Draft:Cryptozoologicon: Volume 1
 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 5 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,576 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
| Author | Darren Naish |
|---|---|
| Illustrators | John Conway and C. M. Kösemen |
| Genre | Fiction, speculative evolution, cryptozoology |
| Publisher | Irregular Books |
| Publication date | 31 October 2013 |
| Media type | |
| Pages | 102 |
| ISBN | 978-1291621532 |
Cryptozoologicon: The Biology, Evolution, and Mythology of Hidden Animals is a 2013 cryptozoological art book that analyses cryptids and mythological creatures under a speculative evolutionary analytical lens. Authored by British palaeontologist Darren Naish and illustrated by Australian paleoartist John Conway and Turkish author and illustrator C. M. Kösemen, the book offers a more scientifically grounded perspective of hidden animals and eyewtiness accounts discussing cryptids rooted in an understanding of palaeontology, zoology, ecology, and natural history. Cryptozoologicon does not seek to be an objective portrayal of cryptids, but rather a playful scrutinisation of the potential biology of these organisms in a manner more similar to a case-by-case thought experiment.[1]
Structure, themes, and goal
[edit]Cryptozoologicon was conceptualised as an intersection between speculative zoology, cryptozoology, and the sceptical analysis of cryptozoological literature through biological sciences. Inspired by the success of previous 2012 book All Yesterdays, a paleoartistic reconstruction of dinosaurs and other extinct species, Naish, Conway, and Kösemen sought to create a work that featured "outstanding depictions of cryptids as if they're real animals, and, in addition, [focus] on the speculative ideas about the identities and evolutionary histories of these creatures.".[1]
Cryptozoologicon compiles a collection of twenty-eight cryptids and mythical creatures, scrutinising them under a biological and speculative evolutionary framework in order to suggest hypothetical taxonomic identities for each. Author Darren Naish aims to provide a holistic and satisfying view of the creatures proposed by cryptozoological literature from the perspective of a team deeply familiar with the notions proposed by the "pseudoscience" of cryptozoology and its proprietors, providing an alternative source for scientifically grounded discussions of cryptozoology that deviates from the frequently "unsatisfying" and "cursory" sceptic explanations of critics.[1] A sceptic himself, Naish does not meaningfully indulge eyewitness testimony of cryptids or supposed evidence for the hidden animals, but instead dissects evidence in order to provide foundation for speculative discussion.
Each organism is designated three sections in a case-by-case format; an analysis of pre-existing evidence that allegedly supports the existence of the given cryptid, an evaluation of the evidence and reports in order to conclusively identify whether they refer to a real organism or not (typically resulting in an open-ended or debunked conclusion), and finally, a speculative analysis of the given cryptid from the perspective of speculative evolution in order to suggest a hypothetical taxonomic denomination for the given cryptid. The final section is by no means intended to be treated as an objective solution for the identity of the organism it discusses, and is rather a speculative thought experiment or scenario intended as a playful eventuation of all the data considered for a case from the perspective of fantastical or misguided "anti-science" in a reflection of the accounts and anecdotal evidence that define cryptozoological literature.[1] Naish addresses the reader in the introduction, stressing that; "- if you see cryptozoologists referring to our speculations as if they are presented as serious, Heuvelmans-style explanations for given cryptids - it merely shows that they haven't read the text you're reading right now.".[1]
Each cryptid is illustrated by one of either John Conway or C. M. Kösemen dependent on the case discussed, offering a visual artistic interpretation or construction of the organism suggested in the third section of each case. The illustrations are accompanied by scientific diagrams (including phylogenetic trees when discussing speculative evolutionary processes), illustrated replications of/genuine pieces of visual evidence given for cryptids in accounts, or archaeological depictions of the given cryptids that are cited by believers as being direct evidence for their existence.[1]
Cryptozoologicon seeks to oppose the often baseless and bizarre accounts of cryptozoologists Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson that popularised exotic or Fortean zoology and acted as foundation for the eventual field of cryptozoology as a whole, not to delegitimise cryptozoology and the actual scientific interest that has been invested into the field, but rather to expose the malpractice and proliferation of disinformation that has, and continues to, accrue amongst cryptid discussion. The introduction highlights multiple cryptozoologists as having made substantial contemporary contributions to cryptozoological literature, including biochemist Roy P. Mackal, writer Loren Coleman, and zoologist Dr. Karl Shuker, though maintains that outside of the International Society for Cryptozoology (ISC),[a] much of their publications are not technically evaluated by scientific sources and appeal broadly to popular literature rather than biological discussion.[1] The relationship between creationism and cryptozoological literature is also criticised as damaging the scientific reputation of the field.[1]
Cryptids and mythical creatures discussed
[edit]Cryptozoologicon discusses and hypothesises taxonomic identities for;
- Yeti - p.16-17
- Orang Pendek - p.18-20
- Bigfoot - p.21-24
- Row - p.24-27
- The Canvey Island Monster - p.28-31
- De Loys' Ape - p.32-33
- Chupacabra - p. 34-35
- Waitoreke - p.36-38
- Beast of Gévudan - p.39-41
- Bunyip - p.42-44
- Zuiyo Maru Creature - p.45-47
- Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu - p.48-51
- Long-necked Seal - p.52-55
- Kelpie - p.56-57
- Dingonek - p.58-61
- Cadborosaurus - p.62-64
- Tizheruk - p.64-67
- Buru - p.68-69
- Hoop Snake - p.70-71
- Megalodon - p.72-74
- Ahool - p.75-75
- Trinity Alps Salamander - p.77-78
- Goatman - p.79-80
- Mngwa - p.81-82
- Minhocão - p.83-85
- Gambo - p.86-88
- Con Rit - p.89-91
- Flying Rods - p.92-94
Discussion of cryptozoological literary tropes
