by Darren Naish
Remember, then, that - if you see cryptozoologists referring to our speculations as if they're presented as serious, Heuvelmans-style explanations for given cryptids - it merely shows that they haven't read the text you're reading now. And it is not difficult to predict what cryptozoological reviewers are going to say about this book. They will dislike it for being flippant, disrespectful, silly, or for somehow helping to bring cryptozoology into disrepute. We certainly have somewhat mocked the ideas and contributions of some cryptozoologists, that is true. The fact remains that we have very good reason to do this: we hope that cryptozoologists learn the lesson we are trying to teach.
Acknowledgments
Through citing sources as and where appropriate, we hope that we have given adequate credit to the people whose ideas and work we have alluded to or discussed. We would like to thank numerous people interested in cryptozoology, evolution, speculative zoology and scepticism for discussion, ideas and data, including Chad Arment, Max Blake, Matt Bille, Ed Bousfield, Chris Clark, Loren Coleman, Mike Dash, Adam Davies, Jon Downes, Richard Freeman, Craig Harris, Sharon Hill, Richard Hing, Carole Jahme, Daniel Loxton, Scott Mardis, Cameron McCormick, Jonathan McGowan, John Moore, Charles Paxton, Michel Raynal, Karl Shuker, Hugh Shanahan, Blake Smith, Dick Raynor, Ben Speers-Roesch, Jenny Taylor, Paul Vella, Mark Witton and Michael Woodley. While compiling the text, we frequently referred both to George M. Eberhart's monumental, two-volume Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology (Eberhart 2002) and to Michael Newton's enormous Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide (Newton 2005). We used these works so extensively that we should probably cite them in every single separate entry. That would involve needless repetition, so we want to give them adequate credit here.
Coleman, L. 1989. Tom Slick and the Search for the Yeti. Faber and Faber, Boston & London.
Coleman, L. 2003. Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America. Paraview Pocket Books, New York
Coleman, L. & Clark, J. 1999. Cryptozoology A to Z. Fireside, Simon & Schuster Ltd, New York.
Coleman, L. & Huyghe, P. 1999. The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide. Avon Books, New York.
Coleman, L. & Huyghe, P. 2003. The Field Guide to Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents, and Other Mystery Denizens of the Deep. Tarcher/Penguin, New York.
Eberhart, G. M. 2002. Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology. ABC Clio, Santa Barbara.
Heuvelmans, B. 1939. Le problème de la dentition de l'Oryctérope. Bulletin du Musée royal d'histoire naturelle de Belgique 40, 1-30.
Heuvelmans, B. 1968. In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents. Hill and Wang, New York.
Heuvelmans, B. 1969. Note preliminaire sur un specimen conserve dans la glace, d'une forme encore inconnue d'hominide vivant Homo pongoides (sp. seu subsp. nov.). Bulletin de I'Institut Royal des Science Naturelles de Belgique 45, 1-24.
Heuvelmans, B. 1982. What is cryptozoology? Cryptozoology 1, 1-12.
Heuvelmans, B. 1983. How many animal species remain to be discovered? Cryptozoology 2, 1-24.
Heuvelmans, B. 1986. Annotated checklist of apparently unknown animals with which cryptozoology is concerned. Cryptozoology 5, 1-26.
Heuvelmans, B. 1990. The metamorphosis of unknown animals into fabulous beasts and of fabulous beasts into unknown animals. Cryptozoology 9, 1-12.
Mackal, R. P. 1976. The Monsters of Loch Ness. The Swallow Press, Chicago.
Mackal, R. P. 1980. Searching for Hidden Animals. Doubleday, Garden City, New York.
Mackal, R. P. 1987. A Living Dinosaur? In Search of Mokele-Mbembe. E. J. Brill, Leiden.
Newton, M. 2005. Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: a Global Guide. McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina, and London.
Raynal, M. 1996. The 'predicted' moth of Madagascar: an ill-known success of cryptozoology. Animals & Men 10, 25-26.
Raynal, M. 2006. Paul Gauguin's mystery bird. In Arment, C. (ed) Cryptozoology and the Investigation of Lesser-Known Mystery Animals. Coachwhip Publication (Landisville, Pennsylvania), pp. 115-136.
