Talk:List of cryptids

Snallygaster

The snallygaster, a reptile/dragon-like bird from Virginia, originates in the blue ridge mountains and is described by early settlers. Mymomsaysimspecial (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that discuss this thing (see the Wikipedia policy WP:RS to learn what qualifies as a reliable source)? If so, please share them here, whereat you and other editors can discuss it and, perhaps, your desired content can be included in the article. If there are no such sources the snallygaster won't be included. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

And read wp:or, the source has to say it is a cryptid, and not (for example) a character in a game. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm now suspecting that it might be a legitimate (so to speak) entry for this page. See, of all things, Snallygaster. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

From what I have read, it is a fearsome critter, and not a cryptid. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, Snallygasters have feelings too, you know. Carlstak (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Van Meter Visitor

In the town of Van Meter Iowa there is a well known cryptid known as the Van Meter visitor, it supposedly was spotted by multiple people and resembled a bat-pterosaur with a light on its head. They also have a cast of supposedly the creatures footprint. I was wondering if it should be added to the list, it may fall under the thunderbird category but there are cryptids that fall under the Yeti category on here and have their own section. ~2026-70547-1 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Deletion/merger discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptid town

The article Cryptid town has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptid town. An editor has suggested partial merger of content from Cryptid town into Cryptozoology as an alternative to deletion. Please join the discussion in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptid town to weigh in. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

"List of relicts" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of relicts has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 13 § List of relicts until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Relict hominid

Relict hominid exists as a redirect to List of cryptids#Hominid. Like so many things in this arena, the term relict hominid is poorly defined. It has sometimes been used by cryptozoologists but usage appears broader and may refer to wild men, the "missing link", some of the entries listed at apeman, and others. The Ukrainian forest diety Chuhaister is even described as a "relict hominid" in the infobox. I think we should delete this redirect since the meaning of this term is vague. But if we were to keep it, we should confirm that hominid cryptid is the primary meaning, add a well-sourced definition, and bold relict hominid after the section heading, in accordance with MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and WP:RSURPRISE. Rather than proceed directly to WP:RFD, I'm starting here to see if other editors think this belongs and can find a suitable definition to include in support of keeping this redirect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Relict hominid for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Relict hominid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relict hominid until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Rougarou

In Louisiana there is the Rougarou, originally called the Loup Garou. ~2026-28007-21 (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Loup garou is French for Werewolf. See also Loup-garou (disambiguation). Donald Albury 17:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

"Shrimpy" Notability

Haven't been through the archives yet, but my gut feeling is that Strange Magazine likely doesn't meet WP:RS criteria and may be considered a WP:FRINGE source. The second source appears to be a local paper doing a local interest piece. The paper even notes "The story is a fairly obscure one outside of certain circles of cryptid aficionados." Not a ringing endorsement for notability, particularly when compared to the major news outlets and published works being cited for the others in the semi/aquatic section. Additionally, all other entries (excepting the Kandahar Giant, which may also lack notability) have their own articles. Should this be removed? --Crimson Bleeding SouIIs (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed Shrimpy. The Strange Magazine source is a first-person account, described as: The following are alleged firsthand experiences with the stranger side of life. None of the following extraordinary experiences have been investigated -- they are reproduced here as raw data, to be analyzed by some and enjoyed by others. Peak unreliability! The Kitsap Sun article basically describes all the reasons this is not notable and not suitable for inclusion. It confirms that the Strange Mag article is the only documented account, that this "cryptid" is largely unknown, and that the most basic facts of the story do not check out. This is basically one guy's pet project to make Shrimpy happen. Inclusion here is arguably promotional for his website and other endeavors. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Removal of Homo floresiensis from the list of cryptids

I propose removing Homo floresiensis from the hominid section of this list, or replacing it with Ebu gogo, which is the actual folkloric/cryptozoological subject.

1. H. floresiensis is a formally described, well-documented species, not an unverified animal. A cryptid is an animal whose existence is claimed but unsubstantiated. H. floresiensis was named in Nature in 2004 (Brown et al.), with LB1 as holotype. Remains of about 15 individuals are now known from Liang Bua (Morwood et al. 2005; Kaifu et al. 2015). Older fossils from Mata Menge, about 700,000 years old, were described in 2016 (van den Bergh et al.; Brumm et al.) and assigned to the species in 2024 (Kaifu et al.).

The species has withstood two decades of scrutiny. Pathology explanations have been examined and rejected, including:

• microcephaly (Falk et al. 2005, 2007; Balzeau & Charlier 2016)
• cretinism (Brown 2012)
• Down syndrome (Westaway et al. 2015; Baab 2016)

Insular dwarfism is now the consensus explanation (Tocheri et al. 2022; Monson et al. 2025).

