issued in Winter1982. The firstarticlein this
journalis by Heuvelmansand is titled"What
is Cryptozoology?"(This is translatedfrom
French;the whole journal is in English,as
is a newsletterprintedin the United States
and mailed to membersof the Society.)
As notedby Heuvelmans (1982) his word
"cryptozoology" is derived from Greek
kryptos(hidden), zoon (animal), and logos
(discourse). He goes on to say that this
"means simply 'the science of hiddenani-
SOCIETY, VOL.
128, NO. 1, 1984

mals,' just as paleontologyis 'the science of

ancientanimals'." He also says that "paleontology. . . [is] an archaic or obsolete
studyof past livingorganisms,"a statement
that paleontologistsmust consider absurd.
Paleontologyas a science is neitherarchaic
nor obsolete even thoughits objectivematerialsare ancientin different
degrees.
Heuvelmans goes on to say that,"To establishthe realityof an object or event,science . . . has threepossible typesof proof:
autoptical,testimonial,and circumstantial."
His argumentfor the validity of cryptozoology is thatnot all of the three"proofs"
but any one of them can prove the reality
of the existenceof any phenomenon. Thus
or testimonialevidence
eithercircumstantial
is to be takenby cryptozoologists
as proving
theexistenceof the"hidden" or "unknown"
animals that are theirsubject matter.
Heuvelmans and his now manyfollowers
are conscious of the fact that the InternationalCode of Zoological Nomenclaturerequiresthata named animal,whetherRecent
or fossil,musthave a typespecimenwhich
is objective and available for professional
examinationor (usuallyand) figuredin publicationby a reliablezoologistor paleontologist. Heuvelmans, in the here cited essay
(1982) deprecatesthis rulingand says that
itbanishesmanyspecies to "non-existence,"
thatis, the supposed species of "hidden" or
"unknown" animals. He notes that Moore
and Sylvester-Bradley
(1957) proposed that
taxa based on trace fossils,such as tracks,
be considered"parataxa" and have a system
of nomenclaturedistinctfromthat of the
InternationalCode. In 1958 this proposal
was submittedto theInternationalCongress
of Zoology, at which the currentCode was
adopted. The use of parataxa was rejected.
The present Code's firstedition was published in 1961 and a second, somewhat revised editionstillin effectwas published in
1964. As provided in the Code, its interpretationand applicationare supervisedby
an InternationalCommissionon Zoological
Nomenclature.
In his attack on the nomenclaturalprocedure in the Code Heuvelmans quotes

Simpson (1961) as deploring"the factthat
thisverysensibleproposition(fora separate
nomenclatureof parataxa) did not receive
officialrecognition."In factSimpsondid not
deplore this fact,he only statedit. Heuvelmans has not understoodwhat theproposal
by Moore and Sylvesterreally was. It explicitlyreferredto nomenclatureof fossils
knownobjectivelyonlyfrompartsand traces
and
not definitelyidentifiedas to affinities
precise classification.Moore, who founded
and foryears edited the massive, multivolalso
Paleontology
ume TreatiseonInvertebrate
wrote an editorial preface to what was
planned as the last volume ("Part W") of
theTreatise,althoughitspublicationin 1962
preceded that of several othervolumes. In
his prefaceMoore, who died at the age of
82 in 1974, discussed the nomenclatureof
fossils at considerable length and did not
even mentionthe proposal of a nomenclatureof"parataxa." In thesame volume WalterHantzschel (1962) treated"Trace Fossils
and Problematica." He concluded that in
generalthe "binarysystem"(in formatthat
oftheCode) "appears to be themostsuitable
one." He listedsystematicdescriptionsand
and othertrace
genericnames of footprints
fossilsand even some "body fossils"which
oforganismswithouthardparts.
areimprints
With special referenceto tracksand other
"trace fossils" that are not "body fossils"
Hantzschelremarkedthat,"the authorwants
to emphasizeagain thatwiththetracefossils
the meaning of 'genus' differsmuch from
thatapplicable to body fossils."
THE KINDS OF HIDDEN OR
UNKNOWN ANIMALS
The cryptozoologistsdeal with two differentsubjects.One is the discoveryof animalsnow alive belongingto a taxonalready
known fromfossils and formerlybelieved
to be extinct.The other is the search for
animals, evidence for which is only testi-

MAMMALSAND CRYPTOZOOLOGY
monial, circumstantial,
or both. As the existence of these animals is not autoptical,
they are frequentlythe named subjects of
myths. In such cases the aim of cryptozoology is to demythifythem, that is, to
searchhopefullyto findthe objective,living
animal fromwhich the mythdeveloped.
Cryptozoologistsbelieve that many taxa
known as fossilsmay be, or indeed are, still
fromtheirfossil
alive and notmuchdifferent
relativesor ancestors.A supposed example
is the coelacanth Latimeria,which Heuvelmans (1959) characterizedas "that crossopterygianfishwhich comes straightout of
the Devonian period." That reallyis mythifyinga now well-known and living fish.
Latimeria
is verydifferentfrom
anyDevonian
fish.It is also different
fromany late Creknown fromfossils
taceous crossopterygian
approximatelysixty-fivemillion years old.
UntilLatimeriawas found,seen, and named
by a zoologistin 1940 it was believed that
the order of fishes Crossopterygii,representedby fossilsfromearlyDevonian to late
Cretaceous,was extinct.Latimeriadoes belong to thisorder,but in its "hidden" years
sincethelate Cretaceousithad evolved considerably.It is thereforedistinguishedfrom
all fossil crossopterygiansby its representationof a separatefamily,Latimeridae.No
fossilsof thisfamilyare known,but it must
have had membersin or throughthe preRecentCenozoic era. Thislargehiatusin the
fossilrecordhas a probable explanationin
the fact that Latimeriais confinedto a relativelysmall area of deep sea in the western
partof the Indian Ocean. No fossilsof any
sortare known fromthatarea or fromany
region that has been continuouslyunder
deep oceanicwaterthroughout
theCenozoic.
Heuvelmans (1982), as the messiah of
cryptozoology,has declared that, "Every
year, an average of . . . nearly a dozen
mammals are discovered." If that is meant
to referonlyto new species itdoes not mean
thateach discoveryis ofan obviouslydistinct
and previously unknown animal. Any
mammalnot obviouslyrelatedto some pre-
viously known taxon would be at least a

new genus and if even more distinctwould
representa new family.Laterin the present
paper tabulation shows that the average
numberof acceptablynew genera of mammals named duringthe past fiftyyears has
been less than one per year and that very
few completely new families have been
found and named during that time. Heuvelmans also assertsthat "full catalogs" of
mammals and those with "doubtful and
controversialpoints,"have been made only
forEurope, North America,and Australia.
ForAfricahe assertsthat"the best informed
authorshave deliberatelyexcluded . . . all
thespeciesofsmallsize." He adds thatthere
is no equivalent"guide" (a listgivingspecies,
genera, families,and orders of mammals)
forAsia or South America.Those assertions
are incorrect,as will nexthere be shown.
NEW GENERA OF MAMMALS DISCOVERED
FROM
1900 TO 1983
There are now two recentcompletelists

of all known livingorders,families,genera,
and species of mammals. One, edited by
Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl (1982) was
based on severalpreviouslistsincludingone
by Seal and Makey (1974). Some 255
professionalmammalogistsin many countriescontributedto the compilation.It includes taxonomyof families,genera, and
species,withtypelocalitiesand distribution
forspecies,commentsfromcontributors,
and
ISIS numbersofalmostall taxa forcomputer
use. Thereare no descriptionsof theanimals
listed. The other complete recentlist is by
Nowak and Paradiso (1983). This is a twovolume work with 1362 pages, supplementedby extrapages ofworlddistribution,
chartsof all genera, and two indexes. This
workwas firstwrittenby ErnestP. Walker,
and the firsteditionwas issued in 1964. The
second editionalso by Walkerwithrevision
by JohnL. Paradiso appeared in 1968, and
a thirdedition,published posthumouslyin
1975 (Walkerhad died in 1969) was again

revisedby Paradiso. The 1983 fourthedition
tury.This is based on the 1983 book edited

by Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl. I have
considered that genera named in 1900 or
later were known before 1900 if based on
or includingspecies named before1900. For
example the genus of bats now known as
ErophyllaMiller,1906, has as its typea species named in 1861 by Gundlach. Therefore
although given the now accepted name in
1906, the genus was definitelyknown in
1861 and is not countedas a twentieth-centurydiscovery.
The names ofordersin thistableare those
used in the 1983 list cited and are in the
sequence of that list. The placing of
monotremes,
marsupials,and thenall sixteen
of the here recognizedordersof placentals
is in theclassicalsequence. It does notfollow
thatthesesuper-ordinal
groupingsoriginated
in that sequence, as used to be believed or
assumed by zoologists. Several studentsof
marsupials,fossil and living, divide them
is titledWalker's
MammalsoftheWorldbut
has been thoroughly

revisedand augmented
by Nowak and Paradiso, who appear as
coauthors. It has figures,mostly photographs,of at least one species of everygenus
and has extensivedescriptivematterand lists
of species foreach genus.
In view of the foregoingstrongdisagreement with Heuvelmans's statementabout
the incompletenessof knowledge of living
mammals,it is fairto say thatthe two major
workshere citedwere published afterHeuvelmans (1982) was written.However it is
notedthatthesemostrecentlistsof all living
mammals were developed fromworks that
were issued earlier,one in 1964 and one in
1974, and so had been available long before
Heuvelmans (1982) wrote.
In the followingtable I have enumerated
all thegeneraofmammalsfirstmade known
and named in decades of the twentiethcen-
Table of Numbers of Genera of Living Mammals Discovered and Named

in the TwentiethCentury.
Decadescovered
NamesofOrders
MONOTREMATA
MARSUPIALIA
XENARTHRA
INSECTIVORA
SCANDENTIA
DERMOPTERA
CHIROPTERA
PRIMATES
CARNIVORA
CETACEA
SIRENIA
PROBOSCIDEA
PERISSODACTYLA
HYRACOIDEA
TUBULIDENTATA
ARTIODACTYLA
PHOLIDOTA
RODENTIA
LAGOMORPHA
MACROSCELIDEA
TOTALS
1900-09 1910-19 1920-29 1930-39 1940-49 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79

0
0
0
4
0
0
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
25
2
0
42
0
4
0
2
0
0
4
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
22
0
3
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
20
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
7
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
9
GRAND TOTAL-126.

0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
8
1980-82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
MAMMALS AND CRYPTOZOOLOGY

into two or more different
orders,but they
do not agree as to how many ordersshould
be recognized or what they should be
named. The sequence oftheplacentalorders
in this list has no clear significanceas to
timesof originor affinities
among the orders
exceptthatall are placentalsas a verylarge
super-ordinaltaxon.
Most of these ordinal names are well
known,but threehave not been in general
use untilrecently.The "Scandentia" include
onlytheone familyofso-calledtree-shrews,
the Tupaiidae. This familyis of disputedrelationships,havingbeen commonlyclassified
as Insectivoraand sometimesas Primates.
Placing them as an order on theirown is
essentiallycuttinga Gordianknot.All 16 of
itsspecies,now classifiedin fivegenera,were
discovered and named before 1900. The
"Macroscelidea"also includeonlyone living
family,Macroscelididae,withfournow recognized genera and fifteenspecies, all but
one ofwhichwereknownand named before
1900. They are called "elephant shrews" as
theyare superficially
shrewlikeand have a
flexiblesnoutthatremotelyresemblesa proboscis.Theyareusuallyclassifiedin theorder
Insectivora,and are leftthere in the latest
(1983) revisionof Walker'sMammalsof the
butare givenseparateordinalposition
World,
in the 1982 compilationhere followed.The
Dermopterainclude only one livingfamily,
the Cynocephalidae, with one genus, Cynocephalus,with two species, both known
and named in the eighteenthcentury.These
are known as "colugos," a word said to be
Malay althoughthisis not foundin a Malay
dictionaryand thereis no letterc in written
Malay. In Englishtheyare more commonly
called "flyinglemurs,"althoughtheydo not
flybut glide (like "flying"squirrels)and are
obviouslynot lemurs.They are usually classifiedin theInsectivora,but notin thebooks
here cited.
In the listhere followedthe ordinalentry
between MARSUPIALIA and INSECTIVORA is givenas ORDER EDENTATA (XE-
NARTHRA). The classical usage, stillto be

found in some studies,includes in EDENTATA the Order here called PHOLIDOTA
and sometimes also that here called TUBULIDENTATA. The present consensus,
however,includesonlyXENARTHRAin the
EDENTATA, thus makingthese two names
clearerand more
synonymous.It is therefore
in accord with the consensus merelyto call
the orderin question XENARTHRA.
It is noteworthythatof all the generadiscovered in the twentiethcenturymost of
them-84 out of 126-were discoveredbefore 1930. It is furtherinterestingthat the
greatmajoritybelonged to only two orders:
Chiroptera(23) and Rodentia (68), thus for
these two orders91 out of 126 in this century.Also note thatthe numberdiscovered
in thefirstdecade (42) droppedto about half
that in the second (22) and the third(20)
decades and thereafter
droppedconsistently
to less than one a year.
The Chiropteraand Rodentia are much
the most numerous in individuals and the
in species,genera,and fammostdiversified
ilies among livingmammals. They also include manyof thesmallestand mostobscure
livingmammals,beingrivaledin thisrespect
only by the Insectivora,which also include
the thirdlargestnumberof discoveries(12)
in thiscentury.Marsupials,also mostlysmall
and localized ones, are runners-up,with 11
genera discoveredin this century.
The high numbersof genera discovered
early in the centuryare subject to some
doubts. This may in partbe due to the fact
thatOldfieldThomas, a notorioussplitterof
specificand generictaxa, was especiallyactive duringthe firsttwo decades. In some
cases he gave new genericnames to species
thathe had himselfearlierplaced in genera
previouslydiscoveredand named.
In thepresenttabulationthereare ten orders in which no genera or familieshave
been discoveredin the presentcentury,and
two in which only fromone to threegenera
have been found.Those withno discoveries

in thepresenttabulationhave relativelyfew
livingfamiliesor genera:Monotremata,two
families,threegenera;Xenarthra,
exceptionally fivefamiliesand sixteenlivinggenera,
all knownlongbefore1900; Scandentia,one
family,fivelivinggenera,two named since
1900 but based entirelyon species known
long before; Dermoptera,one family,one
genus, alreadyknown to Linnaeus in 1758;
Sirenia, two families,three Recent genera,
but one extinctsince about 1770; Perissodactyla,threelivingfamilies,six livinggenera,all knownlongbefore1900; Hyracoidea,
one livingfamily,threegenerabefore1900;
Tubulidentata,one livinggenus (and species,
known and named in 1766); Pholidota,one
livingfamily,one genus known to Linnaeus
in 1758; and Macroscelidea,one livingfamily,fourlivinggenera,all based on species
known long before 1900.
It is somewhatsurprising
thatsome orders
withonlyone or twogeneradiscoveredsince
1900 neverthelesshave rather numerous
livingfamiliesand genera. The Camivora,
among the most varied orderswith twelve
living families,have only two genera discovered and named since 1900; Chrotogale,
the genus and its one species named by
Thomas in 1912, and Osbornictiswith its
one species named by Allen in 1919. Most
in this connectionare the Priinterestingly
matesbecause manyormostofthesupposed
hidden or mythical mammals of cryptozoology are considered to be primatesby
those who believe in them.In factonly one
doubtfulfamilyand two objectivelyknown
primategenera have been discoveredsince
1900. Callimicowas named by Mirando-Ribeiro in 1911 but was based on a species
firstknown in 1904. This was placed in a
supposedly distinctfamily,Callimiconidae,
by Hershkovitzin 1977, but other mammalogistshave placed itin the Callitrichidae,
a familyknown since 1758. Allenopithecus
was named by Lang in 1923 but based on
a species known in 1907. The genus closely
resemblesthe Cercopithecidae,and its type
species perhaps should be keptin the genus

Cercopithecus.As will be discussed later,
thereis absolutelyno objective,autoptical
evidence for any new species of primates
since 1907 at the latest.
GENERA FIRST FOUND AS FOSSILS AND
LATER FOUND ALIVE
This genus was found fossilin

