by Darren Naish
A phylogenetic hypothesis for Hominoidea that shows the positions for Bigfoot, Yeti and Orang Pendek preferred by some authors. The tree shape shown here would provide strong support for the idea that striding bipedalism was ancestral for Hominidae, not unique to humans. However, it would require substantial convergent evolution between humans and pongines, especially in foot anatomy.
Indeed, the bipedality reported for several cryptid apes - including Orang Pendek, Bigfoot and Yeti - is especially intriguing within this context. If any or all of these creatures are real (that's a big "if", and one that we're not endorsing in this book), and if they are not members of the human lineage within Hominidae, their discovery would confirm this view: striding bipedality and human-like proportions must have evolved early on in hominids, and later been simply inherited by humans. Conversely, these features were lost in the lineages that led to modern chimps and gorillas. A major problem with this otherwise fine hypothesis, however, is that Bigfoot, Yeti and so on would all have to had convergently evolved human-like feet.
As always, an interpretation of Orang Pendek as a good pongine relies partly on 'picking and choosing' the best-sounding accounts, since there are other Orang Pendek reports that make the creature sound less like a pongine and more like a near-human sort of primate. Indeed, the supposed near-human quality of some Orang Pendek accounts has led some researchers to suggest or imply that Homo floresiensis - a relative of humans from the nearby island of Flores, still alive 18,000 years ago - has persisted in the region.
One possibility that explains the discrepancy in Orang Pendek reports is that we have been afflicted by a blinkered 'single species hypothesis', and that Sumatra is actually home to two or more distinct new hominid species, (at least) one being a pongine and (at least) one being a hominine. We are inspired here by the brilliant multi-species speculations promoted most forcefully by Coleman & Huyghe (1999). After all, Sumatra is a big place. Another possible explanation for the varied Orang Pendek accounts is that people are seeing hybrids between various of these undiscovered hominids. Hey, it happened in North America, right? (Ketchum et al. 2013).
Chivers, D. J. 1995. A giant step-of-a-find for primatekind. BBC Wildlife 13 (12), 23.
Coleman, L. & Huyghe, P. 1999. The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide. Avon Books, New York.
Freeman, R. 2004. In search of orang-pendek. Fortean Times 182, 32-39.
Ketchum, M. S., Wojtkiewicz, P. W., Watts, A. B., Spence, D. W., Holzenburg, A. K., Toler, D. G., Prychitko, T. M., Zhang, F., Bollinger, S., Shoulders, R. & Smith, R.Novel North American hominins, next generation sequencing of three whole genomes and associated studies. DeNovo. 13 February 2013.
Martyr, D. 1993. The other orang. BBC Wildlife 11 (10), 35-36.
Redmond, I. 1995. Eastern primate promise. BBC Wildlife 13 (3), 13.
Thorpe, S. K. S. & Crompton, R. H. 2006. Orangutan positional behaviour and the nature of arboreal locomotion in Hominoidea. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 131, 384-401.
Thorpe, S. K. S., Crompton, R. H., Alexander, R. McN. 2007a. Orangutans use compliant branches to lower the energetic cost of locomotion. Biology Letters 22, 253-256.
Thorpe, S. K. S, Holder, R. L. & Crompton, R. H. 2007b. Origin of human bipedalism as an adaptation for locomotion on flexible branches. Science 316, 1328-1331.
Vereecke, E. E., D'Août, K. & Aerts, P. 2006. Locomotor versatility in the white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar): a spatiotemporal analysis of the bipedal, tripedal, and quadrupedal gaits. Journal of Human Evolution 50, 552-567.
