Member of The Crypto Crew:

Please Also Visit our Sister Blog, Frontiers of Anthropology:

And the new group for trying out fictional projects (Includes Cryptofiction Projects):

And Kyle Germann's Blog

And Jay's Blog, Bizarre Zoology

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

More Abominable Maps

Map I-Wildmen Map
Russian Hominologists such as Igor Burtsev have said that Wildmen types were universally distributed in the world at the advent of modern humans, that we began taking over their territories from the first and pushing them into less desirable areas for habitation, and that this process has been going on throughout history. This map intends to show that: the dotted line encompassing East Asia, Southeast Asia and Australia is meant to convey the idea that they once inhabited most of the area but now they only inhabit more irregular areas of refuge within the larger territory. It would be very tedious to indicate all of the smaller territories precisely, so leaving it vague might be the better representation. They are apparently mostly nomadic anyway, and in North America at least they seem to move along major waterways preferentially.
There is no easy way to catalogue how many native names such beings have accumulated over time. A quick count of the listings from George Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures indicates there are easily 200 or more entries on them, including their giant and pygmy forms. That of course does not mean to imply there are 200 or more types of creatures running around: far from it, there seems to be only one species represented and that one species is most likely our own species, especially if the bulk of them are Neanderthaloid or Heidelburgers and either one of those categories are counted as subspecies of Homo sapiens. The burden of proof is now on the ones who want to say that such forms of fossil men are really "Not human" and show that to the general satisfaction of everybody else, in terms that are acceptable to all experts. (Such things as proving their brains are too small to count as human or they have no thumbs would be acceptable criteria: saying they are "Too hairy" is NOT an acceptable argument.)

Map II-Sasquatches and Australopithecines Map
Map II concerns Sasquatch and possible Gigantopithecus types, plus other "Half-Human-Half Ape" types as the Australopithecines. These would technically not all be "Missing Links" but more practically described as kinds of apes that walk normally on their hind legs. The Sasquatch types are either one species that is TransBeringia in its distribution or else two closely related species in East Asia and in Western North America. Further work would need to be done to determine that.
Map III-Unknown Apes Map
Map III concerns both known and unknown species of apes also both in Eastern Asia and America in two tight bundles of variation: one set of Orangutan-like apes with reddish hair and another type of (large) Lesser apes like siamangs with dark or black hair. The Orangutanlike apes are further divided into residually-primitive terrestial apes that walk flat-footed on the ground and often bipedally, and then the more tropical, more arboreal apes that walk on the sides of their feet when they are on the ground. Evidently the tropical New World variety of these apes developed into a mostly tree-dwelling ape with a number of unique specializations related to its lifestyle, quite independantly from the Old World orangutans that did the same. At the same time, there are other grounds for suspecting that the standard Indonesian orangutans may have had examples relocated into New Guinea and Northern Australia. The siamang types are also much the same in the New World but they seem to include much larger variants that appear to be moving into the chimpanzee econiche. Siamangs are habitually bipeds on the ground anyway. It is unknown how many species remain to be named and discovered out of this series, but it would seem there are at least four uncatalogued species involved, and names are claimed on at least two of them. In this case the scientific genus name for Yetis shall probably end up being the same as the "Mainland Pongo", only we don't really even had a good valid scientific name for that one, either.

Here is a photo of famous "Throwback" Julia Pastrana (Also suggseted to be a halfbreed Bigfoot herself: and also somebody that ended up going on an exhibit in a traveling sideshow after death, BTW), and then a recap of the "Three types of Yeti" rearranged to correspond to the order of the three maps above. IMHO, we are compelled to consider that the "Wildmen" should be of our own species when we have such a situation as we have Julia as a member of our species and she looks exactly like they do. Therefore I would NOT consider Wildmen an unknown species, I would count them as a section of our own species. On the other hand, the Sasquatches are pretty definitely a new species (or two) and the orangutan-like apes are several new species all obviously related to each other but with a range of adaptations that make it necessary for two genera to be involved, and these two genera are different to and additional to the "Known" orangutans. Grover Krantz suggested that Sasquatch is Gigantopithecus and I am willing to go with his suggestion provisionally. Furthermore he suggested Sasquatch is either the known fossil species  Gigantopithecus blacki or it is a new New World species Gigantopithecus canadiensis . My assessment would be there are two species and the Asiatic one wold be Gigantopithecus blacki  while the New World species would be Gigantopithecus canadiensis . that is a provisional judgement but based on the observation that similar species in both Asia and North America tend to have different species each native to the different continents. And Ameranthropoides is already named and probably sufficiently well enough documented to be granted provisional acceptance. So we have the (probably) two Gigantopithecus  species, one presumably a continuance of the known fossil species and the other a New World derivation of that species, if it is indeed separate. And then we have two forms of ground dwelling "Fossil Pongo", one of which is the Yeti and a distant cousin of which is the Skunk Ape, as well as the Neotropical "Pongo-parallel" in the form of the Sisimite and/or Mapinguari, for a total of five "Nearly-known" unidentified species. Please note that these species are relatable to known fossil forerunners and are hence presumably Lazarus taxa, except for the New World siamangs and Pongo-parallel, which are closely similar to the "nown" species but cannot be counted as the same species owing to special circumstances. They are thus all of them on the more easily allowable edge for Cryptids as far as their credentials can be checked. It is also true that the "Fossil Pongo" and Gigantopithecus  types share a common ancestor in the Sivapithecines and are both branches of the Pongids, as opposed to the African Apes branch.

Two views of Sivapithecus
Best Wishes, Dale D.


  1. Actually I would like to add, I have wondered if some of the pygmies reported in Indonesia are separate from the regular wildman type, perhaps of Homo floresiensis stock. H. floresiensis has been shown to be a distinct species branching from the H. habilis/rudolfensis/georgicus line. Thus, any surviving forms would be fundamentally different from the other Neanderthalers.

    Best regards,
    Tyler Stone

  2. Well, I did publish an earlier piece about possible Indonesian Australopithecines ansd I remarked then that the "Hobbit" skull DOES look awfully close to Homo habilis: and at the same time I mentioned that locally in Indonesia there is a tendancy to identify the Orang Gadang as "Meganthropus" (Presumably actually a robust Australopithecine species)

    And I went ahead and entered ?Meganthropus" on the second map. I was thinking that if the "Hobbit" did turn out to be a habilis type, or even a pygmy erectus, it would be indicated alongside that one. But frankly there is no real hard evidence that the Pygmy humans being reported in that area are anything less than H. sapiens, and the witness' depictions show them with large heads. In that part of the world we DO have LIVING pygmys as well as these (dead) skulls of the "Hobbits" so I think the evidence is weighted toward the human part of the equation although there is always the slender hope that "Hobbits" were a separate species that survived.

    So in other words, what you say could very well be true. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

    The name "Ebu gogo" used on Flores is only a variation of "Orang Gugu" used on Sumatra for the Orang Pendek, and as I mentioned, the name applies equally well to standard-sized humans as well as the Pygmy variants.

    Best Wishes, Dale D.


This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.