El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
Cryptozoology (from Greek κρυπτός, kruptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals") is the study of and search for animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogs. It consists of two primary fields of research:
Those involved in cryptozoological study are known as cryptozoologists; the animals that they study are often referred to as "cryptids", a term coined by John Wall in 1983.[2] Cryptozoology has seen very little attention from the mainstream scientific community because it does not follow the scientific method in attempts to support its claims.[3][4] Organizations such as the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, the International Society for Cryptozoology and the Centre for Fortean Zoology have attempted to apply a degree of scientific rigour to their work.
[edit] OverviewInvention of the term "cryptozoology" is often attributed to zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans. But in his book, In the Wake of Sea Serpents, Heuvelmans attributes coinage of the term to the late Scottish explorer and adventurer Ivan T. Sanderson.[5] Heuvelmans' 1955 book, On the Track of Unknown Animals, traces the scholarly origins of the discipline to Anthonid Cornelis Oudemans[6] and his 1892 study, The Great Sea Serpent. Heuvelmans argued that cryptozoology should be undertaken with scientific rigor, but with an open-minded, interdisciplinary approach. He also stressed that attention should be given to local, urban and folkloric sources regarding such creatures, arguing that while often layered in unlikely and fantastic elements, folktales can have small grains of truth and important information regarding these organisms. Loren Coleman, a modern popularizer of cryptozoology, has chronicled the history and personalities of cryptozoology in his books.[7] Another notable book on the subject is Willy Ley's Exotic Zoology (1959). Ley was best known for his writings on rocketry and related topics, but he was trained in paleontology, and did write a number of books about animals. Ley's collection Exotic Zoology is of some interest to cryptozoology, as he discusses the Yeti and sea serpents, as well as relict dinosaurs. The book's first section ("Myth?") entertains the possibility that some legendary creatures (like the sirrush, the unicorn or the cyclops) might be based on actual animals, through misinterpretation of the animals and/or their remains. Perhaps the most rigorously scientific analyses of cryptids can be found in the works of British zoologist and cryptozoologist Dr. Karl Shuker, who has published 12 books and countless articles on numerous cryptozoological subjects since the mid-1980s. The Centre for Fortean Zoology is a UK based organisation dedicated to cryptozoology and allied disciplines. They publish a range of magazines, journals and books on the subject, and carry out expeditions all over the world. [edit] Mainstream science and cryptozoologyDiscoveries of previously unknown animals are often subject to great attention, but cryptozoology per se has seen relatively little interest from mainstream scientists. As historian Mike Dash[8] notes, few scientists doubt there are thousands of unknown animals, particularly invertebrates, awaiting discovery. However, as Dash notes, cryptozoologists are largely uninterested in researching and cataloging newly-discovered species of ants or beetles, instead focusing their efforts towards "more elusive" creatures that have often defied decades of work aimed at confirming their existence. The majority of mainstream criticism of cryptozoology is directed towards the search for megafauna cryptids such as Bigfoot, the Yeren, and the Loch Ness Monster which appear often in popular culture, but for which there is little or no scientific support. Scientists argue that mega-fauna cryptids are unlikely to exist undetected in great enough numbers to maintain a breeding population,[9] and are unlikely to be able to survive in their reported habitats due to issues of climate and food supply.[10] As such, cryptozoology has never been embraced by the scientific community. Most experts on the matter consider the Bigfoot legend to be a combination of folklore and hoaxes,[11] and cryptozoology is considered to be a pseudoscience by mainstream zoologists and biologists.[12][13] Noted objections to cryptozoology include unreliable eyewitness accounts, lack of scientific and physical evidence, and over-reliance on confirmation (confirmation bias) rather than refutation.[11] [edit] SupportersSupporters often argue[2] that cryptozoological evidence is evaluated not on its merits or failings, but rather based on opinions of researchers, or on prevailing paradigms or world views. For example, biological anthropologists Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum have cited what they perceive to be ample physical evidence in support of the existence of Bigfoot, suggesting a surviving population of gigantopithecines. However, their arguments regarding Bigfoot have largely been dismissed by other scientists. Another supposedly well-attested cryptid that was largely ignored by scientists was the Minnesota Iceman of the 1960s,[14] purportedly an unidentified hominid corpse inspected by two cryptologists, Ivan T. Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans, who offered detailed descriptions and photos of the creature; despite their efforts towards evangelizing the case, very few scientists expressed an interest. Skeptics of cryptozoology counter[citation needed] that their skepticism regarding the subject prevents an unwarranted flood of misidentified animal sightings attributed to cryptids. Supporters claim that as in legitimate scientific fields, cryptozoologists are often responsible for disproving their own objects of study. For example, some cryptozoologists have collected evidence that disputes the validity of some facets of the Bigfoot phenomenon.[15][16][17] Cryptozoology supporters have claimed that in the early days of Western exploration of the world, many native tales of local animals initially dismissed as superstition by Western scientists were later proven to have a basis in biological fact,[2] and that many unfamiliar animals, when initially reported, were considered hoaxes, delusions or misidentifications:[2] the platypus, giant squid, okapi, mountain gorilla, grizzly-polar bear hybrid and Komodo dragon are claimed to be examples of creatures whose existence was initially disputed by reputable scientists.[citation needed] There are several animals cited as examples for continuing cryptozoological efforts:
Cryptozoologists contend that as deep ocean remain unexplored, cryptozoological claims about oceanic cryptids should be given more credence. By plotting the discovery rate of new species, C. G. M. Paxton[20] estimated that as many as 47 large oceanic species remain undiscovered. The discoveries of the Coelacanth and the megamouth shark are examples of how deep-sea animals can remain undetected for years. [edit] See also
[edit] Notes and references
[edit] Further reading
[edit] External links Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo |
