What Happened to Cryptozoology?

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

I'd love that "New Species" thread in here, hahaha. The cloning could fall in here or in science and technology.

But thank you! That was a really cool thread, by the way.

Umm, @thesdoc- Dinosaurs have a connotation of being a very old species. I've heard fish, horseshoe crabs, and dragonflies been called "dinosaurs."

By definition yes, they are extinct large reptiles and even if there was a new one found, it would still be a large reptile and probably not a dinosaur.

I was alluding to the more popular use of the term, including species that were around during the same time period.

And technically even a crocodilian could be considered a dinosaur... so it's clearly open to interpretation.

I really do have to get ready now... aaaghghghghghh. So distracting.

reply to post by newworld

---

www.wyrdology.com...

Check it out.

reply to post by Gemwolf

---

I kind of disagree. I think that this split forum is causing the issue, but that's okay. They're not heavily popular topics and for each to have a separate forum would be a waste. (Well, I don't think so, but it would take up space.)

To me, mythical beasts and cryptozoology are very different. And they're combined in a single space, here. It's kind of misleading.

Mythical beasts are the beasts of myth. They can be cryptozoological, but usually they're not. They are included in legend and literature. Mythologists study them.

Cryptozoology is the study of new species, previously extinct species, and unidentified species. It relies on sightings more than stories.

I'm not trying to insult the other half of this forum. I only am interested in the cryptozoological side, and I feel like the threads have been slipping. I ignore vampire threads, because I can't tell them to go away, they share this forum- they're in the mythical section. They're not animal based, they're kind of human based. And you can pull the "humans are animals" thing, but vampires and werewolves are more about human behavior than any zoology.

But in terms of cryptozoology threads, we see the same things over and over. And many of the threads are not actually cryptid-related. Many of them already have threads in the forum on the same topic. It's disappointing when there are so many new things to learn about. But asking "Is bigfoot real?" or compiling information from a bunch of threads into a new one... it's not really tolerated anywhere else on the site. So... I don't know.

reply to post by ravenshadow13

---

Great thread.
One thing though, Horseshoe crabs and coelacanths are "living fossils" not Dinosaurs. That's been bothering me since the OP.
Other than that, I agree. Too much time is spent on Bigfoot and Nessie and not on the countless other cryptids that are out there.
Vampires and the like need a seperate forum, on BTS if possible. Vampires do not count as cryptids. They're folklore, legend, mythology, things of tween girl fantasies, not an unknown species. A vampire counts as a cryptid about as much as a Kryptonian.

reply to post by NotTooHappy

---

I agree with you. "Living fossils." Alright. I mean, whatever. I consider anything that was around in the mesozoic era to be a dinosaur... but um. I'll admit to being wrong. Not about the crocodilians, though.

Dinosaur- Comes from Greek word meaning "Terrible Lizard", coined in 1842 by Sir Richard Owen. Describes the dominant terrestrial vertebrates from the Triassic period to the Late Cretacious.

reply to post by jkrog08

---

Can't be. Not just terrestrial. They count plesiosaurs as dinosaurs.

Sorry for half sentences, nail polish drying.

I am no expert in Crypto or Zoology by any means but I think some people tend to generalize "Dinosaur" erroneously when describing anything prehistoric.

reply to post by ravenshadow13

---

Wow, I got a woman to admit she was wrong and, I wasn't even trying. That doesn't happen very often. I'm gonna have a beer and prepare the celebration ham.
I'll let you get away with the crocs.

reply to post by NotTooHappy

---

If I didn't admit I was wrong sometimes, I'd probably be a troll.

Hahaha.

I know I've heard people describe any species that was around prehistorically as a "dinosaur," including trees.

So I didn't pull it out of the air.

Plus I'm always learning. That's why I keep making threads.

reply to post by ravenshadow13

---

en.wikipedia.org...

The term "terrestrial" was a little misleading without further explanation.

reply to post by jkrog08

---

In zoology, a terrestrial species is one which spends most of it's life on land. Vs aquatic, spends most of it's life on water. But terrestrial could also mean earth-inhabiting.

reply to post by ravenshadow13

---

Yea, I think that was what it meant. I dunno,lol I should have prolly stayed out of it considering I am no expert here,lol.

[edit on 6/3/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by Doc Velocity

---

I agree. I find such beliefs fascinating.

Now I'll get back on topic

I still haven't mentioned what Cryptozoology means to me. I didn't even know it existed until my encounter with the unknown. Since then it has been probably the biggest interest in my life.

For me it is one part trying to prove my story, to find evidence of the 'hairy men' seen all over the world. That was really the driving force behind my initial interest.

But since then, I, like Raven has talked about, have found out about some far more mysterious and interesting cryptids that the world never hears about. Cryptozoology for me now has become a sort of education. There are so many things to learn and digest.

reply to post by fooffstarr

---

Well maybe you should do what Raven is doing and become a professional? Then you might be able to make some real good progress in the field. That is like 10% of the reason I am going into Theoretical Astrophysics or Cosmology, my interest in UFOs.

reply to post by jkrog08

---

Perhaps in the future.

For now I'm focusing on my Journalism credentials. I have my Diploma, and I'm about to start my TV camera qualifications

Just for the record, "Dinosaurs" proper are considered a separate animal group, quite distinct from reptiles.

Reptiles are and have always been cold-blooded creatures with distinct skeletal and motor characteristics — they utilize "side arm" propulsion, for example, with their bellies touching or nearly touching the ground.

Dinosaurs, on the other hand, because of their immense size alone, are thought to have been warm-blooded creatures, probably more akin to birds than to lizards. Dinosaurs also stood tall on their legs, with their body weight high above the ground, like elephants, but entirely unlike reptiles.

Also, the Plesiosaur is not considered a dinosaur — it had distinctly reptilian skeletal characteristics, and is classified as a marine reptile. Interestingly, the Pterosaurs — everyone's favorite "flying dinosaur" — weren't dinosaurs, either, they were reptiles.

— Doc Velocity







[edit on 6/3/2009 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity

---

Reptiles are not necessarily ectoderms.

There is exception to every rule. For instance not all reptiles have three chambered hearts, but most do. Not all reptiles are terrestrial, but most are. (Turtles are not, and some snakes.) Most reproduce sexually, but not all.

Reptiles typically have dry, scaly skin, amniotic eggs, and are vertebrates. Leatherback Sea Turtles are reptiles but are not ectothermic.

Reptiles keep their body far off the ground, compared to amphibians. Their arms are under them more than amphibians. And many reptiles are able to run upright, specifically lizard species.

I don't really want to argue about this. It's not the point of this thread. If you want to argue about dinosaurs and zoology, go somewhere else please.

It's not really cryptozoology, it's paleontology. Which is a BTS topic. If you want to debate cryptozoologically whether or not they're still around, there's a thread for that.

But it's not right here.

[edit on 6/3/2009 by ravenshadow13]

[edit on 6/3/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply to post by ravenshadow13

---

LOL, could you speak English? I did not understand 70% of what you just said?


But to stay on topic of what I THINK you meant.... Yes I agree it is a very shady line between aquatic dinosaurs and land ones.



EDIT to add: The best I can go by is humans have 4 chambered hearts, lol. And from what I remember from A&P2 is that allows humans to function MUCH better and more efficient than other animals with less chambers, am I correct?


[edit on 6/3/2009 by jkrog08]

Okay. I only responded to your repeated and erroneous distinctions between dinosaurs and reptiles. If you prefer to post unchallenged misinformation, that's your prerogative, I suppose. I prefer a little more science in my diet. See ya!

— Doc Velocity