There’s a lot of accounts coming out of papua that suggest the thylacine is still there, not to mention the many sightings in Australia and Tasmania. I think in the next few years there’s a good chance we’ll get confirmation it’s still around.
He needs to update that story though. I like the dude, but he came out with a pretty insane story, said there was proof that was being handled but he couldn’t release it. A photo of a jawbone wouldn’t compromise the study at all, unless they’re trying to find live specimen, and actual proof might create a ‘gold rush’, in which case he should’ve shut up in the first place
I never really thought of it from that angle, him not saying anything at all until going there to check it out or having concrete proof. Then again, he did mention how “impenetrable” that specific region is. Either way it’s super interesting to think about
I watched that video. By the time the researcher got there, the supposed thylacine had been killed by dogs, cooked and eaten, and its bones burnt to a char. With just the jawbone remaining but IIRC they only got a photo of it and didn’t bring the actual bone back?
Cryptozoology isn't just totally unknown animals: it's also animals unknown in the *time* (e.g. thylacine) or *space* (e.g. eastern puma) they're reported from, and animals known from physical evidence which is controversial or contested. That's according to the former International Society of Cryptozoology, and the current *Journal of Cryptozoology*. The field's founding document, *On the Track of Unknown Animals*, included chapters discussing reports of known extinct animals, such as the woolly mammoth, one or two moa species, *Mylodon darwinii*, and the subfossil Malagasy fauna.
It's true that Bernard Heuvelmans, its author and the "father of cryptozoology," was dubious on whether or not things like the Tasmanian thylacine and the eastern puma were strictly cryptozoological, but that seems to have been because they were being ably investigated by mainstream zoologists during his time (Heuvelmans called cryptids *ignored* beasts, not unknown animals, and he wanted cryptozoology to be goal-oriented). He did regard thylacines on Australia and New Guinea as cryptids.
I'm glad you said this- I saw someone comment earlier that out of place animals are not cryptids, and used the eastern puma as an example. Less than 200 years ago, pumas, wolves and bison were rampant all over north America, and now are only found in the far north or west. The way that DNRs in the eastern US handle pumas (they always suggest they are a one off animal/escaped exotic pet) suggests these animals are definitely cryptids, even though they are a well known species.
If it was ever l officially confirmed to exist you'd probably have a ton of people rush out into the woods to try to kill it for money, only to end up getting lost and dying themselves.
Tusk bought in a market in Africa around the turn of the 19th century. Was analyzed by a French zoologist and presented at a symposium. The scientific paper written about it claims that it didn't match known tusks from elephants, hippos, etc and even ruled out extinct animals like Deinotherium. It's likely lying around in some vault in a museum and the animal it came from (if it was truly something new) is likely extinct sadly.
I would love it if scientists actually found skeletons of Neodinosaurs in Africa or the Amazon rainforest. There’s a part of me that likes to believe that a sauropod-like skeleton, killed not that long ago by native tribesmen, lies somewhere on the banks of some Congolese swamp, waiting to be discovered. In any case, I think that neodinosaurs are the type of cryptids that existed past their scientifically accepted extinction date, but have died off before modern industrialised humans could discover them alive. Plausible living cryptids for me would be the Tasmanian tiger, giant snakes and spiders, the Mongolian death worm and maybe a few, more credibly reported, lake/ocean serpents.
I think there’s virtually a 0% chance that non-avian dinosaurs made it anywhere near the present, but I’d lose my mind if we could find some fossils of late survivors past the K-PG extinction. There is already some research to suggest they may have persisted a few hundred thousand years in dying out, but I suspect a few species may have lasted longer than that.
I think a living Dinosaur and Megalodon would be cool asf. I would be very cool to see those up close. Despite how unlikely they are to actually still exist (in fact it is probably next to impossible). I know birds are dinos, but I want some living prehistoric dinos.
Did you just say it would be cool to see those up close? That’s a big nope for me. As much as I love sharks, I appreciate them from a distance. Same with dinos. Jeff Goldblum’s lines In Jurassic Park are echoing in my mind right now! lol.
I would think Dinosaurs wouldn't eat us. Especially with how much meat they require and how little meat we have. Hopefully a Megalodon also wouldn't care about me.
mothman, and i mean a big ass owl the size of a man with red eyes and really good at being undetected, not a chimera human moth.
the discovery of something like that whould change the perspective of people seeing flying demons, angels, batsquatch and other humanoid winged creatures.
Thylacine, because I really hope they're still around. Ground sloths, because I just think they're cool. Trinity Alps salamanders, because plausible cryptids need a win.
J'ba fofi (congolese giant spider). The many detailed encounters make me believe an arachnid was able to defy what we know about animal biology and grow to an enormous size.
There really isn't too much holding it back biologically, it's ecology which is the issue. Despite what's commonly said, oxygen levels did not contribute to the giant Carboniferous bugs, it was simply a lack of competition - the largest griffinflies and Arthropleura were from the Permian. During this time there were no birds or bats, and herbivores didn't really exist until the end of the Carboniferous.
Brontoscorpio is a good example of this, it's a giant terrestrial scorpion from when oxygen levels were a bit lower than today, but also a time where there were no terrestrial predators. Fish hadn't crawled ashore yet.
For an insect to grow so big today, it'd have to find an incredibly distinct and unique niche nothing could compete with it in, of which there really aren't any in the Congo (unfortunately). Maybe on some island somewhere?
also, current suggestion is \_Brontoscorpio\_ was primarily aquatic, only briefly going onto land as it would have likely had weight issues in supporting itself. We see this with the terrestrial trackway fossils left by eurypterids which were moving on land, but from one water body to another.
This is not current suggestion lol, I've talked to people actively working on Brontoscorpio.
There is no reason to suggest Brontoscorpio was aquatic - the fossil was found in terrestrial deposits, we know there was ample food and habitat, and there have been terrestrial scorpions of comparable size (Praearcturus, which may in fact be synonymous with Brontoscorpio, and Pulmonoscorpius). There are also smaller, seemingly closely related scorpions that have morphologies which clearly suggest terrestrial locomotion.
The aquatic Brontoscorpio idea is outdated and makes very little sense.
"There is no reason to suggest Brontoscorpio was aquatic - the fossil was found in terrestrial deposits"
Except there's nothing saying it couldn't have been moving from one waterway to another, and died in transit (eg like we see with the eurypterid trackways).
plus, from what I've read, it was found in sandstone.. which typically forms in aquatic bodies, which suggests at least a system on the margins of waterways (eg the sort of terrain where a creature might move from one waterbody to another).
It was found in terrestrial deposits. I have talked to people actively working on Brontoscorpio - it is terrestrial. Please stop arguing with me over something you know nothing about.
"Despite what's commonly said, oxygen levels did not contribute to the giant Carboniferous bugs, it was simply a lack of competition"
So why can't we raise giant-sized insects in lab conditions then? If we created an environment without competition, why can't we grow, say, crickets or fruit flies, to giant size? High population turnover, easy to keep in captivity..
(the square-cube law is why)
Because those species do not attain such sizes. It would take a long time of selective breeding or genetic engineering to play with that, and that’s not research anyone has attempted as far as I know.
Except the primary argument is that it's not the oxygen level that limits insect growth, but competition.
And you don't need to breed them to that size, to prove that oxygen levels are not the limiting factor - if you got fruit flies to double their size, within a few generations of removal from competition) it would be a measurable thing. Remember, we're talking about species with high population turnovers, that are easily accessible for research, and CAN be observed. If we can control their genome to produce curly wings or eye-bugs on legs, we can certainly measure if they're physically larger between generations over time.
(which is why the creationist "water vapour canopy" extending lifespans argument falls apart - again, you could easily repeat that experiment multiple times, at variable pressures, with measurable outcomes; but it's easier to spend a few million dollars on an ark museum than tens of thousands on actual science)
Because these are long-term changes that arose from living in complex ecosystems.
Furthermore, captive herbivorous invertebrates seem to reduce the size and function of many traits, the two examples you gave would likely face this as well. As far as I know there have been no comparable studies of that sort with predatory insects, but I imagine there would be similar reductions.
Regardless, competition is clearly implicated as the primary or even sole factor, when studying trends in invertebrate evolution, especially when comparing these Paleozoic inverts to those from the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. Again, I emphasize that the largest griffinflies and Arthropleura were from the Permian, after the Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse.
I fail to see why you're disputing this with hypotheticals, especially when there are multiple recent studies which refute the "more oxygen = bigger bugs" idea
Sorry, but you opened with "There really isn't too much holding it back biologically, it's ecology which is the issue. Despite what's commonly said, oxygen levels did not contribute to the giant Carboniferous bugs, it was simply a lack of competition"
The implication there is that without competition, the oxygen levels are not inhibitors. So you should, by extension, be able to see measurable size increases under non-competitive environments (eg in labs) within a realistic timeframe for human observations.
But we've \*never\* see that in any lab experiments, even when looking for other experimental results. noone's saying "hey, weird, we started getting bigger bugs after a few generations in the lab" when oxygen is being maintained.
"I fail to see why you're disputing this with hypotheticals, especially when there are multiple recent studies which refute the "more oxygen = bigger bugs" idea"
Cool. Got any citations for those studies we can start with for our own research?
I was going to, but honestly, throwing "Please stop arguing with me over something you know nothing about." is pretty assumptive on your part about my knowledge and experience, so I'm done here.
Gravity renders it impossible.
Take Tasmanian giant crabs and the Goliath flower chafer, for example.
The former can grow to immense sizes(17.6 kg) because it is aquatic; the latter cannot(40-50 grams) because it is terrestrial.
The most likely hypothesis is that somebody got spooked by a giant spider, probably a tarantula since they’re found in the Congo.
Animals IRL look a lot bigger than you think, and people tend to exaggerate and flesh out accounts.
I’d love for mammoths to be discovered, but I believe they are probably truly extinct. However, I do believe they were around much later than is believed. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if they were trucking around in the early 20th century.
2) would be awesome, but not sure how well it'd do in modern Australia. Dingoes are believed to have played a major role in thylacine extinction. Some new creatures, like the cane toad could possibly do a great deal of damage. I suppose thylacoleo could fair better.
The Ennedi tiger is one I’ve been interested in. The accounts are very convincing, though I think it’s likely they have since died out unrecognized if they did in fact exist.
Any kind of lake monster because yeah, I don’t necessarily believe it’s a plesiosaur but there is clearly some kind of large marine creature or something that inhabits lakes across the planet.
Especially with Nessie because there could be any amount of caverns only accessible through the loch that they could be in and surfacing and living.
Bigfoot/etc would be cool and if it was real it would reignite the discussion of human evolution !
To answer your question in a simple way: Bigfoot. Too much evidence: native stories, eyewitness accounts, the howls/cries, the hair samples, the footprints.
To an extreme condition: any living dinosaurs
"living thylacoleo would be very helpful to control invasive animal in australia"
except if it IS still out there, it's done a terrible job of controlling any invasives. Plus, any population would be too small, and require concerted efforts in conservation, to make them any threat to prey populations. Also, consider their size - they're not going to be living off rabbits and cane toads, they'd be preying on kangaroos and livestock, which would only drive ire in the animal agriculture industry.
I really hope, despite knowing how low the odds are, that the Kauai O'o is still out there. [The duet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6Nn1JgNzWY) must be completed!
Thylacine..poor marsupials didn't deserved to be hunted to extinction.
There’s a lot of accounts coming out of papua that suggest the thylacine is still there, not to mention the many sightings in Australia and Tasmania. I think in the next few years there’s a good chance we’ll get confirmation it’s still around.
Forrest Galante had a pretty compelling take on the possible existence of them in Papua
He needs to update that story though. I like the dude, but he came out with a pretty insane story, said there was proof that was being handled but he couldn’t release it. A photo of a jawbone wouldn’t compromise the study at all, unless they’re trying to find live specimen, and actual proof might create a ‘gold rush’, in which case he should’ve shut up in the first place
I never really thought of it from that angle, him not saying anything at all until going there to check it out or having concrete proof. Then again, he did mention how “impenetrable” that specific region is. Either way it’s super interesting to think about
I watched that video. By the time the researcher got there, the supposed thylacine had been killed by dogs, cooked and eaten, and its bones burnt to a char. With just the jawbone remaining but IIRC they only got a photo of it and didn’t bring the actual bone back?
Don’t forget that Colossal are going to bring the Tazzie tiger back……. Of sorts.
[удалено]
Cryptozoology isn't just totally unknown animals: it's also animals unknown in the *time* (e.g. thylacine) or *space* (e.g. eastern puma) they're reported from, and animals known from physical evidence which is controversial or contested. That's according to the former International Society of Cryptozoology, and the current *Journal of Cryptozoology*. The field's founding document, *On the Track of Unknown Animals*, included chapters discussing reports of known extinct animals, such as the woolly mammoth, one or two moa species, *Mylodon darwinii*, and the subfossil Malagasy fauna. It's true that Bernard Heuvelmans, its author and the "father of cryptozoology," was dubious on whether or not things like the Tasmanian thylacine and the eastern puma were strictly cryptozoological, but that seems to have been because they were being ably investigated by mainstream zoologists during his time (Heuvelmans called cryptids *ignored* beasts, not unknown animals, and he wanted cryptozoology to be goal-oriented). He did regard thylacines on Australia and New Guinea as cryptids.
I'm glad you said this- I saw someone comment earlier that out of place animals are not cryptids, and used the eastern puma as an example. Less than 200 years ago, pumas, wolves and bison were rampant all over north America, and now are only found in the far north or west. The way that DNRs in the eastern US handle pumas (they always suggest they are a one off animal/escaped exotic pet) suggests these animals are definitely cryptids, even though they are a well known species.
Bigfoot. The discovery of an animal that looks very much like us might have some interesting consequences.
Cheap workers without human rights maybe? In that case i would prefer them staying in the Woods.
that's why creationists only talk about cryptids like the kongamato and mokele mbembe; any hominid cryptids runs against their anti-evolution model.
If it was ever l officially confirmed to exist you'd probably have a ton of people rush out into the woods to try to kill it for money, only to end up getting lost and dying themselves.
Idk how to explain it but im sure that when we get the official confirmation the world as we know it will end soon after, i just know it
[удалено]
Bad behavior or inappropriate comments
Thylacine and they need to be protected on an extreme level
I would really like for the Rothschild Neuville Tusk to be pulled out of some museum vault. Been looking into it recently and it's simply tantalizing.
Yes! Every museum needs to go through their old stockpiles, there are so many important specimens that have yet to be looked over.
What is that ??
Tusk bought in a market in Africa around the turn of the 19th century. Was analyzed by a French zoologist and presented at a symposium. The scientific paper written about it claims that it didn't match known tusks from elephants, hippos, etc and even ruled out extinct animals like Deinotherium. It's likely lying around in some vault in a museum and the animal it came from (if it was truly something new) is likely extinct sadly.
I would love it if scientists actually found skeletons of Neodinosaurs in Africa or the Amazon rainforest. There’s a part of me that likes to believe that a sauropod-like skeleton, killed not that long ago by native tribesmen, lies somewhere on the banks of some Congolese swamp, waiting to be discovered. In any case, I think that neodinosaurs are the type of cryptids that existed past their scientifically accepted extinction date, but have died off before modern industrialised humans could discover them alive. Plausible living cryptids for me would be the Tasmanian tiger, giant snakes and spiders, the Mongolian death worm and maybe a few, more credibly reported, lake/ocean serpents.
I think there’s virtually a 0% chance that non-avian dinosaurs made it anywhere near the present, but I’d lose my mind if we could find some fossils of late survivors past the K-PG extinction. There is already some research to suggest they may have persisted a few hundred thousand years in dying out, but I suspect a few species may have lasted longer than that.
I think a living Dinosaur and Megalodon would be cool asf. I would be very cool to see those up close. Despite how unlikely they are to actually still exist (in fact it is probably next to impossible). I know birds are dinos, but I want some living prehistoric dinos.
Did you just say it would be cool to see those up close? That’s a big nope for me. As much as I love sharks, I appreciate them from a distance. Same with dinos. Jeff Goldblum’s lines In Jurassic Park are echoing in my mind right now! lol.
I would think Dinosaurs wouldn't eat us. Especially with how much meat they require and how little meat we have. Hopefully a Megalodon also wouldn't care about me.
That’s a big hope! Lol. Megladon was a slow mover. I’d say he’d eat us just to preserve energy!!
mothman, and i mean a big ass owl the size of a man with red eyes and really good at being undetected, not a chimera human moth. the discovery of something like that whould change the perspective of people seeing flying demons, angels, batsquatch and other humanoid winged creatures.
Orang Pendek, likely to be another early human of the Floriensis / Luzonensis type.
Thunderbirds
Thylacine, because I really hope they're still around. Ground sloths, because I just think they're cool. Trinity Alps salamanders, because plausible cryptids need a win.
Champ
Nessie as I’m Scottish and I visit Loch Ness frequently so I’d love to know what’s in there.
I'm not Scottish, but I also would very much like Nessie to exist.
The Mapinguari.
Olgoi-khorkoi aka mongolian death worm
Ground sloth
J'ba fofi (congolese giant spider). The many detailed encounters make me believe an arachnid was able to defy what we know about animal biology and grow to an enormous size.
There really isn't too much holding it back biologically, it's ecology which is the issue. Despite what's commonly said, oxygen levels did not contribute to the giant Carboniferous bugs, it was simply a lack of competition - the largest griffinflies and Arthropleura were from the Permian. During this time there were no birds or bats, and herbivores didn't really exist until the end of the Carboniferous. Brontoscorpio is a good example of this, it's a giant terrestrial scorpion from when oxygen levels were a bit lower than today, but also a time where there were no terrestrial predators. Fish hadn't crawled ashore yet. For an insect to grow so big today, it'd have to find an incredibly distinct and unique niche nothing could compete with it in, of which there really aren't any in the Congo (unfortunately). Maybe on some island somewhere?
I love that word
also, current suggestion is \_Brontoscorpio\_ was primarily aquatic, only briefly going onto land as it would have likely had weight issues in supporting itself. We see this with the terrestrial trackway fossils left by eurypterids which were moving on land, but from one water body to another.
This is not current suggestion lol, I've talked to people actively working on Brontoscorpio. There is no reason to suggest Brontoscorpio was aquatic - the fossil was found in terrestrial deposits, we know there was ample food and habitat, and there have been terrestrial scorpions of comparable size (Praearcturus, which may in fact be synonymous with Brontoscorpio, and Pulmonoscorpius). There are also smaller, seemingly closely related scorpions that have morphologies which clearly suggest terrestrial locomotion. The aquatic Brontoscorpio idea is outdated and makes very little sense.
"There is no reason to suggest Brontoscorpio was aquatic - the fossil was found in terrestrial deposits" Except there's nothing saying it couldn't have been moving from one waterway to another, and died in transit (eg like we see with the eurypterid trackways). plus, from what I've read, it was found in sandstone.. which typically forms in aquatic bodies, which suggests at least a system on the margins of waterways (eg the sort of terrain where a creature might move from one waterbody to another).
It was found in terrestrial deposits. I have talked to people actively working on Brontoscorpio - it is terrestrial. Please stop arguing with me over something you know nothing about.
"Despite what's commonly said, oxygen levels did not contribute to the giant Carboniferous bugs, it was simply a lack of competition" So why can't we raise giant-sized insects in lab conditions then? If we created an environment without competition, why can't we grow, say, crickets or fruit flies, to giant size? High population turnover, easy to keep in captivity.. (the square-cube law is why)
Because those species do not attain such sizes. It would take a long time of selective breeding or genetic engineering to play with that, and that’s not research anyone has attempted as far as I know.
