A Review of Cryptozoology: Towards a Scientific Approach to the Study of “Hidden Animals”

  • Lorenzo RossiEmail author


Cryptozoology is still generally considered a non-academic discipline based on a mostly pseudoscientific approach aimed at studying animals whose existence is not yet supported by incontrovertible physical evidence. This chapter aims to present a critical review of the most important published attempts at defining this discipline in order to propose a new and scientifically acceptable definition of “cryptozoology” and to suggest how to integrate it with the present approach to conservation by helping in the discovery of new species and the rediscovery of supposedly extinct ones. The results of this review indicate that, although several cryptozoological hypotheses present pseudoscientific claims, the cryptozoological method can be considered scientific overall and, despite to the claims of some critics, cryptozoology is not redundant with respect to zoology.


Cryptozoology New species Pseudoscience 



For their invaluable help, I wish to thank: Francesco Maria Angelici and Matt Bille for their advice, Marco Signore and Mauro Cella for their suggestions and translation, Dario Marcello Soldan, Charles Paxton, and Ulrich Magin for some papers I needed and was not able to find. I thank the two anonymous referees for their careful reading of my manuscript and their insightful comments and suggestions.


  1. Arment C (2004) Cryptozoology: science & speculation. Coachwhip, LandisvilleGoogle Scholar
  2. Binns R (1983) The Loch Ness mystery solved. Rigby, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  3. Black SA, Fellous A, Yamaguchi N, Roberts DL (2013) Examining the extinction of the barbary lion and its implications for felid conservation. PLoS One 8(4):e60174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060174 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Blancou L (1959) Géographie cynégétique du monde. Presses Universitaires de France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Bousfiled EL, LeBlond PH (1995) An account of Cadborosaurus willsi, new genus, new species, a large aquatic reptile from the Pacific coast of North America. Amphipacifica 1:1–25Google Scholar
  6. Boyd IJ, Stanfield MP (1998) Circumstantial evidence for the presence of monk seals in the West Indies. Oryx 32:310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burney DA, Ramilisonina (1999) The Kilopilopitsofy, Kidoky, and Bokyboky: accounts of strange animals from Belo-sur-Mer, Madagascar, and the megafaunal “extinction window”. Am Anthropol 100:957–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell S (1996) The loch ness monster the evidence. BPC-AUP Aberdeen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll RT (2003) The skeptic’s dictionary: a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark J, Coleman L (1978) Creatures of the outer space. Warner Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Conway J, Koseman CM, Naish D (2013) Cryptozoologicon, vol 1. Irregular BooksGoogle Scholar
  12. Cozzuol MA, Clozato CL, Holanda EC, Rodrigues FH, Nienow S, de Thoisy B, Redondo RAF, Santos FR (2013) A new species of tapir from the Amazon. J Mammal 94:1331–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donegan TM (2008) New species and subspecies descriptions do not and should not always require a dead type specimen. Zootaxa 1761:37–48Google Scholar
  14. Dubois A, Nemésio A (2007) Does nomenclatural availability of nomina of new species or subspecies require the deposition of vouchers in collections? Zootaxa 1409:1–22Google Scholar
  15. Geissmann T, Lwin G, Aung S, Naing Aung T, Aung ZM, Hla T, Grindley M, Momberg F (2010) A new species of snub-nosed monkey, Genus Rhinopithecus Milne-Edwards, 1872 (Primates, Colobianae), from Northern Kachin State, Northeastern Myanmar. Am J Primatol. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20894 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Giam X, Scheffers BR, Sodhi NS, Wilcove DS, Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR (2012) Reservoirs of richness: least disturbed tropical forests are centres of undescribed species diversity. Proc Biol Sci 279(1726):67–76. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0433 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenwell R (1982) Formation of the society. ISC Newslet 1(1):1–3Google Scholar
  18. Greenwell R (1983) Interview. ISC Newslet 2(1):1–5Google Scholar
  19. Greenwell R (1984) Interview. The father of cryptozoology gives his views on many matters. ISC Newslet 3(3):1–6Google Scholar
  20. Greenwell R (1985) A classificatory system for cryptozoology. Cryptozoology 4:1–14Google Scholar
  21. Groves CP (1984) But how many large, terrestrial animal species remain to be discovered? Cryptozoology 3:111–115Google Scholar
  22. Happel D (1983) Parataxa and hypothetical concepts—their irrelevance to cryptozoology. Cryptozoology 2:147–154Google Scholar
  23. Hedgpeth JW (1968) Elusive specimens. Science 162(3855):787–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heuvelmans B (1955) Sur la piste des bêtes ignorées. Plon, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Heuvelmans B (1958a) Dans le sillage des monstres marins: le kraken et le poulpe colossal. Plon, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. Heuvelmans B (1958b) On the Track of Unknown animals. Rupert Hart-Davis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Heuvelmans B (1958c) Tras la pista de los animales desconoscidos (I y II). Luis de Caralt, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  28. Heuvelmans B (1965) Le grand serpent-de-mer. Plon, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. Heuvelmans B (1968) In the wake of the sea-serpent. Hill & Wang, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Heuvelmans B (1969) Note préliminaire sur un spécimen conservé dans le glace, d’une forme encore inconnue d’Hominidé vivant: Homo pongoides (sp. Seu subsp. Nov.). Bullettin de l’Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique 45:1–24Google Scholar
  31. Heuvelmans B (1978) Les derniers dragons d’Afrique. Plon, ParisGoogle Scholar
  32. Heuvelmans B (1980) Les bêtes humaines d’Afrique. Plon, ParisGoogle Scholar
  33. Heuvelmans B (1982) What is cryptozoology? Cryptozoology 1:1–12Google Scholar
  34. Heuvelmans B (1983) How many animal species remain to be discovered? Cryptozoology 2:1–24Google Scholar
  35. Heuvelmans B (1984) The birth and early history of cryptozoology. Cryptozoology 3:1–30Google Scholar
  36. Heuvelmans B (1986) Annotated checklist of apparently unknown animals with which cryptozoology is concerned. Cryptozoology 5:1–26Google Scholar
  37. Heuvelmans B (1987a) La criptozoologia: cosa è cosa non è. Abstracta 12:68–75Google Scholar
  38. Heuvelmans B (1987b) La metamorfosi degli animali sconosciuti in bestie favolose. Abstracta 18:68–75Google Scholar
  39. Heuvelmans B (1988) The sources and method of cryptozoological research. Cryptozoology 7:1–21Google Scholar
  40. Heuvelmans B (1990) The metamorphosis of unknown animals into fabulous beasts and of fabulous beasts into known animals. Cryptozoology 9:1–12Google Scholar
  41. Heuvelmans B (1997) Histoire de la Cryptozoologie—Seconde partie essor et officialisation de la Cryptozoologie. Criptozoologia 3:23–40Google Scholar
  42. Heuvelmans B (2007) The natural history of hidden animals. Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Heuvelmans B, Porchnev BF (1974) L’homme de Néanderthal est toujours vivant. Plon, ParisGoogle Scholar
  44. Hume J, Martill DM, Dewdney C (2004) Dutch diaries and the demise of the dodo. Nature. doi: 10.1038/nature02688 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Johnson DH (1959) On the track of unknown animals. Science 130(3384):1245–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keel JA (1970) Strange creatures from time and space. Fawcett, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  47. Krantz GS (1999) Bigfoot Sasquatch evidence. Hancock House, SurreyGoogle Scholar
  48. Krumbiegel I (1950) Von neuen und unentdeckten Tierarten. Kosmos, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  49. LeBlond PH, Bousfiled EL (1995) Cadborosaurus survivor from the deep. Horsdal & Schubart, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  50. Loxton D, Prothero DR (2013) Abominable science!: origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other famous cryptids. Columbia University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mackal RP (1976) The monsters of loch ness. Swallow Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  52. Mackal RP (1980) Searching for hidden animals. Garden City, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Mackal RP (1987) A living dinosaur? In search of Mokele-Mbembe. E.J. Brill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Magin U (1996) St George without a dragon. Fortean Studies 4:223–234Google Scholar
  55. May RM (1984) Science journals: cryptozoology. Nature 307:687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McKinney (2013) In response to Darren Naish: why cryptozoology is pseudoscience. Available at pseudoscience/. Accessed 14 Jan 2015
  57. Meurger M, Gagnon C (1998) Lake monster traditions: a Cross-cultural analysis. Fortean Tomes, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Moore RC, Sylvester-Bradley PC (1957) Zoological nomenclature: proposed addition to the “Règles” of provisions recognizing and regulating the nomenclature of “Parataxa”. J Paleontol 31:1180–1183Google Scholar
  59. Morris R, Morris D (1966) Men and pandas. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. Naish D (2001) Sea serpents, seals and coelacanths: an attempt at a holistic approach to the identity of large aquatic cryptids. In: Simmons I, Quin M (eds) Fortean studies, vol 7. John Brown, London, pp 75–94Google Scholar
  61. Naish D (2007) Monster hunting? Well, no. No. Available at Accessed 14 Jan 2015
  62. Oudemans AC (1892) The great sea-serpent. An historical and critical treatise. Luzac, LondonGoogle Scholar
  63. Pauwels O, Chérot F (1997) Cryptoherpétologie et nomenclature: le problème et sa solution. Bulletin de la Société herpetologique de France 82–83: 41–49 [in French]Google Scholar
  64. Paxton C (2002) In search of monster? A defence to cryptozoology. The Skeptic 15(3):10–14Google Scholar
  65. Paxton C (2009) The plural of ‘anecdote’ can be ‘data’: statistical analysis of viewing distances in reports of unidentified large marine animals 1758-2000. J Zool 279:381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Paxton C (2011) Putting the “ology” into cryptozoology. Biofortean Notes 1:7–20Google Scholar
  67. Pitman RL, Aguayo AL, Urbán RJ (1987) Observations of an unidentified beaked whale (Mesoplodon sp.) in the eastern tropical Pacific. Mar Mamm Sci 3:245–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Polaszek A, Grubb P, Groves C, Ehardt CL, Butynski TM (2005) What constitutes a proper description: response. Science 309:2164–2166Google Scholar
  69. Polidoro M (2006) Il sesto senso. Piemme, Casale MonferratoGoogle Scholar
  70. Prothero DR (2007) Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Raynal M (1989) Cryptozoology: science or pseudoscienze? Cryptozoology 8:98–102Google Scholar
  72. Reed IC (1959) On the track of unknown animals by Bernard Heuvelmans. Am Sci 47:378Google Scholar
  73. Rossi L (2011) The role of circumstantial evidence in the discovery and description of new species of Primates since 2000 and conservational implication. Paper presented at the 2nd International congress problematic wildlife—conservation and management, Università della Tuscia, Genazzano, Rome 2–5, February 2011Google Scholar
  74. Rossi L (2012) Criptozoologia—Animali misteriosi tra scienza e leggenda. Photocity, PozzuoliGoogle Scholar
  75. Saggese P (2009) Cadborosaurus willsi: indagine attributiva. In: Saggese P, Mosca M (eds) All’ombra dei falsi mostri. Torino, Ananke, pp 185–209Google Scholar
  76. Sanderson IT (1948) There could be dinosaurs. Saturday Evening Post (January 3)Google Scholar
  77. Scott P, Rines R (1976) Naming the Loch Ness monster. Nature 258:466–468Google Scholar
  78. Sheffers BR, Yong DL, Harris JBC, Giam X, Sodhi NS (2011) The world’s rediscovered species: back from the brink? PLoS One 6, e22531. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sheil D, Lawrance A (2004) Tropical biologists, local people and conservation: new opportunities for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19:634–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Shermer M (1997) Why people believe weird things. W. H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  81. Shermer M (2003) Show me the body. Sci Am 288:27Google Scholar
  82. Shine A (2006) Loch Ness. Loch Ness Project, DrumnadrochitGoogle Scholar
  83. Simpson GG (1984) Mammals and cryptozoology. Proc Am Philos Soc 128:1–19Google Scholar
  84. Smith JLB (1953) The second coelacanth. Nature 171:99–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Smith JLB (1956) Old fourlegs. The story of the coelacanth. Longmans, LondonGoogle Scholar
  86. Taylor RT, Compagno LJV, Struhsaker PJ (1983) Megamouth a new species, genus and family of lamnoid sharks, Megachasma pelagios (Family Megachasmidae), from the Hawaiian Islands. Proc Cal Acad Sci 43(8):87–110Google Scholar
  87. van Roosmalen MGM (2014) Tapirus pygmaeus Van Roosmalen & Van Hooft in Van Roosmalen, 2013 (Mammalia, Perissodactyla, Tapiridae): proposed confirmation of availability of the specific name and of the book in which this nominal species was proposed. Bull Zool Nomencl 71:84–87Google Scholar
  88. van Roosmalen MGM, van Hooft P (2013) New species of living tapir, the dwarf tapir (Mammalia: Tapiridae) from the Brazilian Amazon. In: van Roosmalen MGM (ed) Barefoot through the Amazon—on the path of evolution. CreateSpace, North Charleston, pp 400–404Google Scholar
  89. van Roosmalen MGM, van Roosmalen T (2002) The description of a new marmoset genus, Callibella (Callitrichinae, Primates), including its molecular phylogenetic status. Neotrop Primates 11:1–10Google Scholar
  90. van Roosmalen MGM, van Roosmalen T, Mittermeier RA, Fonseca GAB (1998) A new and distinctive species of marmoset (Callitrichidae, Primates) from the lower Rio Aripuanã, state of Amazonas, central Brasilian Amazonia. Goeldiana Zoologia 22:1–27Google Scholar
  91. van Roosmalen MGM, van Roosmalen T, Mittermeier RA, Rylands AB (2000) Two new species of marmoset, genus Callithrix Erxleben, 1777 (Callitrichidae, Primates), from the Tapajós/Madeira interfluvium, south central Amazonia, Brazil. Neotrop Primates 8:1–18Google Scholar
  92. van Roosmalen MGM, van Roosmalen T, Mittermeier RA (2002) A taxonomic review of the titi monkeys, genus Callicebus Thomas, 1903, with the description of two new species, Callicebus bernhardi and Callicebus stephennashi. Neotrop Primates 10:1–52Google Scholar
  93. van Valen LM (1983) Cryptozoology, paleontology, and evidence. Cryptozoology 2:155–157Google Scholar
  94. Wakeham-Dawson A, Morris S, Tubbs P, Dalebout ML, Baker CS (2002) Type specimens: dead or alive? Bull Zool Nomencl 59(4):282–286Google Scholar
  95. Wall JE (1983) Cryptoletters. ISC Newslet 2(2):10Google Scholar
  96. Welton LJ, Siler CD, Bennett D, Diesmos A, Duya MR, Dugay R, Rico ELB, van Weerd M, Brown RM (2010) A spectacular new Philippine monitor lizard reveals a hidden biogeographic boundary and a novel flagship species for conservation. Biol Lett. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0119 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. West R (2011) Pickled punks & girlie shows. Schiffer, AtglenGoogle Scholar
  98. Wigmore JH (1935) Code of the rules of evidence in trials at law. Little, Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  99. Wiseman R (2011) Paranormality: why we see what isn’t there. Pan Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  100. Woodley M (2011) Introducing Aequivotaxa: a new classificatory system for cryptozoology. Kraken: Archives de Cryptozoologie 3:63–85Google Scholar
  101. Woodley MA, Naish D, Shanahan HP (2008) How many extant pinniped species remain to be described? Hist Biol 20:225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Associazione OrangoCesenaItaly

Personalised recommendations