Burramys.
a cave deposit of probable Pleistocene age
in Australia,and on thatbasis it was named
Burramys
parvus,new genus and species,by
RobertBroomin 1896. In 1966 a livinganimal of the species was found in a ski hut
well up in theso-calledAustralianAlps. That
one individualsoon died, but othersof this
species were foundin the same climatically
rigorousand limitedenvironment.
In 1977 a then new familywas named
and threeothergeneraknown
Burramyidae,
much earlierhave now been referredto this
family.AcrobatesDemarest,1818, was based
on a speciesalreadynamed by Shaw in 1793.
CercartetusGloger, 1841, now includes a
species named by Demarest in 1818. Distoechurus
Peters,1874, has as itssole species
one named in the same publication.Thus a
livingspecies now placed in thisfamilywas
already known and named in 1783, and a
livinggenus now in the familywas named
in 1818. Burramys
and the Burramyidaeare
not examples of cryptozoology.
Catagonus.This genus was named by FlorentinoAmeghino in 1904 with the type
species C. metropolitanus
Ameghino, 1904,
fromthe Mid-Pleistoceneof Argentina.In
1930 Carlos Rusconi named a supposedly
fossilsubspeciesPlatygonus
carlesiwagneri,
and in 1948 he made thisa fullspecies Platygonuswagneri.Although evidently PreHispanic, the known specimens were
subfossiland possiblygeologicallyRecentor
Holocene. In 1975 Wetzel, Dubos, Martin,
and Myers announced that this species is
stillalive in theGran Chaco, througha large
area also extendinginto adjacent parts of


Argentinaand Bolivia. The authors cited
Rusconi'sspecies to Ameghino's
transferred
genus Catagonus.It is definitely
a peccaryof
the familyTayassuidae, the type genus of
which is TayassuFischer,1814. That genus
has two livingspecies. One, known as the
white-collared peccary or javelina (pronounced as in Spanish), rangesfromnorthern Argentinainto southern Arizona and
New Mexico.The other,knownas thewhitelipped peccary, ranges fromnorthernArgentinato southern(old) Mexico.
Wetzel(especiallyin 1977) has shown that
the subfossilspecies called Platygonuswagneri by Rusconi is the same as the living
Chaco peccaryand belongs to Ameghino's
supposedly extinctgenus Catagonus,not to
Platygonus,a North American genus that
spread into South America also duringthe
Great Interchange (mainly Pliocene and
Pleistocene) but is now apparentlyextinct
on bothcontinents.
Catagonusand Platygonus
are rathercloselyrelatedand musthave had
a commonancestry,
perhapsin an earlyform
referableto Platygonus.
Catagonusapparently
evolvedeitherin CentralAmericaorin South
America.Althoughthe mammalogistswere
so late in discoveringCatagonusabundantly
alive in the poorlyexploredChaco, its presence thereand its distinctionfromthe other
two livingspecies ofpeccarieshad been well
knownto nativehuntersforuncountedgenerations. This was then for professional
mammalogistsa genuine discoveryof a genus (firstas a subspecies) in 1948 and until
1975 consideredextinct.However the lapse
between Rusconi's subfossiland fossilrecognitionof the species' survival was short
in geological termsand the species is just
another,more localized peccary belonging
to a familywell known to mammalogists
since Linnaeus in 1758.
Aproteles.This is anothergenus of mammals firstknown as a fossiland laterfound
living.It is a fruitbat of the familyPteropodidae, the typegenus of which (Pteropus)
was knownto Brissonin 1762 but was given
a valid technicalname by Erxleben fifteen

yearslater.Aprotelesbulmeraewas based on
fragmentary
subfossil remains found in a
kitchenmidden in New Guinea by Hyndman in 1974 and published as a new genus
and species by Menzies in 1977. Menzies
had thenassumedthatthegenus and species
were extinct,but even before Menzies's
publicationHyndmanhad sentin skullsand
mandibles of this species found in 1975 in
a largecave and evidentlyremainsof living
bats shot by natives with bow and arrow.
Hyndman returnedto the cave in 1977
but foundthatthe colonyof Aprotelesthere
had been killed or driven away by native
hunters. In 1980 Hyndman and Menzies
publisheda shortnote,witha figureof skull
and jaw ofAproteles
bulmerae,
demonstrating
that this genus and species had still been
alive in 1975. However,searchof otherlarge
collectionsof fruitbats fromNew Guinea
did not turnup any otherspecimens.Hyndman and Menzies concluded in 1980 that
this bat was probably extinctin eastern
Papua New Guinea but mightstill survive
in farwesternPapua New Guinea or in Indonesian New Guinea (West Irian).
Thus it is still not known whether this
genus survivesor is recentlyextinct.In any
case, it was not a highlydistinctgenus or
species, as it ratherclosely resemblesDobsonia moluccensisQuoy and Gaimard,1830,
which is still abundantly alive in New
Guinea and also in the Molucca Islands and
in northernQueensland, Australia.
Speothos.This genus of the dog family
(Canidae) was named by Lund on the basis
oflate Pleistoceneand probablyearlyRecent
fossilsfroma cave in the stateof Minas Gerais, Brazil.The genus was named in 1839,
and Lund ascribed two supposedly extinct
species to it: Speothosvenaticusand S. pacivorus.He also named a fossil and supposedlyextinctspecies Icticyonmajor,which
is now considered a synonymof Speothos
pacivorus.This has been listedas an extinct
species, but it may be only another name

forS. venaticus.Beforethe end of the nineteenthcenturyit was foundthatSpeothosis

and thelivingspeciesis generally
notextinct,
consideredthesame as S. venaticusof Lund.
Althoughit huntsin packs, it is now somewhat sparsely distributed from Panama
southwardeast of theAndes to farnorthern
Argentina.The genericname was derived
fromGreekspeos,"cave," in referenceto its
early discoveryin a cave, and thos,jackal.
The now well-knownliving species is genericallydistinctfromjackals,whichbelong
to the large genus Canis, and they do not
frequentcaves. Theyare now usuallyknown
in English as "bush dogs."
Speothosis clearlyof NorthAmericanancestry.It probablyevolved in tropicalNorth
America,and in any case itsspread in South
Americawas partofthelate Cenozoic "Great
Interchange"of Northand South American
mammals.Kurtenand Anderson(1980) have
suggested that the immediate ancestor of
an extinctgenus of
Speothoswas Protocyon,
canids known in the late Pliocene or early
Pleistoceneboth in Texas and Argentina.
SOME OTHER SUPPOSED
SURVIVORS
Okapia. This is probablythe genus most

as theknown
oftencitedby cryptozoologists
survival of an otherwiseextinctgroup. In
1900 Sir Harry Johnstonlearned from a
groupof pygmiesfromthe area now known
as Zaire that there was in theirforestsan
animallikea mule but withzebralikestripes
in places. Sir Harrymanaged to obtain two
pieces of stripedhide fromthe animal that
the pygmiescalled "okapi." He sent these
to theeminentBritishzoologistW. L. Sclater,
who, takingit to be a new species possibly
ofzebras,named itEquus?johnstoniin 1901.
Laterin thatsame yearE. R. Lankester,also
a Britishzoologist,on the basis of morematerialdeterminedthat this species belongs
to a distinctgenus of the giraffefamilyand
designatedit as Okapia johnstoni.The then
new genericname was derivedfroma native
Africanname "okapi" for the animal long

known to them.
Giraffeswere well known to the Greeks
and Romans and the species was given the
technical name Cervus camelopardalisby
Linnaeus in 1758. Giraffeshad been called
"camelopards," a name derived through
Therewas
LatinfromGreekkamelopardalis.
were hybridsbetween
a legend thatgiraffes
camels and leopards ("pards"). (The present
Englishname "giraffe"was derivedthrough
Frenchfroman Arabicname forthese now
strictlyAfrican animals.) In 1756 Brisson
wrotethatthe animal did not belong to Cervus,the genericname fordeer,and he gave
it the distincttaxonomic name Giraffa.In
1821 Graydefinedand publisheda separate
familyGiraffidae.
had been
Fossilmembersof theGiraffidae
knownsince 1860 and theyrangefromMiocene to Recentin age. When the okapi had
becomeknownto Europeans,thesuggestion
was made thatit mightbe a species of Hellong known as an early (Mioladotherium,
This is, however,incorrect.In
cene) giraffid.
some respectsOkapiais somewhatmorelike
early giraffidssuch as PaleotragusGaudry,
1861, (late Miocene to early Pliocene), but
it has become distinctly different:(See
Churcher,1970, and Harris, 1976.) Fossils
of Giraffa
are fairlycommon in Africafrom
late Pleistoceneto Recent,but only one dubious occurrenceof Okapiain thePleistocene
is known. Thus Okapia is not a survivorof
a known fossilgenus, subfamily,or family.
itis not truethat"mostpeople
Furthermore,
had doubted" the existenceof okapis after
theywere knownto Europeans,as statedby
Heuvelmans (1959, p. 58).
This genericname has enHexaprotodon.
gendered much confusion.It was firstapplied to fossilsand has later been applied
to some livinghippopotamuses.It could thus
be anothergenus firstknown as extinctbut
later found living. However, this is not at
all clear or probable,and it is not in accord
with the presentusage of most mammalo-