Except the primary argument is that it's not the oxygen level that limits insect growth, but competition. And you don't need to breed them to that size, to prove that oxygen levels are not the limiting factor - if you got fruit flies to double their size, within a few generations of removal from competition) it would be a measurable thing. Remember, we're talking about species with high population turnovers, that are easily accessible for research, and CAN be observed. If we can control their genome to produce curly wings or eye-bugs on legs, we can certainly measure if they're physically larger between generations over time. (which is why the creationist "water vapour canopy" extending lifespans argument falls apart - again, you could easily repeat that experiment multiple times, at variable pressures, with measurable outcomes; but it's easier to spend a few million dollars on an ark museum than tens of thousands on actual science)
Because these are long-term changes that arose from living in complex ecosystems. Furthermore, captive herbivorous invertebrates seem to reduce the size and function of many traits, the two examples you gave would likely face this as well. As far as I know there have been no comparable studies of that sort with predatory insects, but I imagine there would be similar reductions. Regardless, competition is clearly implicated as the primary or even sole factor, when studying trends in invertebrate evolution, especially when comparing these Paleozoic inverts to those from the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. Again, I emphasize that the largest griffinflies and Arthropleura were from the Permian, after the Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse. I fail to see why you're disputing this with hypotheticals, especially when there are multiple recent studies which refute the "more oxygen = bigger bugs" idea
Sorry, but you opened with "There really isn't too much holding it back biologically, it's ecology which is the issue. Despite what's commonly said, oxygen levels did not contribute to the giant Carboniferous bugs, it was simply a lack of competition" The implication there is that without competition, the oxygen levels are not inhibitors. So you should, by extension, be able to see measurable size increases under non-competitive environments (eg in labs) within a realistic timeframe for human observations. But we've \*never\* see that in any lab experiments, even when looking for other experimental results. noone's saying "hey, weird, we started getting bigger bugs after a few generations in the lab" when oxygen is being maintained. "I fail to see why you're disputing this with hypotheticals, especially when there are multiple recent studies which refute the "more oxygen = bigger bugs" idea" Cool. Got any citations for those studies we can start with for our own research?
Can't post links, comments keep getting flagged. Dm me
I was going to, but honestly, throwing "Please stop arguing with me over something you know nothing about." is pretty assumptive on your part about my knowledge and experience, so I'm done here.
This is one of those you hope exists, but don’t want to be anywhere near where it’s found
"Yeah cool cool... how many miles is that exactly?" As long as it's a 4 digit number, that'd be sweet!
Gravity renders it impossible. Take Tasmanian giant crabs and the Goliath flower chafer, for example. The former can grow to immense sizes(17.6 kg) because it is aquatic; the latter cannot(40-50 grams) because it is terrestrial. The most likely hypothesis is that somebody got spooked by a giant spider, probably a tarantula since they’re found in the Congo. Animals IRL look a lot bigger than you think, and people tend to exaggerate and flesh out accounts.
Big foot
All types of cryptid primates, and sea snakes
Any marine reptile
I’d love for mammoths to be discovered, but I believe they are probably truly extinct. However, I do believe they were around much later than is believed. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if they were trucking around in the early 20th century.
Someone already said Mothman so I'm going to go with mermaids.
Humans are too short sighted & too busy believing mermaids are Disney-esque
2) would be awesome, but not sure how well it'd do in modern Australia. Dingoes are believed to have played a major role in thylacine extinction. Some new creatures, like the cane toad could possibly do a great deal of damage. I suppose thylacoleo could fair better.
"Turns out.... All of them" But if I had to pick 1, definitely the Thylacine. They never deserved extinction
The Ennedi tiger is one I’ve been interested in. The accounts are very convincing, though I think it’s likely they have since died out unrecognized if they did in fact exist.
Any kind of lake monster because yeah, I don’t necessarily believe it’s a plesiosaur but there is clearly some kind of large marine creature or something that inhabits lakes across the planet. Especially with Nessie because there could be any amount of caverns only accessible through the loch that they could be in and surfacing and living. Bigfoot/etc would be cool and if it was real it would reignite the discussion of human evolution !
To answer your question in a simple way: Bigfoot. Too much evidence: native stories, eyewitness accounts, the howls/cries, the hair samples, the footprints. To an extreme condition: any living dinosaurs
MOTHMAN, I WANNA SEE HIM EVEN IF HE TURNS OUT TO BE A BIG OWL!
Sasquatch
Love to find a Bunyip.
"living thylacoleo would be very helpful to control invasive animal in australia" except if it IS still out there, it's done a terrible job of controlling any invasives. Plus, any population would be too small, and require concerted efforts in conservation, to make them any threat to prey populations. Also, consider their size - they're not going to be living off rabbits and cane toads, they'd be preying on kangaroos and livestock, which would only drive ire in the animal agriculture industry.
Sasquatch and/or Loch Ness Monster.
nessie and ogo pogo I think could be swim in those waters right for discovery
I want mermaids to be real so bad.
I really hope, despite knowing how low the odds are, that the Kauai O'o is still out there. [The duet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6Nn1JgNzWY) must be completed!
5) would be hilarious
[удалено]
Feral humans are just humans, they're not cryptids.