Talk:List of cryptids/Archive 1

Spirits Etc.
Given the number of ghost sightings and the lack of hard evidence for their existence, I don't understand why they're not listed as cryptids. I would be doubly interested to see God, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, angels, demons, etcetera listed as such. If you want disputed claims about hidden creatures, these are perhaps the most disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-Vince (talk • contribs)
 * Um, the reason why they're not up there is because I have never heard anybody propose that God, Vishnu, angels, demons, blah blah blah belong in Kingdom Animalia, i.e. things that Zoology and thus Cryptozoology would be concerned with. In the future can you also sign with four tildes and place your new comments towards the bottom? Cameron 20:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I’m new to this environment, to Wiki.  Historically, I don’t happen to know of any man of science classifying such creatures into that kingdom during their investigations either.  But, 1) I can’t see what other scientific classification would be more fitting and 2) they seem to fit the general description of cryptids.  I understand that most biologists are completely unconcerned with most of the cryptids on the list, but these creatures are an issue with which society seems deeply interested, so I think that they should be listed as such unless they can be otherwise better classified. E-Vince 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Cryptozoology is focused on mysterious natural creatures, not supernatural. Supernatural creatures should not be listed.  [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I fully agree with you. Science studies nature rather than supra-nature. Also though, when approaching an event that is supposedly supernatural, scientists do not simply ignore it; they approach it as a natural phenomenon. For instance, if certain people encounter a disease which they call an evil spirit, a scientist investigates it within the confines of nature (viruses, bacteria, etc.). But science studies all phenomena regardless. When people report sighting these so-called supernatural creatures it’s up to science to provide an empirical explanation - to either debunk it or confirm it.  I think these would be considered mysterious natural creatures until they’ve been debunked/explained as supernatural. Plus, I think that listing them as cryptids invites further investigation; investigation which is sorely needed to settle the question – this is the job of science. Also, I see these creatures as joining the ranks of other established cryptids that are considered to be supernatural/magical such as the Greyman, the Menehune, etcetera. I don’t see the difference here???  E-Vince 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On this note, removed Cthulhu from the page. It's more Fictional Character/Deity/Extraterrestrial Being than cryptid.Drydic guy 11:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As my personal opinion, I think we shouldn`t had removed Cthulhu from the page. There are cryptids ( one even listed on the page ) that haven bein reported being somekind of merge betwen ahumanoid and an octopus. There are several other Cryptozoology sites who supports the existence of such cryptids. And, by researching, we can conclude that such cryptids and it`s sightnings are related to 1898 to the actual days by various sailors and fisher-mans, wich excludes the teory that such cryptids appeared after Lovecraft wrote the first draft of "The Call of Cthulhu". Therefore, I think we should add it to the page, and provite cryptid background to such being. Or link the name to the cryptid mermaid-octopus cryptid listed. Afterall, they do believe in a dragon with an octopus head in some countries of asia and oriental europe. And I would like to apologie for any possible grammar mistakes I`ve made, English is not my mother language, and I consult the "English" wikipedia for more complete articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.169.127.131 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise - we welcome everyone here as long as they edit constructively. Why don't you register? :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the most disturbing things that I read on this wiki lately is this; so the argument from 3 April 2006 is somewhat not the case -- and I personally was left wondering if Mr. Linneus (an authority) had ever actually seen a non-European person, but it is the Homo anthropomorpha category that I think fits this discussion. -- carol 04:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

Protoavis
Woer$, can you provide a reference to the claim that "Protoavis" is a cryptid? I am curious as to why you treat this animal as if it was a proven alive outside of the fossil record. I'm even more curious how anybody but a highly trained paleontologist could identify such a creature from a sighting with total certainty. Cameron 14:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already removed protoavis because it seems to be an disputed fossil, not a disputed living animal. [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reptiles and dinosaurs
I changed "Reptiles" to "Reptiles and dinosaurs" because of the uncertainty of whether dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles or warm-blooded early birds or an entirely different order. They're thought of as reptiles, though, so people will look for them listed with reptiles. Coyoty 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Too many non-cryptid links on page
This page has too many non cryptid links on this page. A few of the cryptids listed on this page arent cryptids so delete them. Also the lakes where cryptids are reported to live doesnt belong on this page Zalgt 21:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very true, it looks like it's time for some more "spring cleaning" here. I will be deleting a lot of those "cryptids" that have snuck their way on here. If anybody would care to defend why what they put up represents a potentially unknown species of animal, this is the place to discuss this, please just don't revert my edit. Cameron 23:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Page re-og
I haev re-organized this page into a list (because that it really was). I created a CSV and have been using de:Benutzer:Duesentrieb's CSV converter. Below is the CSV, I am going to leave this page alone for a day or two to see if anyone dislikes the organization. If you like it feel free to edit away! -Ravedave 02:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Name","Other names","Status"," Description"," Location" "Bili Ape",,,"Primate","Africa" "Chemosit",,,"Primate","Africa" "Kikomba",,,"Primate","Africa" "Almas",,,"Primate","Asia" "Barmanou",,,"Primate","Asia" "Batutut",,,"Primate","Asia" "Ebu Gogo",,,"Primate","Asia" "Gin-Sung",,,"Primate","Asia" "Hibagon",,,"Primate","Asia" "Kaptar",,,"Primate","Asia" "Mecheny",,,"Primate","Asia" "Mirygdy",,,"Primate","Asia" "Nguoi Rung",,,"Primate","Asia" "Nyalmo",,,"Primate","Asia" "Orang Mawas",,,"Primate","Asia" "Orang Pendek",,,"Primate","Asia" "Tjutjuna","Chuchunaa",,"Primate","Asia" "Yeren",,,"Primate","Asia" "Yeti","Abominable Snowman",,"Primate","Asia" "Yowie",,,"Primate","Australia" "Brenin Llwyd",,,"Primate","Europe" "Fear liath",,,"Primate","Europe" "Shug monkey",,,"Primate","Europe" "Woodwose",,,"Primate","Europe" "Bigfoot","Sasquatch",,"Primate","North America" "Fouke Monster",,,"Primate","North America" "Menehune",,,"Primate","North America" "MoMo",,,"Primate","North America" "Old Yellow Top",,,"Primate","North America" "Skunk Ape",,,"Primate","North America" "Tsul 'Kalu",,,"Primate","North America" "Ameranthropoides loysi ","Loys's Ape",,"Primate","South America" "Maricoxi",,,"Primate","South America" "Mono Grande",,,"Primate","South America" "Biabin-guli",,,"Primate", "Humanzee",,,"Primate", "Minnesota Iceman",,,"Primate","North America" "Moehau",,,"Primate", "Neo-Giant",,,"Primate", "Canvey Island Monster",,,"Bipedal", "Chupacabra",,,"Bipedal", "Dover Demon",,,"Bipedal", "Goatman",,,"Bipedal", "Jersey Devil",,,"Bipedal","North America" "Kappa",,,"Bipedal", "Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp",,,"Bipedal", "Loveland Frog",,,"Bipedal", "The Loveland Lizard",,,"Bipedal", "Mothman",,,"Bipedal", "Orang-Bati",,,"Bipedal", "Pope Lick Monster",,,"Bipedal", "Lizard men",,,"Bipedal", "Wendigo",,,"Bipedal", "Wampus cat",,,"Bipedal", "The Beast of Bodmin",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "The Beast of Bray Road",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "The Beast of Exmoor",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "The Beast of Dean","Moose-Pig",,"Carnivorous mammal", "The Beast of Funen",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "The Beast of Gévaudan",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Maltese tiger","Blue Tiger",,"Carnivorous mammal", "British big cats",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Dobhar-chu",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Eastern Cougar",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Bergman's Bear","God Bear","Extinct","Carnivorous mammal", "Japanese Wolf ",,"Extinct","Carnivorous mammal","Asia" "Maltese tiger",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Marozi",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Mngwa",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Nandi Bear",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Ozark Howler",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Queensland Tiger",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Shunka Warakin",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Smilodon ",,"Extinct","Carnivorous mammal", "Waheela",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Waitoreke",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Veo",,,"Carnivorous mammal", "Giant beaver ",,"Extinct","Herbivorous mammals", "Kting Voar",,,"Herbivorous mammals", """Mapinguari"" ","Remnant of Megatherium","Extinct","Herbivorous mammals", "Mammoth",,"Extinct","Herbivorous mammals", "Pygmy Elephant",,,"Herbivorous mammals", "Quagga ",,"Extinct","Herbivorous mammals", "Elasmotherium","Giant Unicorn",,"Herbivorous mammals", "Altamaha-ha",,,"Sea Animal", "'Cadborosaurus willsi'' ","Caddy",,"Sea Animal", "Chessie (sea monster)",,,"Sea Animal", "Con Rit",,,"Sea Animal", "Gambo",,,"Sea Animal", "Giglioli's whale",,,"Sea Animal", "The Kraken",,,"Sea Animal", "Lusca",,,"Sea Animal", "Megalodon ",,"Extinct","Sea Animal", "Mermaids",,,"Sea Animal", "Sea monk",,,"Sea Animal", "Sea monsters",,,"Sea Animal", " Great sea serpent",,,"Sea Animal", "Steller's Sea Cow ",,"Extinct","Sea Animal", "Trunko",,,"Sea Animal", "Globster",,,"Sea Animal", "Bear Lake Monster",,,"Lake Animal", "Bessie",,,"Lake Animal", "Brosno dragon",,,"Lake Animal", "Champ",,,"Lake Animal", "Inkanyamba",,,"Lake Animal", "Lake Tianchi Monster",,,"Lake Animal", "Lake Van Monster",,,"Lake Animal", "Lake Worth monster",,,"Lake Animal", "Loch Ness Monster ",,,"Lake Animal", "Manipogo",,,"Lake Animal", "Morag (lake monster)",,,"Lake Animal", "Monster of Lake Van",,,"Lake Animal", "Muc-sheilch",,,"Lake Animal", "Mussie",,,"Lake Animal", "Nahuelito",,,"Lake Animal", "Ogopogo",,,"Lake Animal", "Phaya Naga",,,"Lake Animal", "Storsjöodjuret",,,"Lake Animal", "Taniwha",,,"Lake Animal", "Buru",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Churubusco Turtle",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Chimpekwe",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Dinosaurs in South America",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Emela-ntouka ",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Giant Anacondas",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Hoop snake",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Kingstie",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Kongamato",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Living dinosaurs",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu","Stegosaurus","Extinct","Reptile/Dinosaur", "Megalania prisca","Giant Australian monitor lizard",,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Mokele mbembe","Sauropod","Extinct","Reptile/Dinosaur", "Ngoubou","Triceratops","Extinct","Reptile/Dinosaur", "Olitiau",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Ropen",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Sirrush",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Snallygaster",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Tatzelwurm",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Tsuchinoko",,,"Reptile/Dinosaur", "Devil Bird",,,"Bird", "Dodo ",,"Extinct","Bird", "Moa ",,"Extinct","Bird", "Giant Owls",,,"Bird", "Thunderbird",,,"Bird", "Diprotodont ",,"Extinct","Marsupials", "Queensland Tiger",,,"Marsupials", "Thylacine","Tasmanian tiger","Extinct","Marsupials", "Trinity Alps Giant Salamander",,,"Amphibians", "Atmospheric beast",,,, "Ahool",,,, "Bunyip",,,, "Drekavac",,,, "Elmendorf Beast",,,, "Mongolian Death Worm",,,, "Setontot",,,, "Tuba",,,, "Rod",,"Discredited",, "Chacoan peccary",,"Identified",, "Congo Peafowl",,"Identified",, "Dingiso",,"Identified",, "Giant Panda",,"Identified",, "Gorilla",,"Identified",, "Giant Squid",,"Identified",, "King Cheetah",,"Identified",, "Komodo Dragon",,"Identified",, "Kouprey",,"Identified",, "Okapi",,"Identified",, "Onza",,"Identified",, "Purple Kangaroo",,"Identified",, "Saola",,"Identified",, "Woolly Flying Squirrel",,"Identified",, "Coelocanth",,"Identified,Thought Extinct",, "Ivory-billed woodpecker",,"Identified,Thought Extinct","Bird", "Monoplacophora",,"Identified,Thought Extinct",, "Takahe",,"Identified,Thought Extinct",, "Dahu",,"Discredited",, "Drop bear",,"Discredited",, "Fur-bearing trout",,"Discredited","Fish", "Giant Penguin",,"Discredited","Bird", "Hodag",,"Discredited",, "Hyote",,"Discredited",, "Kasai Rex",,"Discredited",, "Lindworm",,"Discredited",, "Man-eating tree",,"Discredited","Plant", "Row (cryptozoology)",,"Discredited",, "Cherufe",,"Mythical?",, "Hellhounds",,"Mythical?",, "Mothman",,"Mythical?",, "Phantom cats",,"Mythical?",, "Popo Bawa",,"Mythical?",, "Phantom kangaroos",,"Mythical?",, "Red Headband",,"Mythical?",,

There's something worng with Veo... A lacking comma, perhaps? 200.230.213.152 04:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lake Van Monster/Van Lake Monster
Just a question and this is directed at no one in particular but shouldn't the Van Lake Monster article and the Lake Van Monster articles be merged since they're about the exact same thing and it doesn't really need two articles? Thanks. Flyingcheese 09:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just made the redirection. --Damifb 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Pizzly Bear & Ogopogo
Pizzly Bear: changed 'America' to 'North America'. Ogopogo: added Canada... when the lake is known, should it be included? Lake Okonogan, British Columbia  S-P 13:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Cryptid Project
I have created a project for the cryptid articles on this site. Please contribute. See it here. Cryptids PunkRock911 12:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion in the list
Difficult one I know, but the article on cryptozoology states: 'Cryptozoology is the study of animals that are rumored or suspected to exist, but for which conclusive proof is missing; the term also includes the study of animals generally considered extinct, but which are still occasionally reported.' I think the list should be consistent with the definition so we should get rid of at least:


 * Mermaids,Smilodon,Mammoth,Quagga,Kraken (unless anybody has reported any of these recently)
 * Sea monsters would seem too general to keep.
 * Also anything with status listed as 'Mythical?' fails the test. Yomangani 16:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * i think that Mermaids, since they are not confirmed (but have a significant number of sightings) should be included. Same for Kraken.  However, anything that is a real, confirmed animal, like the Giant Panda or the Mammoth, should not be on the list.NCartmell 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Some cryptozoologists, including Heuvelmans himself, did take "mermaid" sightings as being unknown sirenian populations, and modern ones like Coleman/Huyghe seem to regard them as being aquatic primates, so it should definitely be on the list. That's the reason I linked up the strangeark list of cryptids, it gives references to what Cryptozoologists actually consider likely and should be double-checked in case any questioning of cryptid inclusion comes up.

Kraken sightings are based on giant squids, so there's no point of having it on the list. Even if some sightings were based on an unknown species of giant octopus, that is already covered on the list. The Mammoth is certainly not confirmed as still being alive, but seeing as how all the reports are really old, there's no point of having it on the list. I don't see the point of having animals like the giant panda listed, their discovery pre-dated the concept of cryptozoology by several decades. The list does still need some cleanup and constant monitoring, but I do see how this could become a very valuble resource some day.Cameron 22:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What about including "ex-cryptids" confirmed post 1955 (Heuvelmans' book) or post 1983 (first use of cryptids)? I think that would be useful as a reference. Perhaps we could split it off into a separate table? Yomangani 10:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be, the only problem is it would only cover the Onza cat, the only and only Cryptozoology "victory". I find it rather misleading how some Cryptozoologists call animals "ex-cryptids" when they were never called cryptids in the first place and no Cryptozoologist ever noticed them or wrote about them. Still, I think it would be appropriate to make a separate list documenting large animals discovered since the 50's. Even though Cryptozoology had nothing to do with their discoveries, it still does demonstrate that new species are being discovered and would be there only for a sake of argument.Cameron 14:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am going to add to this list a 'Tasmanian Tiger' (or Tasmanian Devil) an Indigenous Australian carnivorous mammal. It is supposed to have had the last of its species die in captivity in an Australian Zoo around 1927. It looks like a wolf-dog with stripes on its hind quarters. Anyway, there have been 'sightings' of it reported by people visiting Tasmania in the last 10 years. Tasmania is still richly forested. It seems reasonable that a 'Tassie Tiger' could be added here. I see there is a Queensland Tiger, so here goes. Drakonicon 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The 'Tasmanian Tiger' is just the common English name for the Thylacine. The 'Tasmanian Devil', while somewhat related, is a different critter that IS recognized by Science. It is nothing like the cartoon character. The 'Queensland Tiger' is a cryptid reported from the Australian mainland, larger than the known Marsupial Cats (at least one of which is also called the Tiger-Cat sometimes, leading to more confusion). (CFLeon 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC))


 * I would object to the folk-lore critters being included, such as the fur-bearing trout, the hodag, and the drop bear. These were never meant to be taken seriously by anyone. It seems like nowadays EVERY mythological animal is seriously suggested as a cryptid and people miss much of the symbolic or metaphorical point of the mythology. (CFLeon 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

Mongolian Death Worm
According to the article it is two to four feet long and a snakelike creature believed by some to be a reptile. Anybody have a reason for listing it as an insect? (if it is really a worm it would be an annelid not an insect)Yomangani 10:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Could be a larva, perhaps. But then where's the adult stage? Totnesmartin 12:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just how serious is the MDW, anyway? I never heard anything about it until it showed up on the Internet several years ago. CFLeon 03:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should give the Worm some credit. I`ve read that even the president ( king ? ) of Mongolia believes in the MDW... 200.169.127.131 (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bigfoot / August of 2006 / Any new evidence ?
Is there at all any new concrete and irrefutable evidence for August of 2006 and any time prior to that. Of that which has come to light in the world that helps to support the existence of Bigfoot. Are there any new videos at all that have surfaced of Bigfoot. Are there any new casts taken of his feet and the dermal ridges and prints of those feet. Have any forestry heliocopters over head ever gottan a clear and unmistakable aerial shot of him as they passed over him in some open field somewhere. Now strange brown hair samples that are taken to labs are a nice little Bigfoot story teaser. And yes even samples of unknown animal feces in the forest of which are taken to labs for conclusive testing prove somewhat boring to me in the end. My question is this. Have any skulls been recovered. Are there any new and reliable credible eye witness accounts of Bigfoot or Sasquatch to this present day and moment. Have any photos been taken with digital cameras ever surfaced. Well to me it would seem that everything falling short of that seems to seriously diminish the interest of the existence of Bigfoot. Even though I am a hard skeptic. I want to be able to beleive there is a Bigfoot of who is real. Can anyone out there bring something valueable to the table that cannot be easily dimissed nor discounted.www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Maryland Cryptid, 2004
In Maryland, and possibly parts of nearby states, my memory is a little fuzzy as this is two years later, an unknown animal was seen running through backyards et al... It was unlike other animals native to the region, and nobody could quite figure out what it was... Sadly, this was around the time of the 2004 elections, so the case didn't receive as much attention as perhaps it should have. Whatever did become of this incident? As a Marylander, I'm surprised not to see anything about this anywhere... Can anybody help m out here? Scrounge 19:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * you mean the dog-like thing? I'll try to find some refs. back in a sec. Totnesmartin 12:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Any good?

The one seen in S.C. in the first link looks alot like a strange animal my nextdoor neighbor(who is another wiki user), his cousin and I saw in my backyard.--Sonicobbsessed-The Self-Proclamed Ultamate Sonic Fan 20:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Some ideas
I know this is probably 'original research', but I think I ain't the only one stupid enough to think that... Animals such as Hellhounds (that are mainly wild dogs with two or three heads, as far as I know, right?) and Hippogrypphons (some sort of four-legged bird) could easily be some sort of fetal malforming or something like that, right? 200.230.213.152 04:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hellhound
According to the article, hellhounds have never been put forward seriously as a real animal, just a legend or ghost. I think the article should be removed from cryptids and put into a ghosts list. Totnesmartin 12:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Land squid
What a load of old bollocks. Reference one is to a discussion of the supposed thing living in the Cretaceous period (not today) and ref 2 is a photographic close-up of a flower (probably a labiate or orchid). Give me a reason to keep it in the list. [unsigned- Totnesmartin 22:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Kraken
I don't believe that the kraken should be listed as a giant squid (although I am of that opinion myself), without a modifier, stating something to the effect that, since the origins of the legend are lost in the annals of time, we don't really known what spawned the kraken legend, although the giant squid seems like the most feasible explanation. Hey, my warranty didn&#39;t run out after all! 22:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that why it is listed as "confirmed?"  That is definitely misleading if so.

Dinosaurs
I removed two alternative names:
 * Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu - no evidence of this actually being a Stegosaurus
 * Ngoubou - also no evidence of this being a Triceratops

Even allowing for dinosaur survival to the present day, there's no chance of the stated genera remaining stable throughout the massive environmental changes since end of the mesozoic era. Totnesmartin 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

mermaids/merman
aren't mermaids and mermen the same species? Idon&#39;texist 15:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. I've changed them into Merfolk. Totnesmartin 12:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandgoose
The Sandgoose is a cryptid fowl that lives in the Saharan desert and has the human speech capabilities of a 3 year old child. He should be added to the cryptid article.DookieCantRead 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's from some computer game. Totnesmartin 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's from Fable: The Lost Chapters. It should not be considered a cryptid unless you have evidence that it is a legend outside of the game, say, in the legends of some Saharan tribes or something. Is that what you were suggesting with the "human speech capabilities" comment? Chenzo23 03:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ennig
What on earth is an Ennig? All I've been able to find is that it is a mammal and from present day New England. I've been looking everywhere and havn't seen anything aside form allusions to the line of information on this page. Do any of you know anything about it or is it safe to say that somebody made this thing up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atamispirateking (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete my cryptids
The ones I put on the list because it says you can put any type of cryptid on, which says that on the cryptozoology project page. Ender_Wiiggin 10:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but non-serious additions, such as this one in which it's suggested that Satyrs have been sighted in the United States (following this joke addition to Satyr) isn't above reverting... -- Scientizzle 17:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Split
Anyone mind if I split the list up into chunks? It would be easier to edit. Totnesmartin 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what it would look like. Any comments or suggestions? Totnesmartin 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK it's been a week, so here goes. Totnesmartin 18:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bili Ape?
The article on the Bili ape talks about it as an established, documented fact, as opposed to a cryptid. Which is correct?


 * The specific article goes on with the same ambiguity...

--Damifb 23:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nordics and Greys
Why are these two included? All the discussions that I have read of them are explicitly to do with Ufology, not cryptozoolgy. Although there is a certain amount of overlap between the two areas (e.g. sightings of bigfoot in UFOs) these two 'species' are not, and have never been, considered to fall within the remit of cryptozoology. Unless someone can justify their inclusion then they should be removed.

Carnivorous mammals
Why is the description of so many of the cryptids just 'carnivorous mammal'? I can see how, in the case of such cryptids as the Beast of Gèvauden, such a description is warranted, as there is controversy about the exact type of mammal involved, but for ABCs this is needlessly vague, surely felid is a better way to describe it?148.197.5.18 12:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way it was also me who put the Nordics question up148.197.5.18 12:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism please help revert
i do not know how to restore the page this user destroyed it: 209.7.243.20 Weaponbb7 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cryptozoology vs. Fantasy
According to cryptozoology and this page, a cryptid is an animal that is hypothesized to exist because of anectdotal evidence, or a presumed extinct animal. In any event, the definition doesn't include "fictional" or "mythical" creatures. There should be some distinction between creatures whose existance has been / is being persued with academic rigor (coelecanth, megamouth shark, Flores Man) and, for example, Elf, Centaur, and Gorgon. That is, although this is not my field at all, it occurs to me that this is not the place for mythical creatures. -Duplico 19:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes... there's a huge amount of mythical creatures in here. Far too many. Dragons, Elfs? Griffins? Come on. When was the last time someone reported seeing a Griffin. They're mythical creatures, not cryptids. Gaiacarra 16:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What about fictional cryptids, like ManBearPig?--199.94.76.172 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a list for something being studied by a real person, not some character on south park, and for that matter whoever continues adding God to the list stop, God is in no way a cryptid, just like an elf is not a cryptid! Triceratops9 (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Elves should be listed. They are not purely fictional. See Folk memory. They still lie in the realm of cryptozoology, as far as I am aware cryptozoology doesn't neccesarily rule out non-modern sightings/records. Things such as trolls, unicorns, dragons etc. should remain as they have an extensive folk (not fiction, slight difference) history. Entities such as ManBearPig, Skaven, or anything lifted from a D&D manual should not be listed here. Things that are clearly outside the realm of cryptozoology, such as ghosts, deities and vampyr should not be listed here either.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think they should. There's a difference between cryptids and those which belong in the List of legendary creatures, such as elves. Spawn Man Review Me! 01:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions
I would propose to include the following new categories to each cryptid:


 * First/last sighted
 * Evidence for existence

The problem with that would be that the entries would get too cramoped. There are links to individual entries for most of the creatures listed, which have much more info than a list can provide. Oh, and please don't forget to sign your name with four ~ 's :) Totnesmartin 10:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Elf
Why does this link to the fictional Elves of Tolkiens Middle Earth? It is misleading and should be corrected. Obviously the work of some over excited Lord of the Rings geek. I agree with this, although there have been some descriptions similar to those of Tolkien, but for the most part, they are nothing alike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.197.180 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

El Petizo
Why was the article on El Petizo deleted? - Invaderzimnut 11:14, 28 June 2007

Article names
List of cryptids was redirecting to Cryptid while the talk page for Cryptid was redirecting to Talk:List of cryptids. In the interest of maintaining sanity, I moved the article to List of cryptids since that it's hard to justify it as much else.

I think having cryptid redirect to List of cryptids is still less than ideal though. There should probably be an article (i.e., not a list) just on cryptids at cryptid or we should instead change cryptid to redirect to cryptozoology or another relevant article with a prominent link at the top.

Any ideas or strong feelings? — m a k o ๛  13:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Mythological Creatures
Unless someone can come up with a valid reason to include them, I'm going to delete all the obviously mythical beasts. "Cryptid" refers to a creature that is at least theorized and scientifically plausible, and has been rumored to actually exist, or to have been seen. Things like centaurs are just characters from mythology that do not fit this description.66.191.114.224 21:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

U-28 UB-85 Sea monster
I believe a giant sea crocodile should be added, perhaps a Sarcosuchus imperator that still lives? www.americanmonsters.com/monsters/seamonsters/index.php?detail=article&idarticle=210 http://www.americanmonsters.com/monsters/seamonsters/index.php?detail=article&idarticle=211 75.161.255.172 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging needed?
The Ahool and the Ropen appear to be the same creature, only that they are reported in different areas (of the same region)... Damifb 11:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Kikomba is the Nandi Bear?
Is it the same animal? Here it says that the Kikomba is a primate... but the Bear is like... a bear... Damifb 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Nandi Bear' is a common name invented by non-biologists to describe some features of the animal- its shagginess, color, gait, etc. It should NOT be assumed to indicate an actual biological classification, until a specimen is studied. Think 'starfish', 'jellyfish', 'sea cow', 'pronghorn antelope', the Spanish using 'tigre' ('tiger') for EVERY large felid, etc. CFLeon 22:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse my, but that's completely Wrong!: Spanish don't use tigre for every large felid, only for tigers. Besides, you did not answer my question... --Damifb 18:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually they did, and corrected you, and this is not a forum for discussion like this, so unless you were planning to make an edit and wanted correction this is just a waste of space, but to answer your question according to his answer bluntly put the answer is NO they are not the same Triceratops9 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorting suggestion
As the list is ordered to be dynamic (alphabetical sorting in any column). I suggest as an alternative this list should be sorted by status of the cryptid - Eg.
 * Confirmed former cryptids
 * Cryptids believed to be extinct
 * Cryptids from folklore and mythology
 * Cryptids of unconfirmed nature

and a seperate page for confirmed hoaxes.

Alternatively, as this may a bit confusing, cryptids should be sorted by "type" Eg.
 * Primates and humanoids
 * Sea creatures and lake monsters
 * Big cats
 * Big Dogs
 * Other mammals
 * Reptiles
 * Birds
 * Other animals
 * Cryptid plants

thoughts?--ZayZayEM (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to do it that way Triceratops9 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Which way? Another idea might be by continent/geography; as most cryptids seemed to be confined to certain geographic areas.--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean the one by typeTriceratops9 (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Camp AuSable Demon Duck
We need an article (possibly picture) of this cryptid--Sonicobbsessed 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

mermaids and dragons? WHAT?
The list says that mermaids and dragons are unconfirmed. WHAT? Do people still think that there is a possibilty that these creatures might be out there somewhere? Mermaids are supposed to be manatees and dragons are supposed to be based on ancient reconstructions of dinosaurs and pterosaurs. T.Neo (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes people still belive these could still be out there, I personally belive Dragons were at one time real, and how can you deny that animals like dragons do not have enough evidence to be a cryptid? Stories of Dragons are around the world, and almost all of them have similar characteristics, this seems to say something like a Dragon once existed and may still exist Triceratops9 (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there have certainly not been any confirmed sightings of these cryptids.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many cryptids that have no confirmed sightings and are still on the list why should these two be any different? Cryptozoologists study these two animals to look for them the same as many others Triceratops9 (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been no confirmed sighting of any cryptid. I was making a joke. A cryptid by its nature is unconfirmed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There definately WERE dragons, they where dinosaurs. What people called dragons are actually what we would call dinosaurs. I dont think anyone ever came in to contact with dinosaurs (or dragons for that matter) but they saw their bones in the ground. And all the dragons being similar despite being all over the world? That is because dinosaurs were similar despite being all over the world. I doubt that anything like a dragon is still alive, but if you know of one then please tell me because I am sure they are very interesting creatures. No, dragons and mermaids are still cryptids. And mermaids, well, I know sailors liked their alcohol... T.Neo (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, Dragons were not Dinosaurs, the legends were reinforced by the bones but the animals were different they may have been a type of Dinosaur but not one we already know of, the consistencies in the shape and such is too much to deny that something other than a dinosaur could have caused it, there are basically two types that surfaced, serpentine and European style, serpentine could be explained by an enormous snake that lived in Asia and South America as for European it had to be something unknown to science as of know Triceratops9 (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

God
Since when is God a cryptid!? Stop adding it, or show me the idiot cryptologist who is studying God! God is supernatural and that is not studied part of cryptozoology, look through this page there are numerous places that show why God and myths should not be on the list Triceratops9 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ROTFL! I've not found that idiot, but I think the same about Atmospheric Beast. A list of cryptids should contain creatures that are searched for by cryptozoologists, not any creature that is speculated about. F.ex. none of the hypothetical creatures in Alice in Wonderland are really cryptids. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, its ridiculous what some people will label as a cryptid! Cryptids on this list should

1. Belong in the kingdom animalia 2. Actually have someone studying it! Triceratops9 (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed?
Why are some entries "confirmed" when I've never actually read anything about them which would give the impression of being "confirmed"? Take for example the listing here for Bigfoot - The list says it's confirmed, but there's been no corpes or published findings saying that bigfoot does indeed exist. Also, the listing here for Yeti (Which says is another name for Bigfoot) says that the Yeti is unconfirmed, giving a different view from the bigfoot listing. The whole page needs a dire cleanup. Spawn Man Review Me! 07:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * None of these should be confirmed. By their nature, cryptids cannot be confirmed. If they were confirmed, they would cease to be cryptids, and just be animals.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, as it turns out, it was just a vandalism by an IP. However, I'm a bit dubious as to why Kraken is considered confirmed - sure it's probably just a giant squid or octopus, but then why does Giant Squid have its own listing too. Has anyone proved that Kraken exists? I think not beyond the fact that it is possible that it was just a giant squid. This article is in dire need of attention - I might be able to help. In any case, it's been put on my to-do list, so I'll get to it eventually. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 09:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed any entries that read confirmed, I'll check into it shortly to make sure I didn't remove any creatures that are still cryptids, if you see one that wasn't confirmed please feel free to correct me and add it back, also if someone wants to add a section about former cryptids feel free to Triceratops9 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The label of confirmed is unfortunately not a good criterion - it's not closely defined, and is also liable to be used by the overenthusiatic student of a particular cryptid (hence bigfoot gets labelled as confirmed). Of the 4 entries you removed only the okapi is clearcut (it was once a cryptid, and is now a well known animal, even found in some zoos). The night parrot falls into the category of an animal which we know once existed, and may still exist. (Similar cases include the Capsian Tiger, Zanzibar Leopard, Thylacine and Ivory-billed woodpecker. The Takahe is an example of any animal formerly in that category which we now know still exists.) The marozi and onza are cases where we know that something exists, but we don't know what it is. They may be undescribed species or they may be variants (compare woolly and king cheetahs) of the lion and puma respectively. It seems to me that the marozi and onza are among the more respectable cryptids.
 * I would say that the kraken is like the unicorn - a creature of myth. The kraken myth may have its roots in observations of giant squid (or octopi), but the unicorn myth may have its roots in reports of rhinoceroses or oryxes. But in neither cases does the creature of myth exist.
 * There is a case to be made for listing former cryptids somewhere. Cryptozoology runs the gamut from the respectable to the crackpot, and it would seem a pity to deemphasise the respectable end by writing its successes out of history. Apart from the okapi I believe there's the congo peafowl - presumably one could find a few others in the works of Heuvelmans.
 * I'm tempted to suggest cutting the Gordian Knot, and removing the article altogether. It's a common target of vandals, and also suffers from good faith bad quality edits. It's also difficult to apply quality control to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavateraguy (talk • contribs) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept confirmed should be used only for an animal that we know exists, and we know what it is, with the Onza and others like that they should have a note somewhere clarifying that it is known to exist but still what it truly is unknown. I do think this list should probably be removed, it has been subject to quite a bit of vandalism not as persistent as some others but its still a problem. I see what you mean about the parrot, really it is a case of an animal being removed from the list only to disappear and find its way back on. Triceratops9 (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I feel a couple of things need to happen. 1) Get rid of the whole confirmed/legend/unconfirmed thing all together - it does nothing and one person's legend is another's confirmed and another's unconfirmed; it's hard to keep track and only adds that OR/crufty element to the article. 2) The whole thing needs to be reorgansied. I'm thinking of scrapping the chart/table format and making a half prose and half list article. As it stands, the article looks messy and rubbish (No offense to those who wrote it). There should be a section on known, current cryptids, a section on dubious or mythological cryptids such as dragons and griffons etc (Which scientist could really say that a griffon ever existed on earth with a straight face?), and a section on past cryptids such as the okapi etc. Now, are we going to include those cases such as the moa where they're known to have existed in prehistoric times, but are rumoured to be alive still? I'm unsure if that counts as a cryptid, sicne we know what it is etc? Anyway, if you guys are willing to let me work on it, I'm sure I can get this article up to shape. Feedback is welcome! Cheers, :) Spawn Man Review Me! 04:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the confirmed/unconfirmed/legend section should certianly be removed, that can be included in the cryptids article. It certianly needs to be reorganized, its impossible to keep track of, and there should be a section for former cryptids so people will know that cryptozoology has had its share of victories. I think that that animals like the moa could be included, but only if it falls under enough of the criteria for a cryptid, because it fits in with most of it, we may know what it is but there is still speculation about if its still alive or not. Triceratops9 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no cryptid article - it redirects to the list of cryptids. I could create an article on them to merge all the extra information perhaps? So we've got cryptozoology which gives an overview of everything, then there should be an article on cryptids which would give a general overview of the cryptid and then there's list of cryptids which will give a list of all cryptids. Do I have your guys permission to implement the changes (Although it seems there's consensus to remove the confirmed/unconfirmed/legend sections)? Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aparently the cryptids article was merged into list of cryptids because it was too much alike to a list, but I'm guessing that I could make a prose article... Spawn Man Review Me! 23:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bigfoot / Sasquatch has been confirmed, and the Skunk Ape has been debunked. It says so on Monster Quest. Should I change Sasquatch's status to "Possible Existence" and the Skunk Ape's to "Debunked"? Elasmosaurus (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing under way!
Hi all. I've got some cryptozoological books and am ready to revamp this list. I've created a prose article for cryptid and will sort try and reference everything when I'm done. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are cryptid rodents non-notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.62.3 (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing they probably would be unless there was something extraordinary about them Triceratops9 (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cryptids vs. Presumed Extinct
The cryptozoology page is also very clear that, although cryptozoology includes the study of both 'rumoured' animals and those presumed extict, the term cryptid itself describes only those animals which fall into the 'rumoured' category.

So, all the presumed extinct animals in the list should also be removed. For example the Baiji.

In other words, Yeti and Loch Ness Monster etc. only! All the rest of you hobgoblins and dodos, hop it!

--Add the Anatolian Leopard to this list It's not even presumed extinct; it is extant, but nea extinction as it is presumed only 10-15 animals remain in the wild. How the crap this got into a list of cryptids is beyond me.Kpugs (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

--I think I give up on this list, I was just reading it for fun but there are real animals on it (i.e. the above Leopard, the Bili ape, etc.). I'll do my best to help fix it but it is a mess.Kpugs (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm working on it off-site (As I mentioned below) so all the article will be done to near FL level, since I have experience in featured lists. However, animals which are presumed extinct, but have been sighted since - though no evidence other than sightings - are in fact relict cryptids, and are to be included on the list. A prime example is the Tasmanian tiger, which is said to have died out, but sightings still persist. It is a possible relict. That is why the "real" animals you've pointed out have been included on the list, but rest assured, I'm working on the list and will post my updated version shortly. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Drop Bears
Do drop bears really belong in the list? They're not a true cryptid since there are no scientists or even average people who claim they really exist. They're a practical joke that Australians use on guillable tourists, but no-one seriously believes in them (except maybe stupid, trusting tourists) Much like the haggis is used to trick stupid tourists in Scotland Ebglider91 (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. They're just a joke, certainly not a cryptid. Nk.sheridan     Talk  21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rods
I see there is some debate as to whether this article should include the "status" column, and tend to agree that it shouldn't. But while it's here, can we please try to keep it sane? "Rods" are a scientifically rediculous notion, that have been thoroughly explained as insects blurring on video. If a cryptid violates known biological, or worse, physical, principals it should be treated as fiction until really good evidence comes along. That's the way to retain a scientific viewpoint. --John.Conway (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of these animals just plain do not exist
The unicorn does not exist, plain and simple. So why did somebody undo my edit that took out the unicorn? It's idiotic and delusional to believe in something that is not zoologically possible. Same with all other myths. Elasmosaurus (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Flying Rod / Skyfish
These have been discredited. The article on Flying Rod has a good deal of information to that effect. If you have additional evidence from a reliable source, then please update that article to include it. If the Flying Rods article were to provide any information that there is still serious investigation of the matter, I would not hesitate to leave this table set to unconfirmed.

Thank you. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Burrunjor
Why was Burrunjor's article deleted? I provided two sources that proved that it wasn't a hoax article. Elasmosaurus (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasons are documented at Articles_for_deletion/Burrunjor. (It seems to me that someone suspected it of being a hoax article, but even if it wasn't the suspicion what enough to bring it to the attention of people who aren't strict inclusionists, who rejected it under WP:RS.) Lavateraguy (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, wouldn't WikiProject Cryptids talk page be a better place to raise this issue. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Baiji
Should the Baiji river dolphin be added? It can be labeled as "presumed extinct". After all, it was pronounced extinct in 2006, but spotted again in 2007...Elasmosaurus (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)