Bigfoot
Famous bipedal giant primate of the North American forests
Location: North America, from coast to coast and from north to south
Time: 1958 to present, though with pre-1958 accounts and First Nations tales and legends from throughout history linked to the phenomenon by some researchers
The Bigfoot phenomenon
Bigfoot - also known as Sasquatch and, increasingly, as the Wood ape (and also by many, many additional local names) - is one of the world's ultimate mystery animals. It enthralls people because it's supposed to be big and formidable in appearance, because it inhabits the wild (and sometimes not so wild) parts of a well-populated, developed land mass (North America), because it's seemingly one of humanity's closest evolutionary relatives, and because there are widespread claims that it's a complex, cultured creature that may occasionally or even regularly interact with members of our own species. This giant primate is universally regarded as a member of Hominidae, the group that includes great apes as well as humans. Ideas differ, however, as to whether Bigfoot is a close relative of us humans, or part of the lineage that includes orangutans (read on).
Of course, this 'scientific' view of Bigfoot represents the modern, rationalised version of an age-old mythical stereotype that has existed in legends, traveller's tales and stories for thousands of years. People have always believed in hairy wildmen that live in the forests and mountains and are somehow intermediate between people and other kinds of animal life. Such creatures are known to cultures worldwide and their presence is recorded in the literature and art of Europe, Asia and Africa as well as North and South America, and even Australia. Cryptozoologists today might believe that they have compelling existing for the genuine existence of Bigfoot, but in fact our view of what the creature is supposed to be like is merely a modern, sanitised and seemingly plausible version of the mythical wildman.
Bigfoot accounts first became known in 1958 when Jerry Crew and his workmates reported the discovery of giant, human-like footprints in the extreme north-west of California. It's generally accepted today that these tracks were faked (Coleman 1995, 2003), but a large number of similar tracks as well as sightings of a dark-furred, hairy ape-man were reported during the 1960s and quickly made Bigfoot a national sensation. Several sightings and stories that pre-date 1958 now came to light, one of which was especially important in shaping our view of what Bigfoot is meant to look like. The account concerned came from a man named William Roe and apparently occurred in 1955. Roe explained that, from a distance of just 6 metres or so, he watched a giant, hairy, herbivorous ape pull branches to its mouth and strip off the leaves with its dextrous lips. Large, rounded breasts demonstrated its female identity. Roe's account was not reported until after 1958.
Another key account comes from 1967 when Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin succeeded in filming another big-breasted Bigfoot at Bluff Creek in California (the same location where the Jerry Crew tracks were discovered). The footage shows an animal very similar to the one described by Roe and it has also helped cement the idea of what Bigfoot is meant to look like. Anthropologists, primatologists, special effects experts, motion analysts and cryptozoologists have argued about the authenticity of the so-called Patterson film for years and argument continues. Today, that piece of film remains one of the main lines of evidence used by Bigfoot proponents to support the creature's existence.
A brief, sceptical look at Bigfoot
An enormous quantity of writing has been devoted to evaluation of the Bigfoot phenomenon. The key cases - the Patterson footage, the best of the footprints and so on - are complex and a huge amount could be said about them. We don't have space for that here so hope that our readers will forgive our terse treatment.
Firstly, while eyewitness accounts describing Bigfoot continue to come in thick and fast, their reliability and authenticity remains more or less untestable. Some surely do describe encounters with large, dark-haired mammals, but none are backed up by data which demonstrates that they are not mistakes, embellishments or outright hoaxes. Secondly, we know without doubt that the hoaxing of Bigfoot tracks, sightings and photographic evidence is ubiquitous. This issue is discussed and credited even by those who support the supposed authenticity of Bigfoot. The fact is, this issue is such a problem that there are not really any bits of 'clean' Bigfoot 'evidence': everything is tainted by the possibility of trickery. Everything.
> Thirdly, despite decades of dedicated searching, despite the sheer inevitability that a giant primate would leave some good evidence of its existence somewhere in North America, and despite innumerable claims, false leads and rumours, a single good piece of compelling Bigfoot evidence - a bone, hair, DNA sample or scat - has yet to pass the test of authenticity. The hairs, droppings, nests, DNA sequences, tracks and so on that have been presented have all proved to be bogus, hoaxed, misinterpreted or inconclusive. None provide positive evidence for Bigfoot's existence, as they should given that it's an animal with a very specific identity (that is, a primate, and specifically a hominid).
Of all the photographic evidence that has been presented, the best, by far, remains the Patterson film. While it does show what seems to be a believable, naturalistic-looking Bigfoot, circumstantial evidence has been building which shows that Patterson - with the help of local friend Bob Hieronymus - planned the footage as a (successful) get-rich-quick scheme (Long 2004, Loxton & Prothero 2013). Note that the Patterson Bigfoot is suspiciously similar to the creature described by Roe. An important point discussed at length by Loxton & Prothero (2013) - we independently reached similar conclusions in the first draft of this book - is that Roe's account was crucial in changing Bigfoot or Sasquatch from a tribe of wild humans into a hairy apeman-type creature. Now, all Bigfoot look like this: that is, like the Roe animal, or the Patterson one. This was not the case prior to the 1950s, nor in fact is there a compelling tradition or history of sightings of big, hairy apemen prior to this time, despite what Bigfoot aficionados say.
Could Bigfoot be real? As sceptics, we are not dismissing this possibility out of hand and dearly hope it to be true. But the fact is that there remains not a single piece of good evidence that can be really be held up in support of this idea.
A speculative look at Sasquatch
As is the case few of the other creatures covered in this book, we don't really need to make any speculations of our own about the biology, anatomy or evolutionary history of Bigfoot because, you see, Bigfoot aficionados have done all of this for us in an extensive, detailed literature. Among the numerous books that discuss the supposed biology and appearance of Bigfoot, the best include Bindernagel (1998), Krantz (1999), Coleman (2003), Murphy et al. (2004) and Meldrum (2006). Alleged eyewitness accounts like Roe's and the Patterson film provide us with a clear view of what Bigfoot is meant to look like: it is a dark-furred hominid that combines features expected in a giant, gorilla-like herbivore with the more human-like aspects reported by witnesses.
Massively muscled, powerful limbs and a giant, well-muscled crest on top of the head are typical features. Females resemble (some) members of our own species in having large, rotund breasts (though in Bigfoot even these are covered in dark fur; an assuredly unexpected feature in Homo sapiens) but even female Bigfoots walk with the sort of gait typical of male humans and do not have the obvious waist and wider hips seen in many female humans. What, if anything, this means for the size of Bigfoot neonates is unknown. Note that the famous Albert Ostman report (Ostman claimed that he was kidnapped by a group of Bigfoot in 1924 and that he was able to make close, detailed observation of their anatomy and behaviour) is inconsistent on this count, since he described the adult female Bigfoot as broad-hipped. We can only assume that he observed a human-Bigfoot hybrid.
Supposed Bigfoot hand impressions made in mud demonstrate the presence of prehensile hands that are essentially human-like but with proportionally shorter fingers and a thumb that is not as muscular at its base nor as well suited for opposability as that of the human thumb. Small, mostly concealed ears and a 'hooded', human-like nose have also been described by witnesses.
Re-drawn version of Roe's obviously female Bigfoot from (apparently) 1955. It has been argued that this vision of the creature shaped all the ideas about Bigfoot that followed.
Overall, Bigfoot is remarkably human-like in such details as breast form, nose anatomy, and in its bipedal striding gait. For these reasons and others, some experts have concluded that Bigfoot is a close relative of humans. Others point to the fact that the knee is apparently kept slightly bent throughout the walk cycle (Krantz 1999) and that the foot is rather more flexible than that present in humans (Meldrum 2004, 2006). Perhaps these features show that Bigfoot is more likely another sort of hominid that is only human-like due to convergent evolution. Krantz (1999) argued that Bigfoot is most likely a new species of the fossil hominid Gigantopithecus that he wanted to name G. canadensis. We support this view, and - as discussed in the Orang Pendek account - we surmise that G. canadensis is a hominin-like pongine, an identification which strengthens the view that striding bipedality was a primitive evolutionary feature for hominids, inherited by members of several lineages but later lost by some. Exciting stuff, and sure to be confirmed as soon as wiley hunters bag their first Bigfoot… as they're sure to do any day now. Err, just like Bigfoot expert John Green said… back in, err, 1970.