2. Reliable sources place its extinction around 50,000 years ago. Revised stratigraphy at Liang Bua (Sutikna et al. 2016) dates the skeletal remains to 100,000–60,000 years ago and the associated stone tools to as recent as 50,000 years ago. The earlier date of about 12,000 years resulted from an undetected unconformity in the cave deposits. The later date removed the main basis for proposed overlap with historical peoples. Genomic analysis of the Rampasasa pygmies of Flores also found no H. floresiensis ancestry (Tucci et al. 2018).

3. The survival hypothesis is covered elsewhere and is fringe. The suggestion that Flores folklore reflects surviving or remembered H. floresiensis (Forth 2008, 2022) is already covered at Ebu gogo and Orang Pendek. The Ebu gogo article notes it has little mainstream support. Listing the species itself here implies to readers that its existence is in doubt. That contradicts the species article and the weight of reliable sources (see WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE).

Proposal: Remove the entry, or replace it with Ebu gogo. Alternatively, reword it to state clearly that the cryptid is the alleged surviving population and that mainstream science considers the species extinct since about 50 ka.

Key sources

• Brown, P. et al. (2004). Nature 431: 1055–1061. doi:10.1038/nature02999
• Morwood, M. J. et al. (2005). Nature 437: 1012–1017. doi:10.1038/nature04022
• Falk, D. et al. (2005). Science 308: 242–245. doi:10.1126/science.1109727
• Brown, P. (2012). J. Hum. Evol. 62: 201–224. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.10.011
• Westaway, M. C. et al. (2015). PNAS 112: E604–E605. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418997112
• Sutikna, T. et al. (2016). Nature 532: 366–369. doi:10.1038/nature17179
• van den Bergh, G. D. et al. (2016). Nature 534: 245–248. doi:10.1038/nature17999
• Brumm, A. et al. (2016). Nature 534: 249–253. doi:10.1038/nature17663
• Baab, K. (2016). PLOS ONE 11: e0155731. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155731
• Tucci, S. et al. (2018). Science 361: 511–516. doi:10.1126/science.aar8486
• Tocheri, M. W. et al. (2022). Oxford Handbook of Early Southeast Asia. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199355358.013.2
• Kaifu, Y. et al. (2024). Nature Communications 15: 6381. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-50649-7

V.killian (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Do any of these sources describe it as a cryptid? I'm fine with removing it or replacing it with Ebu gogo if there is reasonable sourcing. The source currently used in for the list entry does not include the string crypt*, so based on this it should be removed. I agree the whole topic is WP:FRINGE but that is the nature of the topic, so we at least need a reliable source that says this is a cryptid. We do have a few "surviving population" entries on here, like megalodon, but here we have decent sourcing and on-wiki coverage that covers the "cryptid" label. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. None of the scholarly sources I listed describe H. floresiensis as a cryptid; they treat it as a valid extinct species. Given the current citation doesn't support the label either, I'd support removal.

For replacing it with Ebu gogo, two possible sources:

• Killgrove, Kristina (31 March 2016). "New Homo Floresiensis Dates May Quash Cryptozoology Theories About 'Hobbits'". Forbes. It explicitly frames the ebu gogo/H. floresiensis link as a cryptozoological claim. I realise it's a Forbes contributor piece, but Killgrove is a published bioarchaeologist writing in her field, so it may qualify under WP:EXPERTSPS.
• Coleman, Loren; Huyghe, Patrick (2006). The Field Guide to Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates. Anomalist Books. It covers the ebu gogo as a "mystery primate" (and features it on the cover), which at least documents that cryptozoologists treat it as a cryptid.

If neither is considered sufficient, I'm happy with simple removal and no replacement. V.killian (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Or maybe both of the possible Cryptids. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps replace it with Ebu gogo but include a mention and link to Homo floresiensis. It's wrong to simply declare that H. floresiesnsis is a cryptid but there is an association and some readers may be looking for this information, so there may be a way to accommodate this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks V.killian (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at an update. Feel free to edit further. I've cited the Forbes article since I was able to access it. You're right to be cautious about using this source, consistent with WP:FORBES, but I agree with your assessment that this is acceptable for our purposes. Really all we need to demonstrate is that cryptozoologists have made claims about it. Good that we have an additional source if a challenge arises. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I am more than happy with this edit and delighted to have spotted this and made my first Wikipedia contribution. Have a good one ! -- V.killian (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@V.killian welcome aboard, and thank you for jumping in and suggesting an improvement! Cheers and happy editing! :) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I definitely think replacing it with the Ebu Gogo is a good idea, especially as eyewitnesses don't claim they see homo florensiensis and its only a theory about what the Ebu Gogo is KanyeWestDropout (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)