Talk:Cryptozoology

spelling correction?

' a pseudoscientic extension of older belief in monsters and other similar entities from the folkloric record, yet with a "new, more scientific-sounding name: cryptids". '

- seems to read better with 'pseudoscientific' -

i'm not sure on this article how to suggest this possible correction ... Hirbey (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing where the spelling error that needs correcting is. Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

pseudoscientic —> pseudoscientific. Done. Thank you, Hirbey. Bishonen | tålk 18:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC).

Really could not see it. Now I do, sorry. Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Dendle

Dendle (2006) seems to have been quote mined. In the same "Folklore" article quoted, he also says "The point of this paper is not to disparage the important work of cryptozoologists nor to imply that there is no legitimate place for cryptozoology within contemporary zoology. The International Society of Cryptozo from 1982 to 1998), for instance, published sound research and reflection in its newsletter and in a refereed journal." For balance should we not include this as well? The implication in wiki article that he thinks it is all pseudoscience that clearly is not his position. 193.130.15.245 (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Quote mining indeed. Folklorist Dendle goes on to say: ...There are, of course, new species that remain to be discovered, and early reports of them will naturally appear folkloric before a specimen is secured and the scientific community can verify it. My intention is rather to unpack certain facets of the social significance of the widespread interest and even belief in such creatures before they are confirmed by science. In keeping with his intention, Dendle is used in our article for his observations re the social significance and belief regarding cryptozoology, not to argue whether it, or anything else, is a pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Folklore mention in lead sentence

Hi @Bloodofox, I see you reverted my update. I understand your reasoning and I don't dispute the examples in the lead or the fact that many/most cryptids are from folklore. My concern is that defining cryptids/the object of cryptozoology as "particularly those [unknown, legendary, or extinct animals] popular in folklore" is over-broad because many animals/creatures from folklore are not generally defined as cryptids. Would you be comfortable with something like "including many of those popular in folklore"? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Cryptozoologists have historically considered every creature they've encountered from folklore to be a potential "cryptid". There are multi-volume encyclopedias of this sort of thing from cryptozoologists, like Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures. There is no criteria for what makes something a "cryptid" in this pseudoscience because there's no central authority or any kind of criteria, just a general rejection of relevant mainstream fields like biology and especially folklore studies. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you on the general points. I worry that "particularly" in the opening sentence implies the broadest possible definition. I don't think Babe the Big Blue Ox or centaurs are (widely?) considered cryptids although one might be able to find a PROFRINGE source trying to claim them. Do you object to my proposal including many of those popular in folklore? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We can't dictate what is and is not considered a "cryptid", we can only describe what scholarship says, and it is clear that there are no paramaters as to what would fall in this category: literally every animal, even some from fiction (such as the case of The Monster of "Partridge Creek"), are potential "cryptids" to the subculture. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

"Cryptid" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cryptid 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/2025 July 6 § Cryptid until a consensus is reached. Note: Cryptids is also under discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

"Cryptozooelogy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cryptozooelogy 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/2025 September 26 § Cryptozooelogy until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

"Monster hunting" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Monster hunting 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/2025 September 30 § Monster hunting until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying the absence of several authors + additional comments

Hello, I’m seeking elaboration regarding the absence of a significant body of mainstream, peer-reviewed literature published in recent years containing relevant critical coverage of cryptozoology (listed and linked at the end of this discussion). I’d love to know what the current standing on many of the subjects I bring up are, especially as relevant discussions in the Talk Page are in some cases over fifteen years old, and many involved are no longer active on Wikipedia. To my understanding, the works of these authors do not clash with WP:FRINGE in any capacity and represent peer-reviewed discussion by qualified zoologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, ecological staticians, and so on. Some of these works were cited at various stages of this page’s life cycle but are now absent, with little commentary as to why available to my knowledge (though I may have missed it in the thousand-word semantics sessions).

The incorporation of these works could significantly expand and improve the quality of the "Terminology, history, and approach" and "Reception and pseudoscience" sections. I'd like to note that combining "Organizations" into the "Terminology, history, and approach" section and expanding the "Museums and exhibitions" section into one on broader economic and cultural significance may be worthwhile, especially as this article leans heavily on the works of authors like Sharon Hill. The "Examples of cryptids" section is polluted by obscure examples without Wikipedia pages, including the "Great South Bay Giant Horseshoe Crab" which on only substantiated by AI-generated imagery and writing. I feel as though this section ought to be streamlined, linking to the most visited ~5 entries within the category not linked elsewhere.

I’d also additionally like to question the logic for including Prothero’s equivalence of cryptozoology to Holocaust denial (those are two very different forms of “baloney”), certainly feels like an inappropriate sentiment and offers nothing of informative significance to the article.

PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS/BOOK CHAPTERS

Foxon, 2024 - Heuvelmans the Heretic and Hidden Animals - https://doi.org/10.1177/03080188241233107

Holmes et al., 2017 - Fantastic Beasts and Why to Conserve Them - https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531700059X

Paxton & Naish, 2019 - Did 19th Century Marine Vertebrate Fossil Discoveries Influence Sea Serpent Reports? - https://doi.org/10.17704/1944-6178-38.1.16

Schembri, 2011 - Cryptozoology as a pseudoscience - https://doi.org/10.21083/surg.v5i1.1341

NON PEER-REVIEWED BOOKS CONTAINING CRITICAL COVERAGE

^ exclusion would be understandable, however books of a similar vein (e.g. Abominable Science!, Scientifical Americans, Searching for Sasquatch) are quoted at length

Conway et al., 2013 - Cryptozoologicon - https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cryptozoologicon/IqUnnwEACAAJ?hl=en

Meurger & Gagnon, 1988 - Lake Monster Traditions - archive.org/details/lakemonstertraditions1

Naish, 2016 - Hunting Monsters - https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hunting_Monsters/mN2oCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 LPrattCZ (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2025 (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) 18:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)