Bindernagel, J. A. 1998. North America's Great Ape: the Sasquatch. Beachcomber Books, Courtenay, B.C.
Coleman, L. 1995. Was the first "bigfoot" a hoax? Cryptozoology's original sin. The Anomalist 2, 8-27.
Coleman, L. 2003. Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America. Paraview Pocket Books, New York.
Krantz, G. S. 1999. Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence. Hancock House, Surrey, B.C. & Blaine, WA.
Long, G. 2004. The Making of Bigfoot: the Inside Story. Prometheus Books, Buffalo.
Loxton, D. & Prothero, D. R. 2013. Abominable Science! Columbia University Press, New York.
Meldrum, D. J. 2004. Midfoot flexibility, fossil footprints, and sasquatch steps: new perspectives on the evolution of bipedalism. Journal of Scientific Exploration 18, 65-79.
Meldrum, D. J. 2006. Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. Tom Doherty Associates, New York.
Murphy, C. L., Green, J. & Steenburg, T. 2004. Meet the Sasquatch. Hancock House, Surrey, B.C.
Row
Infamous "surrealist dinosaur of New Guinea"
Location: New Guinea
Time: a single account from some unspecified point in the 1930s or 40s
At home with the Kirrirri
The Row is one of several mystery beasts known only from a single account that is generally not taken that seriously, yet still it finds itself being repeated from time to time. Essentially, everything written about the Row comes from Heuvelmans's On the Track of Unknown Animals, where a whole chapter - titled 'The surrealist dinosaur of New Guinea' - was devoted to it (Heuvelmans 1958). Heuvelmans explained how American adventurer Charles Miller learnt of the Row while staying with the Kirrirri tribe of New Guinea. Horns supposedly belonging to the beast - 45cm long and 15cm wide at the base - were said by the Kirrirri to come from the tail-tip of a gigantic, lizard-shaped beast about 12m long, equipped with a "broad collar" of some sort, and with "large triangular scales... on its spine". Miller noted the similarity between the beast and various Mesozoic dinosaurs, but otherwise reported his scepticism. The name Row was said to be an onomatopoeic reference to the animal's call.
A few days later, however, Miller got to see a Row for himself. His wife reportedly fell to the ground on catching sight of the beast, paralysed with fear, while Miller succeeded in filming the creature during its appearance. Miller described a snaky neck, small forelimbs and the ability to rear up into a bipedal pose, a "snapping turtle-shaped beak", and irregular scales arranged like armour across its yellowish-brown body. Needless to say, neither the alleged film nor any one of the horn-like tail spikes have ever been submitted for examination.
There is no Row, nor was there ever
Heuvelmans was confident that the entire story and even the Kirrirri themselves were errant fabrications, created to make Miller's book more exciting. Miller later became a professional racing driver and pilot and, after the Great War, a stunt-pilot. Heuvelmans regarded it as most likely that the Row was a sort of chimaera, created by cobbling together anatomical details from various Mesozoic dinosaurs: t
he long neck of a sauropod, the frill of a ceratopsian, the plates of a stegosaur, and so on. Seeing as the Row account only comes from a single, fairly untrustworthy source, has not ever been reported by any other witness, and is a somewhat unbelievable beast in any case, Heuvelmans was surely right to reject the case as a hoax.
However, it is slightly ironic that Heuvelmans was so absolutely confident about the fictional nature of the Row, yet so keen to endorse the reality of other outlandish beasts that are not obviously more reliable (like the Long-necked seal, Many-humped sea-serpent, Many-finned sea-serpent or Con Rit, Super-otter, Super-eel and so on).
But what if… the Row were real?
It is fairly obvious that Miller's detailed and doubtless accurate eyewitness account of the Row has been repeatedly misidentified, mostly by authors who cannot help but imagine the creature within the context of a 'dinosaurian' template. A more detailed look - the references to a turtle-like beak, great irregular 'scales' and a snaky neck - reveal that the creature was no dinosaur, but a giant and morphologically remarkable terrestrial turtle, most likely a testudinid. That is, a tortoise.