DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Animaliaforum
HTML https://animaliaforum.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Cryptozoology
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2--------------------------------------------------
How the search for mythical monsters can help conservation
By: Ceratodromeus Date: September 9, 2018, 4:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/180233/width754/file-20170728-31781-hb1ycb.jpg
"After fears the Loch Ness Monster had “disappeared” last
winter, a new sighting in May 2017 was celebrated by its
enthusiasts. The search for monsters and mythical creatures (or
“cryptids”) such as Nessie, the Yeti or Bigfoot is known as
“cryptozoology.”
On the face of it, cryptozoology has little in common with
mainstream conservation. First, it is widely held to be a
“pseudoscience,” because it does not follow the scientific
methods so central to conservation biology. Many conservation
scientists would find the idea of being identified with monsters
and monster-hunters embarrassing.
Moreover, in the context of the global collapse in biodiversity,
conservationists focus their attentions on protecting the
countless endangered species that we know about. Why waste time
thinking about unknown or hypothesized creatures? Most people
are rightly skeptical of sightings of anomalous primates or
plesiosaurs in densely populated regions that have been surveyed
for hundreds of years.
However, while there are strong ecological and evidence-based
reasons to doubt the existence of charismatic cryptids such as
Nessie and Bigfoot, conservationists should not automatically
dismiss enthusiastic searches for “hidden” species. In fact,
cryptozoology can contribute to conservation in several ways.
Firstly, the process of mapping out the world’s species is far
from finished. Conservationists aim to protect and preserve
known plants and animals – but it is not always appreciated how
many remain “undescribed” by scientists. Since 1993, more than
400 new mammals have been identified, many in areas undergoing
rapid habitat destruction. The number of undescribed beetles,
for example, or flies, let alone microscopic organisms, will be
huge.
We are entering a new age of discovery in biology with
descriptions of new species reaching rates comparable to the
golden era of global exploration and collection in the 18th and
19th centuries. The advent of methods such as DNA barcoding
offer the possibility of automated species identification.
A recent mathematical model predicted that at least 160 land
mammal species and 3,050 amphibian species remain to be
discovered and described. Other predictions suggest that a large
proportion of undescribed species will go extinct without ever
being recorded or conserved at all – a phenomenon we might term
“crypto-extinction.”
The father of cryptozoology, Bernard Heuvelmans, argued that
“the great days of zoology are not done.” In the sense that so
many species remain undiscovered, he was correct. The main
principle behind cryptozoology is soundly zoological: species
exist that humans have not discovered or described. The quest to
locate and protect the world’s biodiversity is one that
conservation and cryptozoology share, even if cryptozoologists
tend to focus their attentions on the large, mythical and
monstrous, over the small, plausible, and non-mammalian species
in our midst.
Cryptozoology involves rampant speculation and unconventional
surveying methods. But controversial new “findings” can inspire
a renewed quest to better map out the natural world. This was
the case with the cryptid spiral-horned ox, never seen by a
scientist in the flesh and known only from a few horns found in
a market in Vietnam. The debate between rival camps of
zoologists about whether the ox existed pulled together historic
accounts, local folklore, and samples of museum specimens – all
classic cryptozoological methodologies.
HTML https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/180215/width754/file-20170728-23754-1j1zwsk.jpg
The second reason why conservationists should not automatically
discount cryptozoology is its shared history, co-evolving with
conservation in the 20th century and interesting many
conservationists along the way.
One notable connecting thread comes through Peter Scott, the
founder of the World Wildlife Fund and creator of the Red Data
Book method of classifying endangered species. Scott first grew
interested in Loch Ness Monster reports in 1960 and in the same
year wrote to Queen Elizabeth offering to name the –
undiscovered – cryptid Elizabethia nessiae in her honor.
Although the Queen was said to be “very interested,” her
advisers wrote back saying it would be inappropriate to attach
her name to something viewed as a monster or likely to be a
hoax.
In an infamous article in Nature in 1975 Scott published
underwater photographs appearing to show a creature with a
diamond-shaped flipper. Scott and his co-author, the American
Nessie enthusiast Robert Rines, named the creature Nessiteras
rhombopteryx with the intention that it could then be
preemptively protected under the Conservation of Wild Creatures
and Wild Plants Act (1975).
Although he knew that grainy photographs were insufficient
taxonomic evidence in the long term, Scott argued “the procedure
seems justified by the urgency of comprehensive conservation.”
For Scott, conservation was at the heart of the hunt for Nessie.
Scott was not the only curious conservationist. In his book
Searching for Sasquatch, Brian Segal examines several other
mainstream conservationists who grew interested in
cryptozoological ideas and endeavors.
More recently, when specimens of a species named Homo
floresiensis were found on the island of Flores in Indonesia in
2003, Henry Gee, an editor at Nature, wrote:
'If animals as large as oxen can remain hidden into an era when
we would expect that scientists had rustled every tree and bush
in search of new forms of life, there is no reason why the same
should not apply to new species of large primate, including
members of the human family'
Cryptozoology – in from the cold?
Given conservation’s haunting relationship with the problem of
absence, is it time to bring cryptozoology, in some form at
least, in from the cold? A rapprochement would demand changes on
both sides.
Cryptozoology’s appeal currently comes from its celebration of
the anomalous and monstrous. A “post-monstrous” outlook might
aid in forging new coalitions, and a stronger focus on plausible
undiscovered species (such as the thousands of smaller
amphibians and mammals predicted to exist) than on charismatic,
but highly unlikely, cryptids.
The third way that cryptozoology can contribute to conservation
is through the sense of wonder. From the conservation
perspective, something might be learned from the Nessie and
Bigfoot hunters about telling new stories of weird and wonderful
discoveries alongside the more familiar tales of flagship
species decline.
Instead of rebuffing them, conservationists might consider
enlisting cryptozoologists as part of a wonder zoology that
accelerates conventional taxonomic efforts. Indeed, the EDGE of
Existence conservation initiative is doing exactly this by
focusing its attention on “weird” endangered species.
Other examples of wonder zoology include the descriptions of new
(although known to local people) primates by Marc van Roosmalen
in the Amazon, and the “lost world” of new species found in or
near Vietnam’s Vu Quang Nature Reserve in the 1990s.
One promising model of how conservationists and cryptozoologists
might engage is sketched out by the paleozoologist Darren Naish.
Naish’s “sceptical cryptozoology” does not dwell on the question
of whether cryptozoology is pseudoscientific or not but focuses
instead on the ground it shares with conventional zoology.
Stories of the discovery and rediscovery of species routinely
punctuate the depressing catalogue of extinction after
extinction. Wonder and speculation – however untethered – must
play a role in energizing conservation actions.
Although no one expects conservation NGOs to start searching for
Bigfoot, it would be remiss of them to ignore the powerful
ecological imagination that can be inspired by cryptozoology."
HTML http://therevelator.org/mythical-monsters-conservation/
*****************************************************