gists.The name Hexaprotodon
was published
and definedby the Britishpaleontologists
H. Falconer and P. T. Cautley in 1836 as a
subgenus of Hippopotamus. The name
Hexaprotodonis derived fromGreek words
meaning"six frontteeth" and refersto the
number of incisors,three on each side in
upper and lower dentitions.It was applied
to fossil and supposedly extinct hippopotamuses fromthe Siwalik Hills, now in
partin bothPakistanand India. At the same
time Falconer and Cautley gave the name
Tetraprotodon
as a subgenus for the living
Hippopotamus
amphibiusLinnaeus, 1758,
which has two incisorson each side, upper

is no longerused
and lower. Tetraprotodon
eitheras a genus or a subgenus, as it is essentiallysynonymouswith Hippopotamus.
Like the giraffe,
the commonAfricanhippopotamus was already known to the classical Romans and Greeks. In Greek it was
called hippos potamios, literally "river
horse,"and variantsoftheGreekname have
been passed down to almost all European
languages, includingmodem English. As a
itwas adopted
genericname,Hippopotamus,
in theearliestworkvalid in presenttechnical
nomenclature,the tenthedition of Systema
Naturaeby Linnaeus,publishedin 1758. The
likewise African pigmy hippopotamus,
however,was not known to non-nativesof
Africauntilearlyin the nineteenthcentury.
It was named as a distinctspecies, Hippopotamusliberiensisin 1844 by Samuel Morton,an Americannaturalist(1799-1851). In
1852 another American naturalist,Joseph
Leidy (1823-1891) maintained that the
pigmy hippopotamus is a distinctgenus,
whichhe first
named Choerodes.
Thatproved
tobe a preoccupiedname,and in 1853 Leidy
named it Choeropsis.Leidy was a paleontologistas well as a zoologist,but his genus
Choeropsiswas based entirelyon the living
pigmyhippopotamusand he did notinclude
any fossilsunder this name.
In 1977 two posthumouspapers on hippopotamuses were published by Mrs.
R. J.G. Savage under her previousmarried

name S. C. Coryndon.She was a vertebrate
paleontologistconcernedwith fossil mammals, especially those of Africa.(Much of
her life was spent in Kenya.) In these final
papers, published together,she maintained
that the livingChoeropsisLeidy, 1853, is a
synonymof the otherwisefossil Hexaprotodon,publicationof which antedated that
of Choeropsisby seventeen years. She did
not base this synonymyon the numberof
incisors,whichin thetypespeciesis six(three
on each side) both above and below and not
four(two on each side) as in Hippopotamus
and Choeropsis.She also referreda number
of Eurasian and African fossil species to
Hexaprotodon,
althoughtheyhad fourincisors and not the six impliedin theirgeneric
name. Her referenceof seven fossilspecies
and the living species liberiensisto Hexaprotodonwas based on some charactersof
theskull(when knownin thefossilspecies),
wear on the incisors (hence nature of the
bite),and proportionsof some known limb
bones. Choeropsisliberiensisdoes somewhat
in some ofthese
resemblefossilHexaprotodon
but
it
seems
about
characters,
equally like
in otherrespects.Coryndon's
Hippopotamus
own phylogeneticdiagramshows Choeropsis
liberiensis
branchingseparatelyfromthatof
fossilspecies ofHexaprotodon
althoughfrom
a commonancestor,butitalso shows Hippopotamus,fossiland recent,branchingfrom
the same ancestry although inferentially
somewhatearlier.
Almost all mammalogistsnow consider
Choeropsisto be a distinctand valid genus.
It is not known in Eurasia, where Hippopotamuswas widespreadin thelate Cenozoic
but is now extinct. It probably evolved
somewherein Eurasiaand migratedto Africa
over a land connectionin the Pliocene. Up
to now only one fragmentof Choeropsishas
been foundfossilin thePleistocene,and the
genericidentification
of thatspecimenis decidedly dubious. It seems probable that
Choeropsisevolved locally in Africa. (The

10
genus has also been reported fossil or

subfossilfromthe Mediterraneanand from
Madagascar, but those generic references
may be incorrectand based only on island
dwarfingof species of Hippopotamus.)The
upshot of thissomewhattangledtale is that
Choeropsisis not clearlyknown as a fossil,
has never been considered extinct,and is
definitelynot an example of the discovery
as stillalive of a supposedlyextinctanimal.
It is of interesthere,althoughdigressive,
that in the second of her two posthumous
publicationsCoryndondescribedas new a
fossilspecies fromthe "earliestPleistocene"
of Africaas Hexaprotodon
karumensis.
From
the descriptionand illustrations,this certainlyappears to be a valid species, but so
extraordinarily
peculiar that it cannot be
reasonablyassigned to any but a new and
otherwiseunknowngenus. The othersurely
known genera of hippopotamids are only
Hexaprotodon(extinctas such), Choeropsis
(living),and Hippopotamus(living).
Megalonychidae.The statusof thisfamily,
itsincludedtaxa,and its survivalintoeither
the geologicalor the colloquial "Recent" or
"recent"are uncertainand disputable.Several generaand species clearlyof thisfamily
are now known as fossils,only,in the West
Indies (Hall and Kelson, 1959, and Hall,
1981; the two editionscited have the same
title,and both include the West Indies as if
parts of North America). These fossils are
sub-Recentin geologicaltermsor quite possibly Recent. There is evidence that they
were still living when the pre-European
Carib Indians reached the islands. They are
certainlynow extinct,and it is probable for
some or all thattheirextinctionwas caused
by the Indians.
A different
part of the problem depends
on the classificationof Choloepus,the genus
of two-toedtreeslothswithtwo livingspecies confinedto CentralAmerica(Nicaragua
and southward) and to lowland South
America.The classical arrangementby neomammalogistswas to place thisgenus in the
similarlivingtreeslothfamilyBradypodidae,
also a lowland and mainly tropical South
Americangroup,the type genus, Bradypus,
with three living species. Paleomammalogists,however, since the 1960s have been
and Choloepus
generallyagreedthatBradypus
had quite different
ancestors among early
so-called "groundsloths."This has been acceptedby a consensusof neomammalogists
to the extent of placing Choloepus in a
separate familyCholoepidae. Lately,however,a paleommalogisthas placed Choloepus
in the otherwise "ground sloth" family
Megalonychidae(Webb, in Montgomery,in
pressas of 1983). If thisbecomes generally
accepted, Choloepuswill be considered as
the lone genus survivingfroman otherwise
extinctfamilyrepletewithfossilgenera.Even
ifaccepted,thiswould hardlybe an example
of a clear-cutcryptozoologicaldiscoveryof
anothersurvivorpreviouslyconsideredextinct.Choloepuswas known and named by
Illigerin 1811 and Megalonyx
was notvalidly
named by Harlan until 1825. In any case,
the fossil genus Megalonyxand the living
thatit
genus Choloepusare so verydifferent
never occurredto a systematistto collocate
themexceptin thelargeand vague category
of "sloths" untilwell intothetwentiethcentury.
Heptaxodontidae. Somewhat similar
doubtsand questionsarise forthisfamilyof
hystricomorph
or caviomorphrodentsas for
the Choloepidae or Megalonychidaeamong
theXenarthra.Genera now usually ascribed
to thisfamilywere varied and abundant in
the geological sub-Recentor Recent of the
West Indies. One genus from there,Amblyrhiza,was described and named by the
paleontologist Cope in 1868. Five more
closelyrelatedgeneraincludingthe typegenus of thefamily,also fromtheWestIndies,
were definedand named by the neomammalogistAnthonyin 1916, 1917, and 1920.
In 1917 Anthony also placed these as a
subfamilyof Dinomyidae, a related South
Americanfamilywithone livinggenus, Di-


nomys.In 1918 Millerand Gidleyraised the
Heptaxodontinaeto the familylevel, and in
1929 Miller described and named another
West Indian genus, Quemisia. Heptaxodon
itselfis probablya synonymof a previously
named West Indian genus, Elasmodontomys
Anthony,1916, but under the presentInternationalCode of Nomenclaturethisdoes
not invalidate the familyname Heptaxodontidae.
ContinentalSouthAmericanfossilrodents
clearlyrelatedand generallyreferredto this
familyare abundant in the Miocene and
Pliocene.Many SouthAmericangenerahave
been named, mostlyby FlorentinoAmeghino and Lucas Kraglievich,
and thelatteralso
named several familiesnow generallyconsideredsynonymouswithor subordinateto
the Heptaxodontidae. There is no serious
doubt that the familywas of continental
South American originand that it is now
extinct,even though in the West Indies it
probablylived on intothegeologicalor even
the historicalrecent.There is here no questionof belated or cryptozoologicalrediscovery of a familyof mammals,as a member
of this one was known as a fossilin 1868
and no scientific
zoologisteversaw one alive.
FAMILIES DISCOVERED IN THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY
Onlytwo familiesoflivingmammalshave
been discovered in the fullyobjective and
autopticalsense duringthe presentcentury.
This entailsipso factothe simultaneousdiscoveryof a new genus and species in each
ofthesetwo families.Itis notsurprisingthat
these two familiesbelong to the two orders
most abundant and diverse in the present
mammalian faunas of the world: the bats
(Chiroptera)and the rodents(Rodentia).
Therehas been some confusionas to who
firstdescribedand named therodentfamily
Seleviniidae,genus Selevinia,and species eitherSeleviniabetpakdalaensis
Belosludovand
Bashanov, 1938, or Selevinia paradoxa Ar-
11
gyrapoloand Vinogradov,1939. The former

authors and their name apparently have
priority.The animal involved, now fairly
well known,was foundin the Betpak-Dala
desertin Kazakhstan,U.S.S.R. It seems to
be mostnearlyrelatedto thedormousefamily Gliridae,but it is so extremelyaberrant
thattherehas neverbeen any questionabout
in a distinctand well-defined
itsclassification
family.Nothingmoreis clearlyknownabout
its ancestryor relationships,and it was obviouslynotthediscoveryofa foreseen,even
a hinted,or a mythicalhidden animal. The
factthatit is small (between threeand four
inches in head and body length) and lives
in a remoteand littlefrequenteddesertexplains its late discovery.The most nearly
relatedfamily,Gliridae,was known to Brisson in 1762, and the etymologyof the Englishvernacularname "dormouse" suggests
thatexistenceof thisfamilyhad been known
to western Europeans many generations
earlier.
The bat familyCraseonycteridae,genus
thongCraseonycteris,
species Craseonycteris
Hill, 1974, were found at Sai Yoke,
longyai
Kanchanaburi,Thailand some timepriorto
1974 and named by J.E. Hill on the basis
of a specimen sent to the BritishMuseum
(NaturalHistory).It is stillknownonlyfrom
thelocalitywhereit was firstfound.It is the
smallestknownbat and has been compared
with a bumblebee for size. It may be the
smallest of all known living mammals, in
this respect rivaled only by a very small
shrew such as Suncus etruscus.(Some early
fossilmammalswere smallerthan any now
living.)It most nearlyresemblesthe genus
in the vernacularthe threespeRhinopoma,
cies of mouse-tailedbats, but Craseonycteris
differs
obviouslyin the completeabsence of
a tail,much smallersize, and otherdetails.
Here again the small size of the animal and
its limitedand remotegeographicrange explain its late and unheralded discovery.It
also roostsin small caves as faras possible
fromtheirentrances.

12
The factthatthesediscoveriesof definitely

new and distinctfamiliesof livingmammals
have been only two in the course of more
than 80 years, holds out littlepromise of
otherdiscoveriessoon, ifever,of equally or
moredistincttaxa ofmammals.Thatis especially trueas those rumoredare largerand
nearerto home forthe many hunters.
CREDOQUIA IMPOSSIBILE
Humans are themostinventive,deceptive,
and gullibleof all animals. Only those characteristics
can explainthebeliefof some humans in creationism,in the arrivalof UFO's
with extraterrestrial
beings, or in some aspects of cryptozoology.
In several respects the discussion and
practice of cryptozoologysometimes, although not invariably,has demonstrated
both deceptionand gullibility.An example
seemsto merittheold Latinsaying"I believe
because itis incredible,"althoughTertullian,
itsauthor,applieditin a way moreapplicable
to the present-daycreationists.
In 1920 a Swiss geologist(not a zoologist
or paleontologist)named Fransois de Loys
was exploring along the border between
Venezuela and Colombia. There,according
to his report,he or his companions killed a
male in a group, as he claimed, of apelike
animals. He propped up the dead animal
and photographedit. He did not bringback
any part of the animal but he claimed that
it had no tail and (at different
times)thatit
was about 4 feet5 inches or about 5 feet2
inches tall. The photograph,sole evidence
thatthecreatureexistedat all, does notshow
whetherithad a tailor not or make possible
any checkon itsheight.On the basis of this
photographand ofLoys'svaryingstatements
a French Professor Georges Montandon
"identified"theanimalas an anthropoidape
(the only one "known" outside of Asia and
Africa)and named itAmeranthropoides
loysi
(Montandon, 1929). There is no reason to
doubt thatMontandon acted in good faith,
but he did not displaygood sense. The photograph,which is the only objective evidence, is quite surelyof a spidermonkeyof
the well-known genus and species Ateles
belzebuth,
which occursin the regionwhere
Loys said theanimalwas killed.This species
was named by Geoffroyin 1806, and the
genus was already known to Linnaeus in
1758. A matureadult would be about as tall
as Loys's statement(or guess) if it stood up
on its hind feet,which was apparentlyassumed by Loys. To be sure, Ateles and all
otherknownSouthAmericanmonkeyshave
fairlylong tails. As to this, one can only
assume that Loys was lying,and that he
posed the dead animal on a box so that its
tail did not appear in the photograph.
Heuvelmans (1959) devoted a whole
chapter(chapter14, pages 305-328) to this
supposedly "unknown animal." His book,
which in effectstartedsubsequent interest
in cryptozoology,
had as frontispiece
a copy
of Loys's photograph,titled as "Ameranthropoides
loysi,the only 'unknown' animal
of whichthereis a good photograph."Heuvelmans,like Montandon,may be assumed
to have acted in good faith,but evidently
not withgood sense. He concluded thatthe
existence of a South American great ape
could not be disputed "except by the disingenuousor theblind." Yet the area where
the animal was reportedby Loys had been
explored since the beginning of the 19th
centuryand has been eversincethenwithout
any sign of a primateremotelyresembling
a greatape.
In thatsame workHeuvelmans discussed
other "hidden animals" that have become
classics for later cryptozoologists.Notably
the "yeti" or "the not so abominable snowman" has a chapter of 56 pages. He also
devoted some attentionto "the Queensland
marsupial tiger,"which is no longer taken
seriouslyeven by cryptozoologists.
Heuvelmans did, however,treatwith betterjudgmentthe "impossible" New Zealand "waitoreke"(nota Maoriname) and themythical


Patagonian"Iemisch" (notan Indian name),
also called "Neomylodon."
Such of Heuvelmans's "unknown animals" as have been scientifically
identified
have turnedout to be long known. The African "nandi bear," forexample, has been
found to be a honey badger or ratel,Mellivoracapensis,alreadyknown to zoologists
in 1776-a possibility that Heuvelmans
mentionedbut rejected.On the otherhand
the "orang pendek," also called a "sedapa"
or a "sindai," a supposed small semi-human
Sumatran animal, still seems to be an unidentifiedor solelymythologicalcreature.In
theIndonesianlanguage "orang pendek" or
"orang pandek" means "short person (human)." "Sedapa" is probably a version of
"sedap," meaning"delicious" (to eat). "Sindai" does not appear to be an Indonesian
word. This "unknown" may have been a
dwarf human or if not purely mythical
probablya Malayan bear, Helarctos(or Ursus)malayanus,a smallbear occurringin Sumatraand known since 1821 at latest.
Moving on, there is a marginallycryptozoologicalstudy,one of thefewby a leading zoologist,anthropologist,
and anatomist,
JohnNapier (1973). Underthetermof "Bigfoot," Napier includes both the Asiatic
(mostly Himalayan) Yeti or "Abominable
Snowman" and the northwesternUnited
States and westernCanadian "Sasquatch."
(Heuvelmans had missed the latter.)Napier
went over the masses of evidence, or supposed evidence. He concluded that,"If we
confineourselves rigidlyto what most scientistswould regardas hard evidence,then
the answer is heard loud and clear: Bigfoot
does notexist.There is no scrap of hard evidence. . . ." As an anthropologistNapier
thinksthatforethnologicaland psychological reasons, and perhaps forgeneticones,
humans need folktalessuch as those of Bigfoot.On the available indirectevidence,he
discardsthe realityof the Yeti. Yet he finds
himself"convincedthattheSasquatchexists,
but whetherit is all it is crackedup to be is
13
another matteraltogether."This is in the

face of recognitionthat many of the footprintsare hoaxes and thatmanyofthecitings
are eitherhoaxes or "psychologicalabnormalities"-and yetthatSasquatch does exist
if anyare true.Finallyhe says, "Man needs
his gods-and his monsters-and the more
remote and unapproachable they are, the
better."And thena postscript:"Perhaps by
the time this book is published somebody
will have discovered a Bigfoot.I hope so;
butifnot,I willhappilysettleforthemyth."
As this is being written,ten years have
passed since Napier's book was published.
No Bigfoothas been discovered.
Less than ten years ago, in 1978, Heuvelmans followedup with anotherbook in
French,on "The Last Dragons of Africa."
In thefirstissue of thejournalCryptozoology
thereis a review of Heuvelmans (1978) by
Jean-FranfoisTrape (1982), an overseas
(ORSTOM) French scientist stationed in
Brazzaville,People's Republicof the Congo.
While payingdue homage to the "Fatherof
Cryptozoology,"Trape goes on to say that
itis "always ratherriskyto draw excessively
definitiveconclusions from simple statementsby witnesses. . . . The problembecomes stillmore delicate when it comes to
second-hand reportseven if obtained directlyfromwitnesses." Finally,with reference more specificallyto the belief thatdinosaurs survivein Africa,Trape concludes
that
. . theseseveraldecadeswithout
concrete
proof
of thesurvivalof such animalsis beginning
to
havea weightmuchheavierthanthe70 million
yearswithout
fossilevidence.
Whilenohypothesis
shouldbe excludeda priori-andthatis indeed
theveryessenceofcryptozoology-one
mustadmitthattimeis notworking
in favorofthe"last
dragonsof Africa!"
*
The presentessay is not concernedwith

dinosaurs,but it is concernedwith Heuvelmans's statementthat, along with aquatic
dinosaurs, amphibious machairodonts(sa-

14
bertooth"tigers,"whichbecame extinctnot
70 millionbut less than 1 millionyearsago)
are stillpresentin Africa.No machairodonts
were amphibious,and thereis no objective
evidence that any surviveanywhere.
Anotherfairlyrecentbook by Canadian
JohnGreen (1978) about "Sasquatches" is
a prolix gatheringof indirectevidence. It
oddly,confusinglystartsout by statingthat
the author does not believe in Sasquatch,
but then goes on to give supposed reasons
why one should believe. Stillanotherbook,
a symposial volume edited by R. Sprague
and G. S. Krantz(1979) indicatesthatmuch
of the "evidence" forthe Sasquatch is admittedlyfaked.Stillanother,editedby Marjorie Halpin and Michael Ames (1980), is a
collectionof papers read at a conferenceon
"Manlike Monsters" (mainly the so-called
Sasquatch) held in 1978 at the Universityof
BritishColumbia (in Canada). Thereis a review of this book, seven pages long, by
GroverS. Krantz(1982). One would expect
thatattendantsat such a conferencewould
tend to be favorableto the existenceof the
Sasquatch, but as analyzed by thisreviewer
tenof thetwenty-four
articlespublishedare
"Skeptical," nine are "Neutral," and only
fiveare "Favorable."
WiththecurrententhusiasmforYetisand
Sasquatches one mightthinkthat no more
is necessaryto sufficeforwhatNapier (1973)
has called the "primevalurge,"perhaps geneticprogramming,
forat leastsome humans
to need monsters,whethernatural or unnatural,real or mythical.New candidates
for these roles are neverthelessstill added
to the long list thatincludes the "Bigfeet."
An example is provided by Roy Wagner
(1982), who is head of the Departmentof
Anthropology
(notzoology)at theUniversity
of Virginia.He had been doing fieldstudies
of the humans on New Ireland,which is a
narrow,elongated island at a considerable
distance northeastof Papua New Guinea,
althoughpoliticallya part of that country.
Here he was repeatedly told of creatures
called a ri in Bartok,which is one of the

Melanesian languages. The accounts varied
greatly,and some were similarto the "menagerie" thatWagnerrecognizedas "rather
fanciful 'bush' creatures-spirit beings,
monsters,and fearsome animals." There
were,however,repeateddescriptionsof the
a ri as marinecreaturesresemblinghuman
males and femalesfromtheirheads to their
genitaliabut withoutlegs and ending in a
fishlikelower partwith lateralfins.He was
assured that Europeans (and evidently
Americans,too) knew all about a ribecause
"you put picturesof them on matchboxes
and canned goods." Referencewas to picturesof mermaids.The a ri were said to be
very common, seen every day, known to
everyone,and eaten by some. Nevertheless,
while living with his informants,Wagner
never definitelysaw one. Only one was
pointed out to him as an a ri, but he saw
only "a long dark body . . . which submergedand did notreappear."Wagnerdoes
to understand
commentthat,"It is difficult
how such disparateperceptions"-mythical
projections-"of the ri have come about."
He findsthat "the physical descriptionsof
the ri also pose problems,"which he does
not explicitlydiscuss.
This articleby a presumablycapable anthropologistposits a mammal that is not
merelyunknownbutis impossible.The most
logicalinferenceis thatWagnerput together
in his own imaginationelementsin a varying
folkstorywidespreadamonghis informants,
and also that it is quite possible that the
nativeswere enjoyingleading a white man
up the garden-path,as the English say, or
kiddinghim, as Americanssay.
DISCUSSION
AND CONCLUSIONS
It is evident that cryptozoologyis interestingto manypeople, includingsome who

reject its definitions,methods, and proclaimedresults.Forthosewho supportcryptozoology,italso seems clearthatthissubject

satisfiessome emotional need or perhaps
some inborntendency.The cryptozoological
animals here previouslyexemplifiedamong
supposed mammalsinclude various distinct
categories. What they include are kinds
(zoologicallyspeaking,taxa) of animalssupposedly now livingbut consideredhitherto
extinctor unknown.
The supposed examples of cryptozoological animals that have had the most extensive publicityat a journalisticlevel, at
least,are two groupsof reptiles:plesiosaurs
and dinosaurs. Paleontologistsconsidered
and stilldo considerthese taxa extinctsince
the end of the Cretaceous,some 65 million
yearsago. The mostdiligentsearchby skilled
paleontologistsformore than two centuries
now has notturnedup any evidenceofpostCretaceous Plesiosauria or Sauropoda (one
of the two main taxonomicgroups of dinosaurs). The cryptozoological supposed
membersof these major taxa now most diligentlypursued, but not yet found or objectivelyidentified,are the Scottish "Loch
Ness monster,"which has aspects of being
a publicitystunt,usually as a supposed survivingplesiosaur,and the AfricanMobeleMbembe, which has aspects of the entirely
mythicalor folkloric,but has been sought
in vain so far as a survivingsauropod dinosaur. (A dubious plesiosaurhas also been
reportedfromLake Champlain,and a more
than dubious dinosaur fromFlorida.)
Among the mammalsthathave been the
subjectof cryptozoologicalenquiryor speculationtherehave been: hoaxes,forexample
Ameranthropoides;
purely mythicalor folktale inventions,for example the African
"nigve," which as describedby Africannatives could not have been a pigmyhippopotamusbutwas laterthoughtto have been;
a nativename notunderstoodby Europeans
but eventuallyidentifiedas a mammal long
knownto zoologists,liketheAfrican"nandi"
(also known regionallyas "chimoset," "isata," and so on, dependingon the local dialect) which turnedout to be in most if not
15
all cases a ratel,an animal which had been