[edit]Wildman archetype
[edit]The "wildman" archetype encompasses the hominoid and hominoid-esque monkeys discussed throughout cryptozoological literature as being members of the human lineage, including bigfoot, yeti, orang pendek and the de Loys' ape. Occurring globally as a prevailing cliché in cryptozoological literature, the wildman archetype tends to converge with the popculture perception of the 'missing link' and uninformed popularised assumptions of the nature of human evolution (or evolution in general) as a linear progression from primitive life to perceivably advanced life,[b] and romanticises this notion indirectly by indulging the idea that these cryptids are intermediate between humans and the natural world. Cryptozoologicon posits that the archetype of "mystery hominins" is a socio-cultural phenomenon that has been "de-mythified" by cryptozoologists in the pursuit of tangible organisms rather than the cultural mythos that they represent in actuality.[1]
The book instead hypothetically places bigfoot, yeti, and orang pendek as members of the ponginae subfamily alongside orangutans (Pongo sp.) due to the geographic distribution of the cryptids throughout North America and east and southeast Asia alligning with proposed idea that yeti and bigfoot are genetically similar to Gigantopithecus. In classifying them as such, Cryptozoologicon hypothetically proposes that locomotive bipedalism is ancestral for Hominidae, and that human and pongine foot morphology is an example of convergent evolution in this scenario.[1] The de Loys' ape is instead classed as a platyrrhine monkey closely related to large Protopithecus monkey of the Pleistocene, rather than the missing link it was proposed as being in its initial discovery.[1]
Prehistoric Survivor Paradigm
[edit]Abbreviated as PSP, the Prehistoric Survivor Paradigm is proposed throughout cryptozoological literature and is explained by Cryptozoologicon as being "the idea that cryptids are not only real but also represent the surviving descendants of groups otherwise known only from the fossil record.".[1] The term is used in direct reference to Gambo (a name given to the supposed carcass of an extinct marine reptile) within the book, but is applied in some form to a large demographic of typically reptilian cryptids throughout cryptozoological discussion, purposeful or otherwise, under the assumption that these organisms are or are the descendants of living non-avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs, etc. This idea was propagated thoroughly by Bernard Heuvelmans in his cryptozoological literature.[1]
Reception
[edit]Following its release, Cryptozoologicon was heralded by specialised independent publications for its creativity, uniqueness, and imaginative writing,[2][3][4] though was not significantly covered by larger mainstream publications and news mainly because of its niche subject matter and independent publishing. The book has harboured signifcant contributions to the perception of cryptids in scientific discussion, including the popularisation of speculative zoology in the context of cryptozoology and art related to the reconstruction or interpretation of cryptids from anecdotal evidence online. Geophysicist, journalist, and boardmember of the New York Skeptics, Russ Dobler, interviewed Conway and Kösemen in a 2021 AIPT Science article about the book where he acclaimed it for its "vivid, unique illustrations.".[2]
In an article published by American science and internet culture news site Gizmodo, established science journalist Annalee Newitz heralds Cryptozoologicon as having the potential to "revolutionize the field of monster studies" and describes it as a "brilliantly funny book" that acts as a complex "merger between speculative fiction and scientific analysis, which the group also showcased in their previous collaboration, All Yesterdays.".[3] She considers it a "rare subgenre of science fiction" in its speculative evolution approach to cryptozoology, with its uniqueness being amplified through its tone of descriptions and artistic interpretation of the organisms it discusses.[3]
In a review by author and geologist, Sharon A. Hill, she commends the effort made by Cryptozoologicon to scrutinise and contest the accounts of prolific authors within the field, particularly Heuvelmans.[4] She notes that "The self-styled cryptozoologist type will dislike this book" and that "modern monster hunters will be dismissive." due to the measures to discourage the continued use of zoological literacy[c] in the field, though she applauds the re-evaluation of cryptozoology from a satirical, creative, and indulgent lens.[4] One criticism she offers is that the sometimes "snarky" tone of the book may be off-putting to uninformed or unfamiliar readers who are new to cryptozoological literature and are not yet well-versed in either Naish's other work or the "inside baseball stuff of vertebrate zoology".[4]
Notes
[edit]- ↑ Founded by Roy P. Mackal and Richard Greenwell in 1982, the ISC was a peer-reviewed science journal focused on the discussion and evaluation of cryptids. It disbanded in 1998.
- ↑ The theory that evolution is the linear progression from an archaic organism to an advanced human-like organism is an anthropocentric hierarchy coined the Great chain of being. It is also referred to as scala naturae and is considered highly outdated in the context of modern evolutionary understanding.
- ↑ In the context of cryptozoology, "zoological literacy" refers to the prolific tendency of cryptozoologists to propose that cryptids are examples of new species or previously extinct species while ignoring more grounded explanations that would dispell conclusions of this nature entirely. Cryptozoologicon satirises this and takes it to the extreme through speculative zoology.
References
[edit]- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Conway, John; Kösemen, C. M.; Naish, Darren (31 October 2013). Cryptozoologicon. Vol. 1. Irregular Books. ISBN 978-1291621532.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link) - 1 2 Dobler, Russ (15 February 2021). "'Cryptozoologicon: Volume 1' speculates on cryptid biology". AIPT Science. Retrieved 2 October 2026.
- 1 2 3 Newitz, Annalee (6 February 2014). "Cryptozoologicon Could Revolutionize the Field of Monster Studies". Gizmodo. Retrieved 2 October 2026.
- 1 2 3 4 Hill, Sharon (12 December 2013). "Imagineering cryptids: The Cryptozoologicon (Book review)". Sharonahill.com. Lithospherica, LLC. Retrieved 2 October 2026.