Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Skeptoid on Stitcher   iTunes   Google Play

Members Portal



Cryptids That Turned Out To Be Real

When speculative animals turn out to be real, does that validate cryptozoology as a science?  

by Ryan Haupt

Filed under Cryptozoology

Skeptoid Podcast #461
April 7, 2015
Podcast transcript | Download | Subscribe



In the age of internet list-acles, it is easy to find information about mythical creatures that ended up being verified. Sometimes, these articles tout these discoveries as examples of the blindness of Western science and its unwillingness to consider alternative points of view. But is that really the case? Today, we'll look at some of the more popular examples of found cryptids and see if these truly represent failures of science, or if they actually highlight one of its greatest strengths.

To make sure we're all on the same page, some definitions. A cryptid is loosely defined as an organism, typically an animal but really any living thing, whose existence is suggested based on anecdotal evidence such as unverified sightings or mythology, but whose true existence has yet to be confirmed or accepted by the scientific community. This definition was greatly expanded by Cryptozoologist George Eberhart in an article for the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 2005. He classified 10 types of cryptids with six exclusions. We'll run through each briefly with an example to provide context for each of our own "discovered cryptids" later in the piece.

1. Distribution anomalies, or finding an animal well outside their known range like large cat sightings in the UK.

2. Unusual, typically over-sized variations of known animals, such as anacondas in the Amazon well above the largest on record.

3. Survival of recently extinct species for example the Ivory-billed woodpecker or Tasmanian tiger.

4. Survival of species only know from the fossil record, like the Loch Ness Monster, a supposed plesiosaur.

5. Lingerlings, or survival of species from the fossil record into historical, but not modern times, such as woolly mammoths purported to have survived beyond about 11,000 years ago.

6. Animals not known from the fossil record but related to known species, such as black pumas in North America.

7. Animals not known from the fossil record nor related to any known species, for which Eberhart provides Bigfoot as an example because even though some claim the cryptid as a surviving Gigantopithecus he argues that the fossil record for this known ape is too poor, a few jaw fragments and isolated teeth, to draw such a strong comparison between the two.

8. Mythical animals with a probably zoological explanation, like griffins which may represent descriptions of Ceratopsian dinosaur fossils seen along ancient trading routes past the Altai Mountains in China and Mongolia.

9. Seemingly paranormal or supernatural entities with animal characteristics such as werewolves or the Mothman of West Virginia.

10. Known hoaxes or misidentifications typified by the famous Jackalope, a rabbit with deer antlers. While there is a viral disease that can cause irregular tumor growths all over the body of a rabbit, which may have inspired its creation, the original portmanteau known to most was created by two taxidermists in Douglas, Wyoming as a joke.

Eberhart also defines six exclusions to these criteria, which help narrow the scope of cryptozoology:

1. Insignificance, in other words the cryptid must be large, weird, deadly, or otherwise significant to people. A newly discovered beetle with no previous culture awareness would not constitute a found cryptid.

2. Lack of controversy. There needs to be disagreement between two groups, those that believe in the cryptid and those that doubt. I would argue that the coelacanth is a good example of this type of exclusion. The coelacanth would fit into the 4th category of a surviving species from the fossil record, but I've never heard or read that there was an argument claiming their survival up until specimens were actually found by scientists, putting them squarely in the realm of the known without going through a cryptid stage first.

3. Erratics likely seen or found as a one time occurrence, such as the pet kangaroo that escaped from its owner in Austria (not Australia).

4. Bizarre humans such zombies, even though these may have a historical basis, they're not animalistic enough to count as cryptids.

5. Paranormal or supernatural beings for example angels or demons. Even though these creatures are often portrayed with a mix of human and animal characteristics, even in folklore they exist outside the natural world and its laws. Basically the organism has to have DNA to count as a cryptid.

6. Aliens, except in cases where the aliens are claimed to have lived on earth for long enough that they could be considered residents, such as one explanation for the Chupacabra.

With those categories clarified, we can now turn our skeptical eye upon some real animals that were once the stuff of myth and legend.

The Platypus

The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatius) is a basal (which is a scientific way of saying primitive without the value judgement) egg-laying mammal in the order Monotremata. Native to Australia, it is semiaquatic, relatively small, only a few kilograms, and sports the flat paddle-like tail similar to a beaver but with a beak on its face similar to a duck. They hunt using electroreception which is only known from one other mammal and the males have a venomous spur with enough toxin to kill a small dog. They're really weird, if that wasn't abundantly clear.

The common narrative for the discovery of the platypus by Europeans is that it was widely considered a hoax fabricated by Asian taxidermists by stitching a duck beak to a mole in the same way the Feejee mermaid was made by stitching a monkey to a fish, I'm sure you can guess which half of each was used. The real story is a bit more nuanced but it is correct to put the platypus in the 10th category as a suspected hoax. There were indeed some who were willing to write off the platypus as mere hoax, but Keeper of the Department of Natural History at the British Museum George Shaw, the man who received the first specimen from Captain John Hunter and wrote the formal description of the animal from that specimen was a bit more cautious in his conclusions. As written in his 1799 article in Nature's Miscellany:

Of all the Mammalia yet known it seems the most extraordinary in its conformation; exhibiting the perfect resemblance of the beak of a Duck engrafted on the head of a quadruped. So accurate is the similitude that, at first view, it naturally excites the idea of some deceptive preparation by artificial means: the very epidermis, proportion, features, manner of opening, and other particulars of the beak of a shoveler, or other broad-bill species of duck, presenting themselves to the view: nor is it without the most minute and rigid examination that we can persuade ourselves of its being the real beak or snout of a quadruped...
On a subject so extraordinary as the present, a degree of skepticism is not only pardonable, but laudable; and I ought perhaps to acknowledge that I almost doubt the testimony of my own eyes with respect to the structure of this animal's beak; yet must confess that I can perceive no appearance of any deceptive preparation; and the edges of the rictus, the insertion, and when tried by the test of maceration in water, so as to render every part completely moveable seem perfectly natural; nor can the most accurate examination of expert anatomists discover any deception in this particular.

To me, this reads as a man carefully examining something that might be a hoax but coming up short and thus concluding that however fantastical this creature is, it is still likely real. Considerate inquiry into something so new and strange is the benchmark of good science, not a flaw and I would say Shaw's efforts are all the more impressive considering he was working more than half a century before Darwin published The Origin of Species. The platypus does indeed represent a cryptid turned true, but I also think we can agree that it was OK for naive scientists to be more than a little skeptical upon first glance.

The Giant Squid

The giant squid are a small group of squids in the genus Architeuthis, which may end up being a single species though debate on that point is ongoing. They are the second largest squids in terms of mass, and possibly length, in the world after the less poorly known colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni). Giant squid can reach lengths up to 13 meters for females and 10 meters for males, when measured from the posterior to the end of the longest tentacles. They live deep in the ocean and for a time were only known in sailors stories and from the occasional carcasses that washed ashore already in very poor condition. A small number of specimens have been accidentally caught by fishing trawlers and only in the last decade have we been able to photograph or videotape them in their natural habitat of the deep sea.

In terms of myth, however, the giant squid has a rich history, placing it as a mix of categories 2 (an over-sized variation of a known animal) and 8 (a mythological animal with a zoological explanation). The earliest descriptions of large squids come from antiquity. Aristotle in the 4th century BC described two distinct size classes for squids, though probably not the size differential we're talking about here. Pliny the Elder in the first century AD was closer to the mark in his book Natural History, where he describes a squid with a head "as big as a cask" with arms up to 9 meters long, a surprising underestimation if nothing else. Many sea-faring cultures have tales of monster squids: the Scylla in Greek mythology and the Lusca of the Caribbean. Perhaps the most famous of all is the Norse kraken, which Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus classified as a cephalopod and even gave it the scientific name Microcosmus marinus in the first edition of Systema Naturae in 1735. Even though it was removed from later editions, this is a strong claim that some in the scientific community were willing to take this particular cryptid seriously.

It wasn't until over a hundred years later in the mid-1800s when boats and ships started capturing the occasional piece of squid and beached carcasses were identified and catalogued that the scientific community began to more widely recognize the animal, but recognize they did. To me, the most fascinating thing about the giant squid as a known cryptid is that we still barely know anything at all. The scientific community agrees that the animal exists, but they are so hard to research that we still know very little about them as animals. Regardless, given the appropriate level of physical evidence, the scientific community was willing to move the giant squid out of the realm of fantasy and into fact.

The Okapi

The okapi (Okapia johnstoni) is a mammal of the family Giraffidae, sharing the family with its only other member, the giraffe. For many years in the 19th century Europeans heard tales from Africa of an elusive forest beast colloquially called the "African unicorn" (Category 6, no fossil record but related to some known animal if you're keeping track). The animal was sensationalized in Sir Henry Stanely's travelogues of the Congo region in 1880s and 90s, where he described it as a kind of donkey which the natives called the atti. The story then goes that the British governor of Uganda, Sir Harry Johnston, rescued some pygmy inhabitants from exploitation by showman for exhibition and promised them safe return to their homes. In return, the pygmies showed Johnston the tracks of the animal he'd read about in Stanely's books, as Johnston was a naturalist (primarily botany) and curious. Based on the donkey comparison, he expected horse-like tracks but was surprised to discover a cloven-hoofed mark. He never saw the animal alive, but did find a skull and some skins, which were enough to have the animal classified formally in 1901.

The okapi is a fun example because it has a mix of traits that should make it easy but also very difficult to find definitively. The easy part is its size, ranging from 1.9 - 2.5 meters long and 1.5 - 2.0 meters tall at the shoulder with weights between 200 and 350 kilograms. It should come as no great shock that larger animals should be easier to find and verify than very small animals. The hard part is the lifestyle and habitat. These are solitary animals living in some of the densest and most remote rainforest in the world. The people native to this region had known of the animal for a long time, but had no history of scientific inquiry that early European explorers would have deemed valid, so acceptance of the animal was held off until physical evidence was provided. However, the cultural knowledge of the pygmies was instrumental in providing said physical evidence which upon presentation yielded a scientific description, species name, and acceptance among the European scientific community. While maybe a bit insensitive to the local people of the region, again not an example of poorly done scientific inquiry.

There are some other really great examples of found cryptids that we don't have time to get into here but by and large they fall into certain cryptid categories and not others. The mountain gorilla would fall into category 6, being related to the known species of the lowland gorilla. Sea serpents could fall into categories 1, 2, or 10, but I would argue for 10, a misidentification, if as some have suggested the majority of sea serpent tales were misidentified oarfish, which can grow up to 11 meters in length. The Komodo dragon is a clear example of number 2, a much larger version of the known monitor lizards. These animals all also have in common a very remote or difficult to access habitat with low human populations, especially Westerners with the ability to collect evidence that would be deemed scientifically valid. As we venture into the rainforest, we find new animals; as we venture into the deep ocean, the same. Depending on the animals found, these are considered victories for cryptozoology, but regardless they are always victories for science and show the power of careful inquiry, investigation, and the demand for reliable evidence in the exploration of life all around the world.

By Ryan Haupt

Please contact us with any corrections or feedback.


Cite this article:
Haupt, R. "Cryptids That Turned Out To Be Real." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, 7 Apr 2015. Web. 23 Oct 2016. <>


References & Further Reading

Anonymous Icelander, translated by R.C. Boer. Örvar-Oddr. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1888. 132.

Eberhart, George M. "Mysterious Creatures: Creating a Cryptozoological Encyclopedia." Journal of Scientific Exploration. 1 Jan. 2005, Volume 19, Number 1: 103-113.

Pliny the Elder. Natural History. Ancient Rome: NA, 0079. 145-146.

Scalter, Philip L. "On a new African Mammal;." Proceedings of the General Meetings for Scientific Business of the Zoological Society of London. 7 May 1901, Volume 2, Number 1: 3-6.

Shaw, George. "The Duck-Billed Platypus." Naturalist's Miscellany. 1 Jan. 1799, Volume 10: 227-234.

Stanley, Henry M. In Darkest Africa, Vol. 2; or The Quest, Rescue, and Retreat of Emin Governor of Equatoria. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1890. 490.


Copyright ©2016 Skeptoid Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Rights and reuse information






Go Premium






Now Trending...

Updated: Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Web Sites

The Rothschild Conspiracy

The Brown Mountain Lights

Autopsy: The Clinton Body Count

Finding Shakespeare

You've Got to Be Wrong to Be Right

The Bermuda Triangle and the Devil's Sea

The Secret of the Gypsy Queen

Get the Skeptoid Companion Email in your inbox every week, and double your dose of Skeptoid: