Freshwater Monkeys and the Other Unidentified Primates

I realised after the fact that I had done my global-view range maps and comparitive-sized reconstructions for Wildme and Heuvelmans' "Petit Yeti" and "Grand Yeti" but not also for Tyler Stone's freshwater monkeys, of which the Kappas are the best-defined representatives. At left is a Kappa illustration from Wikipedia, and it has an "Angry monkey" face plus webbed hands and feet which are four webbed toes and a thumb apiece, which we are going to say is the true value

And at left here is my rough world range map, an adaptation of the less specific range map I posted in an earlier blog on the European water Sprites. The usual terms for such creatures worldwide is "Water-Children" or "Little People that live in the Water" and I have a strong feeling that they are also the basis for some of the Native tradidions called "Devil Mokeys" (which are an extremely heterogenous collection otherwise)


And below is my scale comparison, this time also incorporating the eyes for each type. It turns out the eyes for Wildmen and Sasquatch are about the same absolute size in either case, but proportionately very much smaller in the faces of the Giants. The "Water-Goblins" were something I had added on a similar chart I drew while at SITU HQs in the mid-1970s. I thought from the eyes they might be a type of lemur, and they were indicated by a series of the "Little Hairy Men of the Delta" reports off of John Keel's listings for sightings in the Eastern USA. Shortly thereafter, I dropped the category as sounding too "Far Out" But now I can see what is going on with those reports better, since Tyler Stone articulated the theory to me over again in a clearer way. I had also included the Kelly-Hopkinsville "Goblins" on the theory the big head could have been the effect of a large mane of hair on the head, and asuming there was no real connection to any UFO report then. The hands and feet of the Kappa are meant to represent webbed fingers and toes and yes, the category is now intended to include Loveland "Frogs" (Now reconfigured as "Loveland Kappas")

Although all of these Amphibious "Little Men" reports are treated as individual and mutually exclusive, they all could be describing the same thing with poor lighting, only partial observations being made and faulty memories afterwards. The policeman in the second Loveland Frog report did mention that the creature could have had wet hair slicked down giving the appearance of a reflective leathery skin and in fact the creatures seem to have a longer "Cape" of hairs on the back that often gives a matted appearance (like a turtle's shell) or which can be partially dry and have the locks of hair form "Spikes." A monkeylike face is indicated in the last two photos and big monkeylike ears standing out in the Hopkinsville case. The large goggle eyes set off to the sides of the head are common to all cases, and the only possible "UFO" seen in any of these cases was elsewhere identified as a meteor (in the Hopkinsville case). The way the hands and feet grip is similar in all cases, and the Evansville case specifies that the fingers are webbed. We can forgive the other observers for missing out on that point.                             Best Wishes, Dale D.

PS, the mane could also be less extensive in females, accounting for some sightings seeming to have less less covering over the ears, for example. The mane could also lie flatter when wet and slicked-down. Wetter hides ARE remarked on as being very reflective in some cases and the creatures can look greenish when covered in algae or duckweed. They ARE "Goebelins" in Europe as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin
'Goblins were described as 2–3 feet tall, thin, and brown. Most were bald and "if there were females among the group they could not be distinguished from the males".' From which it seems that the sex organs are unclear to humans and the females do not have prominent breasts: "Most were bald" means they have an apparent bald spot on the tops of their heads, the same as the Kappas do. They seem to have prominent ischial callosities and also cheek pouches to store food in. And incidentally they would seem to maintain a pecking order by males mounting subordinate males, same as in ordinary macaques: there are many stories of goblins attempting buggery of human males.

For the record also, here is my former map for "Improbable Giant Frogs" of the Loveland variety. Thetis Lake is indicated on the map and should be removed--but oddly enough such creatures are also reported at Lake Okanagon, the Ogopogo lake, and represented on Petroglyphs on the shores of the lake there.

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.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_man

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.