Shuker, K. P. N. 1989. Mystery Cats of the World. Robert Hale, London.
Shuker, K. P. N. 1991. Extraordinary Animals Worldwide. Robert Hale, London.
Shuker, K. P. N. 1995. In Search of Prehistoric Survivors. Blandford, London.
Shuker, K. P. N. 1996. Fins, fangs and poison. Fortean Times 93, 44.
Shuker, K. P. N. 1997a. Land of the lizard king. Fortean Times 95, 42-43.
Shuker, K. P. N. 1997b. From Flying Toads to Snakes With Wings. Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Shuker, K. P. N. 2008a. Extraordinary Animals Revisited. CFZ Press, Woolsery, Devon.
Shuker, K. P. N. 2008b. Dr Shuker's Casebook. CFZ Press, Woolsery, Devon.
Yeti
Shaggy-furred, bipedal giant hominid of the Asian mountains
Location: Mostly associated with the Tibetan Plateau, but with accounts of similar creatures from across Asia
Time: known to European explorers from the 1920s onwards, but with many legends and ancient stories said to refer to the same creature
Welcome to Yeti-land!
The Yeti is easily one of the most famous of mystery creatures. The Yeti of the cryptozoological literature is not the shaggy-furred, white snowbeast of Hollywood movies and popular art. Instead, it's a blackish, dark brown, or red-brown animal of the sub-temperate and temperate forests and mountainsides of the Himalayan Mountains and Tibetan Plateau, bipedal and 3m or so in height (though, to be fair, white Yetis have supposedly been reported from Tibet). Eyewitness and mythological accounts believed to describe the Yeti come from such countries as Russia, China, Nepal, Tibet and India. Across this large area, a variety of different local names are believed by cryptozoologists to describe the same creature (Shackley 1983). However, there is much variation in the size, form and behaviour of the hairy ape-men described across this area by witnesses and known from lore, so one interpretation favoured by some cryptozoologists is that we're actually seeing references to a huge cast of unknown hominids that range from shaggy, orangutan-like species to surviving Dryopithecus -like species, australopithecines, Neanderthals, members of Homo erectus and others (Coleman & Huyghe 1999).
This is the only logical interpretation if we choose to imagine all 'wildman' sightings and lore as encounters with real creatures. If, however, these sightings and lore combine mistakes, hoaxes and wishful thinking with the seemingly universal human belief that there have always been wild creatures or spirits that are somehow intermediate between people and the rest of the natural world, it is wisest to interpret all or most 'mystery hominids' as a sort of socio-cultural phenomenon that has been mistakenly 'de-mythified' by cryptozoologists. In view of the continuing lack of good evidence of any sort for Yetis and other mystery hominids, the latter is our preferred option.
Zoologists, biologists and other scientists interested in the concept of the Yeti as a real animal have universally regarded it as a primate, and as a great ape (that is, as a member of Hominidae, the group that includes great apes as well as humans). Its Asian distribution, the general idea that it's approximately similar in some aspects of appearance to orangutans, and the proposal that it might be related to (or a version of) the extinct Asian hominid Gigantopithecus have all combined to create the more specific idea that it's a pongine: that is, a member of the same great ape group as the orangutans, Gigantopithecus and so on. The Orang Pendek of Sumatra has been interpreted as a pongine for the same reasons.
There probably aren't yetis, really
While the idea that the Yeti is a primate, a hominid, and a pongine sounds like a reasonable interpretation of the data, the fact is that - like so many detailed cryptozoological hypotheses - it relies on the integrity and reliability of the supporting anecdotal evidence. Accounts whereby mountaineers and explorers catch glimpses of distant Yetis are well known, as are cases where the same people find large, superficially human-like footprints in the snow. To date, however, reliable evidence that might prov
ide support for the Yeti's existence remains unknown: there are no good photos or bits of film, the few photos of good footprints (notably the Shipton photos of 1951) almost certainly represent hoaxes, and claimed nests, hairs, bones and pieces of skin have all proved inconclusive or misidentified (e.g., Milinkovitch et al. 2004). For all the famous Himalayan expeditions that have gone in search of the Yeti, none have ever come back with any evidence (Prothero & Loxton 2013).
The Yeti is not really the hairy, ape-man-type hominid to the Himalayan people that are supposed to know it best. Instead, it is more amorphous, sometimes imagined or depicted as a humanoid creature that, in other cultures, might be imagined as a demon. This image of a Yeti is copied from a frieze in a Nepalese monastery.
In short, we regard the Yeti as an amalgamation of fleeting glimpses of known animals (including bears, takin and serows) with both the universal wildman archetype and with local Asian lore about humanesque, mountain-dwelling demons. Himalayan depictions of the Yeti do not all make it look like a primate. Some show tailed bipedal creatures with carnivore-type faces and protruding fangs (Davidson 1988).
Yetis: a speculative look
As with Bigfoot, most of the speculations we might make about the Yeti (if we assume it to be real animal) have already been made in the extensive cryptozoological literature on the beast. Heuvelmans (1995) gave the Yeti the suggested scientific name Dinanthropoides nivalis and proposed that giant size evolved within a lineage of arboreal Asian apes, that the members of this lineage came down to the ground, and that specialisation for life in mountainous, snowy places encouraged them to become bipedal. He implied a close link between the Yeti and Gigantopithecus but did not think that these apes were close to orangutans. This scenario would require that Yeti bipedalism evolved independently from that seen in humans and other hominids, and it's contradicted by evidence indicating that hominid bipedalism first evolved in an arboreal setting, later being improved by those lineages that took to increased terrestrial life (see the Orang Pendek section).
While some authors have implied or argued that the Yeti and Bigfoot are members of the human lineage, we prefer the view that these are bipedal pongines, convergently similar to hominins in some ways but different with respect to the details of anatomy, gait and behaviour. Indeed, Yeti sightings create the impression of a hominid not all that different from the paranthropines, the more robust of the extinct, African australopithecines. Dinanthropoides walks bipedally with slightly bent knees, its body leaning more forwards than is the case in our species, and its long arms reaching down to its knees. Its resting poses more recall those of orangutans and gorillas than humans, and it can even move quadrupedally when scrambling up hillside and among large rocks.
Yetis are not reported to use tools. This may, however, be due to a lack of detailed observation. We know today that orangutans, gorillas and chimps all use tools in the wild: these behaviours went unknown for decades and only occur rarely. A strong jaw and massive, strong teeth make Dinanthropoides an expert at breaking fruits and nuts (Tchernine 1974). As a hominid adapted for temperate, often cool, habitats, Dinanthropoides is able to deal with warm summer conditions as well as far cooler, winter ones thanks to seasonal changes in the length and thickness of its pelt, though these changes don't happen across all Yeti populations. Our Himalayan Yetis are in their thinner, reddish summer coats (the scene depicts a time several decades in the past, when the Himalayas were more extensively covered by snow and ice than they are today).
If only more people were prepared to accept the reality of the Yeti, Sasquatch and Orang Pendek, they would realise that the supposed differences between humans and other great apes merely reflects the fact that the 'intermediate' taxa are extinct or scientifically unrecognised. Yet again blinkered, hidebound establishment scientists, more interested in sitting behind their computers than searching the world for real animals, are holding back scientific progress. THEY WILL BE SHOWN WRONG IN THE END!!!
Coleman & Huyghe 1999. The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide. Avon Books, New York.
Davidson, J.-P. 1988. A portrait of the yeti as an ancient ape. BBC Wildlife 6 (10), 540-543.
Heuvelmans, B. 1995. On the Track of Unknown Animals. Kegan Paul International, London.
Milinkovitch, M. C., Caccone, A. & Amato, G. 2004. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the "yeti" and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31, 1-3.
Shackley, M. 1983. Wildmen: Yeti, Sasquatch and the Neanderthal Enigma. Thames and Hudson, London.
Tchernine, O. 1974. The yeti - some of the evidence. Oryx 12 (5), 553-555.
Orang Pendek
Sumatran hominid combining human and orangutan-like traits
Location: Sumatra
Time: known to Europeans from the 1800s onwards, but supposedly known to local people for much longer
Orang Pendek: what the literature says
Orang Pendek - a name that means 'short man' - is one of the few cryptids whose existence is taken seriously by at least a few qualified scientists. What is it? According to eyewitness accounts that date from the early 1800s to the present, it's a persistently bipedal, dark-furred tropical ape from Sumatra. It is reportedly able to climb and is intermediate in body proportions between orangutans and humans. Eyewitness reports are mostly (though not wholly) consistent, come from a remote region where the possible existence of a large, unknown primate is at least plausible, and some even come from people whose credentials and reliability are taken very seriously. Zoologist John MacKinnon - co-describer of the remarkable Saola - reported the discovery of Orang Pendek tracks in his 1974 book In Search of the Red Ape, for example, and primate expert and conservationist Ian Redmond has also said favourable things about the creature (Redmond 1995). Sketches made by eyewitnesses seemingly add an air of authenticity to some of the reported accounts, and hairs and tracks said to belong to the creature are also on record (Chivers 1995, Freeman 2004).
All of this evidence is in agreement with the idea that Orang Pendek is an ape: that is, a member of the primate group Hominidae. But what sort of ape might it be? Its presence in Indonesia and characteristic reddish-brown hair (sometimes described as long, and sometimes as short) both suggest that, if it's real, it might be especially closely related to orangutans and their fossil relatives, a group of hominids termed pongines or pongids. This appealing idea is about consistent with the limb proportions, reported behaviour and habitat preference of the Orang Pendek. In recent decades, belief in the reality of Orang Pendek has mostly been driven by on-the-ground researcher and journalist Debbie Martyr. Martyr has claimed excellent firsthand sightings and has also collected numerous accounts from local people (Martyr 1993), though she has not succeeded in obtaining good photos or other sorts of evidence yet. Inspired by her work, cryptozoological researchers from the UK and elsewhere lead regular expeditions to Sumatra in search of this creature (e.g., Freeman 2004).
A quick evaluation
The idea that Orang Pendek is a genuine undiscovered pongine is appealing and widely accepted by cryptozoologists. However, for all the reasonable eyewitness accounts, there is a troubling lack of photos and none of the claimed supporting evidence - the hairs and tracks - has been properly evaluated, properly published, nor shown by anyone with the relevant qualifications to definitely be from an unknown hominid.
It should also be noted that the eyewitness accounts are not as tidy and consistent as implied. Reddish, orangutan-like fur is described in some accounts, but black, grey and tan fur is reported in others. The creature is said to be essentially human-like in some accounts but longer-armed and more ape-like in others, and some accounts refer to long manes of black or even blonde hair that cover the back down to the waist. There is also the troubling fact that some accounts tell of 'reversed' feet - a semi-mythological motif present in wildman-type cryptids worldwide. Because 'orang pendek' means, literally 'short man', we also know that the ter
m is sometimes misinterpreted by Sumatrans as applying to short individuals of Homo sapiens. This very likely happened in the past, meaning that some Orang Pendek reports may well be descriptions of humans, especially those from unfamiliar, forest-dwelling tribes.
From the sceptical point of view that we endorse, there are therefore some obvious problems with Orang Pendek. The data pool of anecdotes and stories might be tainted with mythological entities of the sort present throughout human cultures, while the inconsistent reports, fleeting, sketchy nature of many accounts and lack of good supporting evidence suggest that even some of the best accounts might actually be misinterpreted descriptions of ground-walking gibbons, siamangs, orangutans or other primates. Having said all that, we remain intrigued about Orang Pendek and really hope that good evidence supporting its reality comes to light.
A speculative look at Orang Pendek
Let's suppose for now that Orang Pendek is real, and that it really is a hominid, and specifically a pongine, related to orangutans but far more terrestrial. One of the most interesting things about orangutans (there are two living species: the Borean Pongo pygmaeus and Sumatran P. abelii) is that they are highly proficient, efficient, capable bipeds, able to walk erect with a striding, straight-kneed, human-like gait. This form of locomotion is mostly used in the trees (Thorpe & Crompton 2006, Thorpe et al. 2007a, b) but they are also capable of moving this way on the ground. Note that gibbons and siamangs - the hylobatids - are also bipedal when on the ground (Vereecke et al. 2006). Because orangutans (and hylobatids) are outside of the hominid clade that includes African apes and humans, their proficient bipedal abilities have led some primatologists to suggest that a bipedal habit was an ancestral feature for hominids, not one unique to humans and their closest relatives.