Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Can't Figure Out How to Fix It

Rather than just trying to change something and maybe angering folks, I'd like to point out something here. The beginning definition of this article rubs me a bit the wrong way:

Cryptozoology is the study of animals that are presumed (at least by the researcher) 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.

The part that bugs me is "at least by the researcher." In many books I've read on cryptozoology, the researcher does not presume that the cryptid in question exists, just that it might exist. It is the witnesses and the folks who believe the witnesses who believe the cryptid exists. Cryptozoologists are often investigating with an open mind, with the initial assumption that a real animal that is genuinely new might be involved, but not an absolute belief.

Perhaps we should say Cryptozoology is the study of animals that are presumed to possibly exist, but for which conclusive proof is missing; ... Cyber Pop 22:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC) April 21, 2006

I agree with CyberPop, that "(at least by the researcher)" seems to be inaccurate, but additionally it does not seem to be NPOV . Since no-one has posted an objection in the week since you posted that suggestion, I am changing it now. Pyrofysh 12:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines cryptozoology as the study of and search for animals, and especially legendary animals, in order to evaluate whether or not such creatures have existed. It makes no statement as to what is presumed by anyone. If you say that anyone presumes anything then you are opening yourself to the question who says so? and an inevitable challenge to the authority of your sources. Also, cryptid appears to me to be a neologism not recognized by mainstream sources, such as Merriam-Webster, and though it may be a convenient term the use of such a word may detract from the credibility of the writing. Cryptonymius 16:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merger

The lonely article Cryptozoa could be merged with this main article as it doesn't say much. --apers0n 04:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a lonely article that needs some love, but this isn't an appropriate merger target WilyD 08:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Nessie doesn't belong with microscopic animals. Initiael 02:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what this merge proposal hinges on is whether or not all Cryptozoa should be considered under the umbrella of cryptozoology. From the (scant) information in the cryptozoa article, it seems that the term cryptozoa doesn't apply solely to species whose existence is uncertain. Rather, it appears to apply to a set of species, a number of which have not been discovered. This differs from the normal definition of cryptozoology as I understand it. This is a strong difference and important in determining whether these two articles should be merged. Cryptozoa seems to include discovered species that are viewed by the scientific community to actually or very probably exist. Alternatively, cryptozoology involves the study of those species which might exist, but the scientific community has not yet established enough evidence to suggest they actually exist. Therefore, assuming that the information in the cryptozoa artical is accurate, let's not merge these articles.--Pyrofysh 13:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll mark cryptozoa as a stub in a few moments - hopefully someone with more knowledge can provide eough informaiton to clear the difference up.--Pyrofysh 13:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no logical basis for merging the cryptozoology article with the cryptozoa article; they are separate concepts. Its not merely a question of cryptozoology being primarily concerned with macro-organisms, so to speak.KevinOKeeffe 15:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think cryptozoa has anything to do with cryptozoology...the article certainly doesn't indicate anything. Perhaps the root used was the same, but for a different purpose? I highly doubt they have anything in common.

Cryptozoa in the tiny wikipedia article definitely refer to verifiably existing creatures, even though some may not have yet been catalogued. One definition I found says: "The term 'cryptozoic fauna' was coined by Dendy (1895) to describe 'the assemblage of small terrestrial animals found dwelling in darkness beneath stones, rotten logs, the bark of trees, and in other similar situations." The text goes on to say, however, that the term "never attained wide usage," but also that it's sometimes extended to include "all animals that avoid the light of day." This was from Lamont C. Cole, "A Study of the Cryptozoa of an Illinois Woodland," Ecological Monographs, vol 16, no 1. This is a very different group of animals from those sometimes highly hypothetical creatures studied under "cryptozoology". Peter Delmonte 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Concern: Why is Science being Bastardized by the Scientific Community?

Wow ... this is rich (and true opinions of negascientists) ... "Cryptozoology is often considered a pseudoscience by skeptical mainstream zoologists and biologists ... cryptozoology per se has never been fully embraced by the scientific community."

The purpose of science is to understand the true universe around us. So, why the golly is so called "main-stream" science have a problem with research on hypthosies? That makes me ill. The scientific method requires hypothosis as a base, and then tests/watches to see if true or not. Just because something is difficult to test for ... does not make it "not science" (ie. their so-called "pseudoscience"). As long as assumptions are minimized, and work is open and logical ... this makes many decent cryptozoologists true scientists (though yes ... there are a few bad eggs in every bunch, some bunches more than others). I guess, to negascientists, in order to study any organism, it needs to first bite one severely in the buttocks. Many of the purveyors pseudoscience are a hinderance to the advancement of knowledge and science. For shame! --206.127.114.34 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Krack

• Roughly speaking, the problem is that while some try to investigate cryptozoological topics scientificly, many do not. Science does not require hypothesis, for example. Instead, the important criterion is following the Scientific method. Beware, of course, of Cargo cult science, which is rampant in the cryptozoological community. WilyD 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• So, roughly speaking, politics are an important consideration for science? Because popularity matters (in that if a bunch of "snake oil peddlers" outnumber legitimate researchers ... they [the peddlers] spoil it for the rest of society). Kind of sounds pompous. What defines a legitimate researcher ... and who defines precisely how rigid to the Scientific method must we follow. I am a huge supporter in the Scientific method for separating the fact from fiction in the end. However, the prejudgements, political, social, and academic concerns have no place in Science (this is just my opinion). After all ... science is the study of reality ... and it belongs to us all. The challenge for our world ... is to find the balance, between the whackos (people who have no standards of study, or are just imagination and zero substance), and the organizational-nazis (people, usually with lots of credentials, who believe they always know better). C'est la vie. 206.127.114.34 03:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Krack

I don't think it is a pseudoscience, as there are animals that were once thought to be extinct but turned out to be very much still alive. Anything that follows the scientific method is science. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.215.104.4 (talk • contribs) .

Sort of, but lots of people interested in Cryptozoology don't follow the scientific method at all. More accurate would be to say it's a subject that can be studied scientifically, but rarely is studied scientifically. WilyD 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want you all to know I am learning more about Cryptozoology on this discussion page than on the article, fascinating.Dustyspace 12:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement "and is typically classified as pseudoscience because of erratic application of the scientific method," is highly unencyclopedic as well as unverifiable. Nacnud298 (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Graptolites

This article clearly states that living graptolites have been found. As far as I can tell, they haven't. There is nothing to indicate that any living thing is closely related to graptolites in the Wikipedia article or on any article on Google. Also, I studied geology as a student (since 1882, you probably guessed) and I remember learning that graptolites are extinct. Man with two legs 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• A couple of points:

1. You may dispute that they're extinct (although it only took me a few seconds of searching to a reference to some prof who says that species X is a grapolite or the like) but that's not admissable content. WP:OR
2. Our own memories are often inaccurate, especially when based on dated information.
3. I find it hard to believe (no offence) that you're been a student for 125 years

WilyD 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's three points. The new 50% extra couple. By 'since' I meant 'later than' rather than 'continually from that date'. And I'm pretty certain we were told they are extinct because they are rather important in the fossil record. That was why I immediately looked in Wikipedia and other sources for confirmation and found precisely the opposite. What is certain is that the majority of paleontologists believe them to be extinct so they are cannot be rigorously claimed as living fossils in the same way that a coelacanth can. Man with two legs 14:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently we don't speak the same dialect of english, but a couple is some dialects can mean two, three, maybe even four or five. I'll try to find a high quality citation for the point, the disputed templates are reasonable until then. And the last point was a bit of a joke - sorry if that wasn't clear. WilyD 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Even I grasped that it was tongue in cheek. My serious response failed to make clearly the point that I studied geology well after the alleged date of discovery of living graptolites so if they were regarded as scientific fact, I would not have been taught that they were extinct. Thanks for your linguistic information: I suspect that all sorts of trouble has been caused by that one. Man with two legs 09:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "a couple" means two. Anyone who thinks it means "two, three, maybe even four or five" is wrong. Many people make this mistake, but they are all grammatically incorrect. You are probably thinking of the phrase "a few". Anecdotal evidence on your part only proves that a lot of people make the same mistake.

I'm not mistaken, I merely speak a different dialect of english than you do. There are some dialects of english where "a couple" does not denotate or connotate two. WilyD 14:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

On a side note not having anything to do with the main discussion, the word "couple" as used by Wily is not, in fact, incorrect. In American Standard English, the phrase "a couple" can mean a small number of objects or whatnot and is not necessarily limited to doubling whatever word it modifies. Americans will often consider it synonymous with "few" but with the distinction of being able to refer to two of something. It is simple descriptive linguistics, the study of how words are used within everyday language that tells us this. "Ain't", in another example, while denounced by "language purists" (there is no such thing as a pure language), is a widely understood word and is considered correct in many dialectal usages. If many people are making the same language "mistake" and yet it is widely understood and accepted, it is no longer a grammatical mistake.--TheFighter'sQueen 14:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The story is actually as follows: a new species of pterobranch named Cephalodiscus has been discovered in 1882. At that time Graptolites were thought to be an unrelated group of animals known only from fossil records. Then in 1993, a scientist named P.N. Dilly published an article in J. of Zoology describing a new species of Cephalodiscus dubbed C. graptolitoides. This species carries on its skeleton, structures strikingly similar to graptolites and Dilly proposed that the members of the extinct group were in fact fossil pterobranchs (or that Cephalodiscus is a living graptolite). This is how the story came that living graptolites have been found. The wording in the article is somewhat twisted and need to be corrected. ArthurWeasley 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Then this "confusion", or whatever it is, has led to that many books and other sources claim that the graptolites were related to pterobranchs. It's a fairly wide spread opinion. The vagueness in the sources is whether the pterobranchs actually are graptolites, or just related. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Massive external links removal?

Recently, a number of external links were removed (see the history comparison that shows this). The external links list was long enough that it probably needed some pruning, but many very high-quality sites were removed, while some of those left were of questionable value. I think there should be some debate as to the merits of the various sites before such drastic cuts are made in the article, so I've restored the original external links list, for now, pending a better pruning process. Please don't revert back to the same list of external links unless you put some reasons why here. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Coelacanth

The section of the Coelacanth is marked as "accuracy is disputed". There is no discussion of this in this page. While I am unable to verify the accuracy of this paragraph, it fits well with what I know from other sources (that were more vague than this one unfortunately). The Coelacanth is currently well-known as a living fossil. I recommend the removal of the "accuracy is disputed" mark. 69.232.188.119 Joshua

I can't find anything wrong with it either. I'll remove the tag, and replace it with a . risk 14:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "accuracy is disputed" referred to "living graptolites", not to Coelacanth - see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cryptozoology&diff=78076523&oldid=77426436

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cryptozoology&diff=78093683&oldid=78076523

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cryptozoology&diff=78098631&oldid=78093683

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cryptozoology&diff=80411991&oldid=79969765

and discussion about graptolites above.

Talking about living fossils, the Monoplacophora are a much better case for Cryptozoologists if you ask me. They were thought to be extinct since the Devonian, some 360 Mya, until a living specimen (Neopilina) has been dragged out from the ocean floor in 1952. The "living graptolite" thing is at most controversial and the actual facts are badly distorted in the text. I would remove the paragraph about graptolites altogether as it does not help the case, on the contrary.ArthurWeasley 16:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to tis page

Be aware that an anonymouse user, 72.150.38.147, made two vandalism edits to this page and one oto another page The Colossus of Rhodes. Wacth for his/her edits and revert if he/she satys at it. Thanks Lisapollison 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism, this time by L0v3nflirt  

Mr-doobs 04:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Stub Image

Theres no image for the cryptid stubs, should there be one? The kraken would make a good picture. Dr.-B 11:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A kraken would be good, (especially this guy), but I think Surgeon's photo might be more iconic. --mordicai. 21:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd personally go with the Kraken if forced between the two, because if put into a standard subject-stub template, the LochNess photo wouldn't show up well. Are there any others?--Whytecypress 02:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Carey's Criteria

The paragraphs attempting to match cryptozoology to Carey's criteria for pseudoscience are poorly done.

"According to Carey, “As a scientific discipline develops it will gradually produce a maturing body of explanatory or theoretical findings; pseudoscience produces very little theory.” This is fitting to cryptozoology. Despite several decades of research and development there have been few solid theories or discoveries in this field. Much of the ideas still come from folk lore and tales."

The writer misinterprets Carey's criterion here. Cryptozoology is discovery science, determining whether a purported animal exists or not. There is little need for developing theories that encompass the field as a whole. (Though, the former publication, Cryptozoology, the journal of the International Society of Cryptozoology, certainly fills the bill as a mature body of explanatory or theoretical findings.) The statement that "ideas" in cryptozoology come from folklore is incorrect; the methodology used to determine whether a mystery animal exists comes from modern zoological and anthropological techniques. What comes from folklore is the subject of investigation - the mystery animal, which usually has an ethnozoological identity in the surrounding culture. The cryptozoological methodology itself is used in basic zoological discovery science, though usually unrecognized as such. Numerous references to discoveries resulting from mainstream research mounted in search of ethnoknown (but scientifically unrecognized) species can be found in Cryptozoology: Science & Speculation (cited in the references).

"2.Another point made by Carey is “The findings, theoretical and otherwise, of genuine science are always open to revision; rarely do pseudoscientific claims change much over time.” The folk lore and tall tales that many cryptozoological searches are based upon have changed very little over the course of generations and decades. Furthermore, there has not been much information/discoveries added to these base ideas."

This is a misunderstanding of the criterion. There is a vast field of literature, much of which has been revised and changed as new biological findings are evaluated. Several former cryptids are now recognized to be non-species (the Ri is one good example), many smaller myster animals have now been scientifically described (again, see Cryptozoology: Science & Speculation), and the speculative interpretation (theorizing) of specific mystery animals has changed dramatically over the last century (e.g., sea serpents, Bigfoot). The writer seems to be implying that just because the subject being investigated by cryptozoology doesn't always change, that this equates to cryptozoology itself rarely changing.

"3.Carey also claims “Genuine science embraces skepticism; pseudoscience tends to view skepticism as a sign of narrow-mindedness.” Many in the field of cryptozoology view skeptics in this light as this field in rather fantastic and takes true believers to embrace it."

Carey's claim itself is biased, but the idea that cryptozoology investigators must be "believers" is clearly incorrect (and a logical fallacy of false alternatives). Many reputable investigators in the field have pointed out time and again that belief (nor disbelief) is not the proper position of cryptozoology. Most of the better-known authors in cryptozoology consider certain cryptids unlikely (and not all agree on which ones). Rather, investigators point to critical thinking and a willingness to evaluate the evidence as much more important. This is hardly a narrow-minded viewpoint.

Pennsnakes 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I might agree that there is a imperceptible line between real science of Zoology and the pseudoscience of Cryptozoology, but as it's been said, when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Finding organisms thought extinct and then finding them alive is nice, and usually a surprise. The Ivory Billed Woodpecker might still be alive, with some reasonable evidence (and the fact that it is only a few decades extinct) is the purview of real ornithologists. Looking for mythological monsters is pure and simple the field of pseudoscience. It is a well-understood fact that when humans cannot explain something, they revert to myth and the supernatural. Orangemarlin 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a question of whether cryptozoology is a pseudoscience; it is whether Casey's criteria are being correctly employed to determine whether cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. (Cliches are not, in themselves, useful in determining scientific validity.) Cryptozoology is methodology (the identification of potential unknown or supposedly extinct species, creating opportunity to search for evidence which is either determined to be invalid, insubstantial, or confirmative). Whether or not a potential mystery animal has mythological attachments within any given ethnological community is irrelevent to the validity of cryptozoology: numerous scientifically established species achieve mythological or folkloric status in different cultures. Arguments against the validity of cryptozoology must establish that the methodology is incorrect, not that the subject being studied is "pure and simple" pseudoscience. The latter is a belief-driven argument, not a scientific one. The statement, for example, that finding organisms thought extinct is usually a surprise, ignores the methodologies used in discovery science. With a wide range of methodologies used, and an economically-derived bias toward random sampling (it's cheaper), there's no questions that most new species of any category will be found in that method. There are many examples, however, of species located through targeted-search methodologies, where an animal has been reported or photographed without substantial evidence, but which provides incentive for a specific search - that is cryptozoology. Pennsnakes 19:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Postcryptozoology hoax

See these edits. I don't think the book mentioned exists, nor can I find any evidence that "postcryptozoology" as a field of study or movement exists (the mere 13 google hits don't look very impressive). A book published by a University press should have a mention on Amazon.com or somewhere, but it doesn't unless the title is mispelled or something. Can we safely delete this as a hoax? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. It can be added back if and when it is shown to be real and notable. Mgiganteus1 17:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the whole section based on the non-existent book. When the book is published (ESP it can be added back. KP Botany 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Now we have Postcrypto who has added back in the very same seemingly hoaxed or non-notable book yet again (Hans, Edward (1999). Being and Postcryptozoology. Berkeley, IPCZ Press). I'm going to revert those edits as nonconstructive, probable vandalism and possible sockpuppetry. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. "Being and Postcryptozoology" is not a hoax. It is an independenty published book with a large section critiquing cryptozoology as a cultural phenomenon. I have seen Ed Hans speak in San Francisco. You can order the book from http://www.ipcz.org/ipczpress.html I had not cited the book correctly initially and that was a mistake, not a hoax. The main thesis of that section is that cryptozoology is an illustration of our culture's insistence on finding things that are hidden or explaining things that are mysterious. He calls it an "unhandsome science" because it takes legends and mysteries that are beautiful and tries to determine if they are "real or not real." Many people in the Bay Area find it a fascinating lens on culture, myself included. I think others would too. Is it alright for me to put a section back on this topic? Postcrypto 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If others can't find any mention of the book anywhere, we can't just take your word that the book exists. This isn't a trust issue, and it isn't an accusation of you lying about it either. It is simply a set of standards that all editors here are held to. The main issues here are WP:V and WP:OR. Can you point out a single online bookstore or database that mentions the book exists? That would help a lot in establishing your case. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Does the link to http://www.ipcz.org/ipczpress.html not count? Postcrypto 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you yourself describe the book as "in between self-published and commercially published" (reference for the quote), it is already quite likely to fail WP:V as a source. Furthermore, these days even most self-published books at least get indexed by Amazon.com. If you want your work to be taken seriously, you need something that fits WP:V. If the book doesn't fit, then try to find at least one article meeting WP:V that mentions the "postcryptozoology" movement or system of thought. Otherwise, your material will probably be considered WP:OR. Even if the material you are trying to add doesn't satisfy the requirements now, it might at some point in the future. WP:V is the key. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cryptobotany

There was a link to the German Cryptobotany page which I removed. Was it serving any purpose that I was unaware of? Raistlin11325 02:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is Long horse redirected to this page?

I remember that it had its own wiki just a few months back? What happened?

Long Horse haters mooved in and set phasers to banish.... Cowicide 08:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Justifications questions

It seems to me to be a bit misleading that all these justifications are provided yet nowhere is it mentioned that no "cryptozoologist" has ever been responsible for the discovery of a previously unknown species, as far as I know. They have either been discovered by accident by non-scientists or through active mainstream scientific study. I think it's perhaps worthwhile to add it, in the least, to the criticism section. Thoughts? Capeo 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a bunch, including the Indonesian Coelacanth, which would not have been discovered except for the efforts of cryptozoologists to get zoologists interested. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The discovery of the Coelacanth was by a museum curator, and later proven to be a Coelacanth by J.L.B. Smith, a chemist and ichthyologist. Explain to me how "the efforts of cryptozoologists" had anything to do with happen-chance? The museum curator noted it was the "most beautiful fish she had ever seen." It's beauty, not cryptozoologists, resulted in its discovery.

I take issue with all of the so-called "justifications" for cryptozoology listed, as they are a perfect example of point of view, and should be noted as such on the page. In reality, this whole article reads like it was written BY a cryptozoologist, and seems relatively lopsided in favor. I have noted the areas which need work (sources other than primary sources, weasel words and POV). Justin ^chat 01:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this odd, cryptozoologists just claim there might be evidence for something. The fact that somebody else finally finds something that matches the claimed evidence proves to me that at least some cryptozoological evidence is valid. It is like blaming mendeljev not finding elements that he predicts to exist based on his periodic table. If your reasoning holds we should have asked mendeljev to either find the elements he claims or find a new job ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.162.217.157 (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a preposterous analogy. The basis for which elements were predicted were mounted on strong mathematical and physical evidence. These do not generally exist for most cryptids. Folklore is a suitable basis for investigation, but certainly not evidence for existence.Halogenated (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Structure

The justifications/criticisms structure of the article is totally unsatisfactory. It reads like he said/she said, and some of the justifications are clearly responses to criticisms that are brought up later in the article. It's all very awkward. Unless someone fixes these problems, I'm going to dive in a with a complete rewrite within the next couple of days. John.Conway 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't say I didn't warn you. I have removed what a lot of repeated points, as well as some of the weaker arguments. A lot of it read like a crypozoologist and a sceptic were chipping away at each other with little counterpoints (which of course is pretty much how it was written I guess), and that had to change. I think it's important to reference any new stuff going into the article from now on. John.Conway 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I prefer the original structure. I think you unnecessarily removed some important points. I think we still need some way to have the "Controverty"-section divided into shorter sections to make it more clean and readable. Maybe have criticism-justification for important arguments in separate headings, for example "Lack of physical evidence", "Is the world unexplored?", "The fossil record" and so on... --Danielos2 09:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with dividing the section up somewhat along the lines you suggest, as long as it doesn't get back to the state it was in previously — which was not at all encyclopaedic — and it is reasonably referenced. As for me removing important points, I disagree. Certainly I didn't remove anything with a reference: most of the article read like original research (some of it very weak indeed). If you can find decent references for the stuff I took out, it could be re-included, but only if it is written in a more encyclopaedic tone. --John.Conway 10:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes!! They do exist!!

Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

--Wer2chosen 14:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC) I have one concern, this is stated in the article?

"Despite cryptid sightings reported all over the world, and the supposed creatures' significant size, no unambiguous physical evidence (such as a specimen) has ever been presented of the more sensational cryptids." This is not entirely accurate. The giant squid was thought to be one of the creatures of Cryptozoology, yet they have found numerous dead examples, and on either the History or Discovery channel, they recently had a documentary showing video of one feeding. I am assuming this was copied from a book on the subject. A statement should be added stating that some of the more sensational cryptids once thought to not exist have been reclassified based on modern evidence.