This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of cryptids article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles
Stephen Harrison (February 13, 2023). "Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot". Slate (magazine). Retrieved February 15, 2023. To sum up, it seems to me that the two sides of Wikipedia's Never-Ending Cryptozoological War could both stand to make some concessions. First, if a reputable publisher describes an entity as a "cryptid," then Wikipedia should classify it within its cryptid category. (Sorry, Bloodofox.) This relaxed admission standard does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia's list of cryptids needs to jump to the previous 300 entries—that doesn't really serve readers, either.
The contents of the Cryptid page were merged into List of cryptids on September 23 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2016. The result of the discussion was Snow Keep.
Could someone please add a hatnote 'Distinguish|Cryptozoa' ? People can easily confuse the names "cryptid" and "cryptozoa" (undiscovered microscopic animals). I don't want to have to log in to edit the semi-protected page. Thanks!
I feel that including the eastern cougar on this list is inaccurate. As source 23 explains, the cougar is included here because it was thought to be a cryptid before it was discovered, however this list is for creatures "unsubstantiated by science" which the eastern cougar now is Heronperson (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per this recent review, all of the cougars documented in the eastern U.S. (outside Florida) in recent years are likely escaped captives or wanderers from western populations, but there is no evidence of a breeding population in the eastern states. It is likely that most of the reported sightings of cougars in the eastern U.S. are mistaken. There is room, I believe, to argue that the "resident breeding eastern cougar" remains a cryptid. Whether that is sufficient for it to be included in this list is the question. Donald Albury 12:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For my money, I would agree with removing it on two grounds. First and generally, I am still sceptical of the idea that EW critters belong on this list. The rationale largely revolves around rumoured paleontological relicts (mokèlé-mbèmbé, et al), but I remain unconvinced that recent relict populations of known species belong here. I am convinced that there is a distinction between a Lazarus taxon and a stray breeding pair of ivory-billed woodpeckers, even if I cannot articulate it. Second and specifically, I am equally unconvinced that the eastern cougar ever existed at all separate from the Florida Panther (if even it is a valid subspecies of p. concolor). Florida may simply serve as the last remaining stronghold of an eastern puma variety; or puma never existed in the non-Everglade east, and sightings are merely of wanderers from the south or west. In either case, it's not a cryptid but a known species roaming novel (or reclaimed) territory. All that said, I expect consensus will be to keep the entry because there are enough sources that match the eastern cougar to our (thus far unwritten) selection criteria. Just my 2p. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a popular misconception from both extreme sides of the debate about the status of cryptozoology that cz only concerns itself with weird strange folkloric entities. This is a misconception. Prior to 2000, cryptozoology very much concerned itself with Lazarus taxa, recent animals considered extinct and the like, see the journal of the ISC, "Cryptozoology". One off weirdies like mothman and lizardmen etc. were hardly if ever discussed (and if then solely in a zoological context). So if Wikipedia has a page of cryptids (and I am not sure it should but that is a different story), woodpeckers, eastern cougars, stray coelacanths etc. should all be included as they were all part of the remit of cryptozoology and cryptids by its founder's own definition Heuvelmans B (1982) What is cryptozoology? Cryptozoology 1:1–12. I think this confusion arises from the historically incorrect definition of cryptozoology on the cryptozoology page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.183.189 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard Heuvelmans referred to these as "unexpected" animals when discussing cryptozoology. I'd argue that, even if the DNA tests show they're a population and not a subspecies, that they're still significant just like reports of wild big cat populations in Europe are KanyeWestDropout (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good points from both of you. You've convinced me that the Eastern Cougar is a cryptid. To get another whack in on the late and apparently unlamented horse, a good SELCRIT would have mooted this debate. Just sayin'. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the link to pseudoscience and do all the people who study this question deserve that title? 142.163.195.114 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think citations for Megalodon as a fossil are relevant. Megalodon is in the list because people are claiming it still exists. This issue would be more whether there is notable cryptozoological literature about it. (I think that it's status as a cryptid is dubious, but its existence as a fossil isn't relevant to that status.) Lavateraguy (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There absolutely is notable cryptozoological literature about it, though its mostly skeptical in nature. KanyeWestDropout (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steller's sea ape
hardly seems fair to include this and so imply that Steller and the other zoologists were pseudoscientists. 142.163.195.114 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If RS say it is a cryptid, we do. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good lord. Steller made his observation in 1741 of what was probably a northern fur seal, as the Steller's sea ape article says. Much of what was accepted as sound science then is now considered pseudoscience. Carlstak (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moa non cryptic
Moa is an actual extinct species of flightless birds with multiple subspecies. Went extinct after the arrival of Polynesians in New Zealand. Doesn’t seem like it should be on list NotherdayinParadise (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but sightings of living ones are. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
![[1]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тайга#/media/Файл:Jack_London_Lake_by_bartosh.jpg){kind=link}