known to scientific
zoologistssince 1776; or
an animal known firstas a fossil but later
found living,like the Australianmarsupial
Burramysand very few otherexamples involvingonly fossilsknown to have been of
almostrecentage; or, most touted,animals
likethesasquatchand manyothersassumed
to exist on testimonial or circumstantial
groundsalone but never found as real objective and autopticalanimals.
Among mammals perhaps the most extraordinary
example of an ignoranceof the
science of zoology and downrightsilliness
was providedby a Russian,B. F. Porshnev.
From1966 until1974, theyearof his death,
he was supportinga "revolutionin primatology"whichwas a successionof one blunder afteranother(see Porshnev,1974). The
major pointsof thisexample of cryptozoologyare: first,
thattheonlygenus and species
ofthehumanfamilyis Homosapiens;second,
thatthishad as an ancestorthe missinglink
(betweenapes and humans) Troglodytes
fossilis,which name he used forNeanderthal
man; third,thatthisspecies was an animal
and thereforedid not belong to the human
family;and finally,that Troglodytes
in the
formof Troglodytes
recensis stillliving.There
is no evidence at all forhis conclusion,and
his attemptedclassificationis one blunder
after another. He ascribed Troglodytesto
Linnaeus as a generic term,but Linnaeus
(1758) used Troglodytes(from Greek for
"cave dweller") at firstas subordinate to
Homoand withtwo speciesH. nocturnus
and
H. sylvestris,
the latteras applicable to the
Orang Outang, a formof the Malay name
stillused in colloquialEnglishorangutan.(In
Malay it means "foresthuman," a far cry
from"cave dweller.") Linnaeus later used
the combinationSimia troglodytes.
In 1758
he gave the geographic habitat as Africa
("Aethiopia") and caves in Java,Amboina,
and Temate.In 1758 Linnaeuswas evidently
includinggorillasand orangutansin a taxon
(of somewhat uncertainlevel) Troglodytes.

16
In 1812 E. Geoffroydefineda genus Troglodytes,

butthatwas preoccupiedby thesame
genericname given to a bird by Vieillotin
1806 and was replaced by the name Pan
(Gmelin, 1788)
Oken, 1816. Pan troglodytes
is now the accepted name of the common
Africanchimpanzee. (Linnaeus' geographic
referencefor the orangutanwas incorrect,
followingvague statementsby explorersof
theEast Indies; thespeciesnow called Pongo
pygmaeus
is confinedto Sumatraand Borneo,
but thereis fossilevidence forits presence
in the Pleistoceneand earlyRecentin Java
and on the southeasternpartof continental
Asia.)
These mattersof nomenclatureand classification,here simplifiedand abbreviated,
are importantto the extentthat theyshow
thatPorshnevhad littleor no grasp on scientificzoology and also on historical or
physicalanthropology.An English translation of a Russian summarywas published
in 1974, shortlyafter
in Current
Anthropology
Porshnevdied. In the styleof thatjournal,
themanuscriptwas referredto six noted anin Spain, India, and theUnited
thropologists
States for commentsto be published with
the article.All six severely and adversely
criticizedPorshnev's views and expression
of them.As he could not replyto this concertedrejection,a reply,much longer than
Porshnev's articleor any of the criticisms,
was writtenby two Russians,Bayanov and
Bourtsev,and was published in the same
In a laterissue
Anthropology.
issue ofCurrent
they followed this up with another article
(Bayanovand Bourtsev,1976) in whichthey
argued for the survival of Neanderthals
based on some ancientstatuesand ceramics
and on the extensive literatureon "wild
men"or"wolf-children"(forexampleSingh
and Zingg, 1942). These latterare not relevant to the argument,as they were supposed to be feralHomo sapiensand not prehuman survivors.
The commenthere thatPorshnev's work
is an example of cryptozoologyis justified
by the fact that Heuvelmans in 1974 (the

year of Porshnev's death) published in
Frencha statementthat"Neanderthalman
is stillalive,"withPorshnevas juniorauthor.
As justificationfor the judgment that this
was about the nadir for cryptozoology,a
commentby EmilianoAguirre,an excellent
Spanish anthropologistand vertebratepaleontologist,will suffice.About Porshnev's
Aguirrewrote,"Let us notclassify
infra-man
it beforewe findit." This statementapplies
to the miscellany of cryptozoologyas a
whole. It is absurdto considercryptozoology
as an equal adjunct to zoology and to state
as its mission the completionof the roster
of livinganimals.
In the present study objectivelyknown
living(geologicallyand historicallyRecent)
mammals are used as a way to determine
how much cryptozoologyhas in fact contributedto the modern science of zoology,
and also to estimatethe probabilityof any
futurediscoveryof new and distinctivetaxa
of mammals. Mammals are betterfor this
purpose than most otherhigh taxa. At the
levels of genera and families,living mammals are now more completelyknown than
any otherclass of animals,withthepossible
exceptionof birds. The precedingtable of
numbersofgeneradiscoveredin thiscentury
in the various orders of this class and the
subsequentdiscussiongive a basis formeasurementsof these accomplishmentsup to
now and forestimationof probabilitiesfor
the future.
The intensivesearch fornew taxa in the
and nomenclatureof mammals
classification
is formallydated fromthe tentheditionof
the SystemaNaturaeof Carolus Linnaeus in
1758. Discoveries,clearlyabundantby 1758,
reached a heightin the nineteenthcentury,
and fromhigherto lower taxonomiclevels
therateof objectivediscoveryhas thereafter
been diminishing.Attentionis here focused
on thetwentiethcenturyas thespan of time
in which completionhas been approached,
and also the whole span of the formation

ofcryptozoology
as the"science" ofreaching
thatcompletion.
As previouslynoted,therateof discovery
of genera has markedlydiminishedduring
thiscentury,and it is now and has been for
thelastfifty
yearsbelow one genus per year.
None of these genera were discovered by
followingcryptozoological,i.e., non-objective,principles.Since among mammals the
cryptozoologicalsearch is largelyfor supposed primates,it is significantthat no objective genera of primateshave been discovered since 1907, at the latest.
There are only fourgenera of mammals
firstfound as fossiland later found living.
In all of these the known fossilspecies, as
well as genera, were of late Pleistocene or
early Recent age. All belonged to families
with othergenera and species known long
beforethese.Thereis no significant
timegap
here and no discoveryof a previouslytruly
unknownspecies,genus, or family.As previously noted, the only completelynovel
families,genera, and species discovered in
thelast fifty
yearsare the Craseonycteridae,
based on a species of bats, Craseonycteris
thonglongai
Hill, 1974, and a rodentfamily
Seleviniidae, type-speciesSelevinia betpakdalaensisBelosludov and Bashanov, 1938.
As both these discoverieswere of relativelysmall animals foundin ratherremote
regions,in caves in Thailand and in a desert
in Kazakhstan, respectively,it might be
hoped thata further
searchin unlikelyplaces
may yetreveal manymorenoveltiesamong
known, livingmammals. It is importantto
note not only when, but where, fairlylate
discoveriesof mammals have been made.
The whole world has been searched forliving mammals for well over two centuries
now. It is not surprisingthat the most distinctivespecies, genera, and few families
discoveredin thepresentcenturywere small
animals in unusual and remote environments.This facthas led naturaliststo explore
intensivelyjust such places, although with
decreasingsuccess.
17
In AustraliaBurramys,
long known as a
fossil,was discoveredalive as late as 1966.
It was in theonlyalpine environment
in that
continent,
a regionnow a nationalpark,with
a museumdemonstrating
itsfauna,crowded
with touristsin summerand with skiersin
winter. Another Australian marsupial,
WyuldasquamicaudataAlexander,1918, was
discoveredin a West Australianpart of the
extensiveAustraliandeserts,but thoseareas,
too, have been extensivelyscouredfornovelties since then, withoutreally significant
furtherdiscoveries.Goeldi's marmoset,discovered in the rain forestsof the Amazon
Basin,was named as a speciesin 1904,raised
to a monotypicgenus in 1911, and to a
monotypicfamilyin 1977. (The latterrankingis disputed.)Since 1904 theAmazon Basin and its rain forest(now rapidly being
cleared) have been thoroughlyexploredfor
mammals.The distribution
of species of primates and of genera of all familiesthereis
well known, and discovery of any new
mammals above the species level there is
quite unlikely.
The dense forestsof WestemNew Guinea
(Indonesian Irian Jaya) have not been exhaustivelyexplored for theirfauna. There
are quite a few fieldrecordsand specimens
fromthere,but itis quite possible thatsome
obscure,small,mammalianspecies may still
be discoveredin New Guinea.
The likewise dense forests of western
equatorial Africa have yielded some distinctivenew mammals and have recently
been reexaminedin partby cryptozoologists,
butunsuccessfully.
Theymay stillhold some
undiscoveredspecies of mammals,although
thisis unlikely.Two striking
and ratherlarge
mammalshave been discoveredthere,in the
sense of "discovery"as a knowledgeof them
by non-tribalpeople and theirdefinition
and
namingby zoologists.These are the pigmy
hippopotamusChoeropsis,known as noted
above to zoologistsas earlyas 1852, and the
giraffid
Okapia,definedand named in 1901.
Both of these genera belong to families

18
knownfromantiquity,longbeforeLinnaeus
and 1758. No large livingmammal, not to
mentiondinosaurs,has been discoveredin
Africa since 1901. In South America the
largestmammal recentlyclearlyidentified,
defined,and named is the Chaco peccary,
a survivorof the Pleistocene genus Catagonus, as also noted above. It had surely
been known to the tribalIndians fromtime
unmeasured,and almostas surelyknown to
earlySpanish explorersbutprobablyknown
to themonly as peccaries,originallya Tupi
(AmazonianIndian)name,or by one of their
names in Guarani,thetribalIndianlanguage
stillcurrentin Paraguay.
In this connection,it is relevantthat the
and claimed sightingsof
reportedfootprints
the most discussed cryptozoologicalmammals are in regionsquite thoroughlyknown
by many people, includingzoologists. The
yetiis supposed to be in a regionof difficult
access, fromabout 12,000 to about 22,000
feetof altitudein the Himalayas. There are
residentsin thelowerpartof thisrange,and
every year there are expeditions of competenthumans into the higherparts.As for
the footprintsand claimed sightingsof the
sasquatch,thesehave occurredin well-populated regionsin BritishColumbia, Alberta,
Washington State, Oregon, and northern
California. It is simply incredible that so
many educated people, including professhould
sionalzoologistsand anthropologists,
have failed to produce any objective evidence thatyetisor sasquatches do exist.(A
supposed yetiscalp proved to be a hoax; a
poor filmof a supposed sasquatchcould well
be a hoax also.)
As to predictionof futurediscoveries,on
presentevidence thiscan be done only in a
generalway, but thereis relevantevidence.
Afterso many futileyears, the chances of
objectiveand adequate evidence forthe living zoological realityof the yetior the sasquatch are extremelysmall. There is some
reasonable probabilityof the discoveryof
new livingspecies of mammals objectively
and taxonomicallyestablished,within the

next few decades. There is a slighterprobabilityof the discoveryof decidedly new
genera but here, too, thereremains a possibility.The chancesof any discoveryofnew
living families are very slight. That new
familytaxa,includingspecies and generaalready known,will be proposed and named
in thefutureis highlyprobable,but thatwill
notbe discoveryin an acceptablesense. That
reallyand entirelynew taxa above the level
of familieswill be discoveredis improbable,
approachingor reachingzero as the taxa are
higherin the hierarchyof classification.
REFERENCES
BAYANOV,
D., and I. BOURTSEV.
1976. On Neanderthal
vs. Paranthropus.CurrentAnthropology,
17 (2):
312-318.
CHURCHER,
C. S. 1970. Two new upperMiocenegiraffids
fromFortTeman, Kenya,East Africa.Fossilvertebratesof Africa,(2): 1-106. Academic Press,
London and New York.(Withan exhaustivebibin general.)
liographyof fossilgiraffids
CORYNDON,S. C. 1977. The taxonomyand nomenclature
oftheHippopotamidae(Mammalia,Artiodactyla)
and a descriptionof two new fossilspecies. Proceedings of the KoninklijkeNederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen,Series B, 80 (2): 6188.
GREEN, JOHN. 1978. Sasquatch, the apes among us.
Hancock House, Saanichton,BritishColumbia.
HALL, E. R. 1981. (Two volumes.) The mammals of
North America. 2nd edition.JohnWiley,New
York.
HALL, E. R., and K. R. KELSON. 1959. (Two volumes.)
The mammalsof NorthAmerica.Ronald Press,
New York.
HALPIN, M., and M. M. AMES, editors.1980. Manlike
monsterson trial:Earlyrecordsand modem evidence. Universityof BritishColumbia Press,
Vancouver.
HANTZSCHEL,W. 1962. Trace fossilsand problematica.
Treatise on invertebratepaleontology. W177W245. Geological Societyof America and Universityof Kansas Press, Lawrence,Kansas.
HARRIS,J.M. 1976. PleistoceneGiraffidae(Mammalia,
Artiodactyla)from East Rudolf, Kanya. Fossil
vertebratesof Africa,(4): 283-332. Academic
Press, London, New York,and San Francisco.
B. 1955. Sur la piste des betes ignorees.
HEUVELMANS,
LibrairiePlon, Paris.
1959. On the trackof unknownanimals.Richard
Clay and Co., Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk,England,
and Hill and Wang, New York,U.S.A.
1978. Les demiersdragonsd'Afrique.Plon, Paris.

. 1982. Whatis cryptozoology?
1 (1):
Cryptozoology,
1-12.
HEUVELMANS,
1974. L'homme
B., and BORISPORSHNEV.
de Neanderthalest toujoursvivant.Plon, Paris.
HILL,J. E. 1974. A new family,genus and species of
bat (Mammalia: Chiroptera)fromThailand. Bulletin of the BritishMuseum (Natural History),
Zoology (27): 301-336.
K. E., and KOEPPL,J.W. 1982.
HONACKI, J.H., KINMAN,
Mammal species of the world. Allen Press and
AssociationofSystematics
Collections.Lawrence,
Kansas.
GRANTZ,GROVERS. 1982. [Reviewof Halpin and Ames
1 (1): 94-100.
(1980)]. Cryptozoology,
KURTEN,BJORN,and ELAINE ANDERSON. 1980. Pleistocene mammals of North America. Columbia
UniversityPress, New York.
MONTANDON, G. 1929. Singe d'apparence anthropoide
de l'Amerique du Sud. Comptes Rendus, Academie de Science, Paris, 11 March 1929.
MONTGOMERY,G. G., editor.In press,1984. The evolution and ecology of sloths,anteatersand armadillos. SmithsonianInstitutionPress, Washington,D.C.
MOORE, R. C. (editorand authorof Preface)1962. Treatise on invertebratepaleontology.Part W. Miscellanea. GeologicalSocietyofAmericaand Universityof Kansas Press, Lawrence,Kansas.
MOORE, R. C., and P. C. SYLVESTER BRADLEY. 1957.
Zoological nomenclature.Proposed addition to
the "Regles" of provisionsrecognizingand regulatingthe nomenclatureof "parataxa." Journal
ofPaleontology,
31: 1180-1183.
MOORE, R. C., and forty-four
others. 1968. Develop-
19
ments, trends,and outlooks in paleontology.

42 (6): 1327-1377.
JournalofPaleontology,
NAPIER, JOHN. 1973. Bigfoot.The Yeti and Sasquatch
in mythand reality.E. P. Dutton,New York.
NOWAK, R. M., and J. L. PARADISO. 1983. Walker's
mammalsoftheworld,4thedition.Two volumes.
The JohnsHopkins UniversityPress, Baltimore
and London.
PORSHNEV,B. F. 1974. The Troglodytidaeand theHominidae in the taxonomyand evolutionof higher
primates.CurrentAnthropology,15 (4): 449450. (Commentsby sixzoologists-anthropologists
and replyby Bayanov and Bourtsevin lieu of
the recentlydeceased authorfollowin the same
issue of the journal.)
SIMPSON, G. G. 1959. Creaturesextinct,livingor fictional.[Reviewof On the trackof unknownanimals by BernardHeuvelmans.]NaturalHistory,
68 (9): 492-494, 544-546.
1961. Principlesof animal taxonomy.Columbia
UniversityPress, New York.
SINGH, J.A. L., and R. M. ZINGG. 1942. Wolf-children
and feralman. Harper,New York and London.
SPRAGUE,R., and G. S. KRANTZ,editors.1979. The scientistlooks at theSasquatch (II). University
Press
of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
TRAPE, JEAN-FRAN4OIS.1982. [Review of] Les demiers
dragons d'Afrique by Bernard Heuvelmans.
1 (1): 83-84.
Cryptozoology,
WAGNER,Roy. 1982. The ri-unidentifiedaquatic animalsof New Ireland,Papua New Guinea. Cryp1 (1): 33-39.
tozoology,
WETZEL, R. W. 1977. The Chacoan peccaryCatagonus
wagneri(Rusconi). Bulletinof the CarnegieMuseum of Natural History,No. 3: 1-36.


Mammals and Cryptozoology: Objective Evidence vs. Circumstantial Claims

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mammals and Cryptozoology: Objective Evidence vs. Circumstantial Claims

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mammals and Cryptozoology

Author(s): George Gaylord Simpson

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM