Mammals and Cryptozoology

Mammals and Cryptozoology Author(s): George Gaylord Simpson Source: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 128, No. 1 (Mar. 30, 1984), pp. 1-19 Published by: American Philosophical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/986487 . Accessed: 12/09/2013 15:49 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Philosophical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Mammals and Cryptozoology GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON

C

plete than thatof any otherclass of animals withthe probable exceptionof birds.There is littleor no good evidence thatthisroster willbe supplementedor completedby cryptozoology.

ABSTRACT

is definedas the"sciryptozoology

ence" of unknown and of hidden or undiscoveredanimals.It is being increasinglypromotedas a classical supplementto paleontology,the science of extinct animals, and to zoology, the science of known and discoveredanimals. It relies on circumstantial and testimonial evidence ratherthan the objective and autopticevidence of paleontologists and zoologists. Strictlyzoological evidence of livingmammalscan be enumeratedby datesoftechnical definitionand naming of species, genera, families,and still higher taxa. A rosterof livinggeneraand familiesdiscoveredduring the presentcenturyhas a grandtotalof 126 genera.The numberreached a highpointin thefirstdecade but duringthelastfifty years it has fallen to less than one a year. Only two entirelynew familieshave been discoveredso farin thiscentury.Additionally, two generapreviouslyknownonlyas fossils were discovered.Both are membersof previously known families, and the already known fossilswere not more ancient than late Pleistoceneor early Recent. There has been no definiteand objectivediscoveryof any living taxa that were previously unknown or hidden in the cryptozoological sense. The pursuitof supposed mammals lacking objective evidence is not a science in an acceptable usage of that word. The probabilityof futureobjective evidence of truezoological taxa is small but real forspecies and is decreasingto zero higherin the hierarchyof superspecifictaxa. The roster oflivingmammalsis now morenearlycomPROCEEDINGS

OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL

THE DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION OF "CRYPTOZOOLOGY" The term"cryptozoology"was proposed by BernardHeuvelmans in a large book in French published in 1955, revised by the authorand translatedintoEnglishby Rupert Hart-Davis in 1958, and published in England and in the UnitedStatesin 1959. (See Heuvelmans, 1955, 1959). He has since published in Frenchanotherlarge book on the cryptozoologyof Africa (Heuvelmans, 1978). In 1982 an InternationalSociety of Cryptozoologywas founded with Heuvelmans as presidentbut with two Americans as vice president and secretary-treasurer. Thereis also a Board of Directors,twelvein number, trulyinternationalbut with five Americans.This societyhas startedpublication of Cryptozoology, interdisciplinary journalof theInternationalSocietyof Cryptozoology. The firstpart of Volume 1 was issued in Winter1982. The firstarticlein this journalis by Heuvelmansand is titled"What is Cryptozoology?"(This is translatedfrom French;the whole journal is in English,as is a newsletterprintedin the United States and mailed to membersof the Society.) As notedby Heuvelmans (1982) his word "cryptozoology" is derived from Greek kryptos(hidden), zoon (animal), and logos (discourse). He goes on to say that this "means simply 'the science of hiddenani-

SOCIETY, VOL.

128, NO. 1, 1984

1

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2

GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON

mals,' just as paleontologyis 'the science of ancientanimals'." He also says that "paleontology. . . [is] an archaic or obsolete studyof past livingorganisms,"a statement that paleontologistsmust consider absurd. Paleontologyas a science is neitherarchaic nor obsolete even thoughits objectivematerialsare ancientin different degrees. Heuvelmans goes on to say that,"To establishthe realityof an object or event,science . . . has threepossible typesof proof: autoptical,testimonial,and circumstantial." His argumentfor the validity of cryptozoology is thatnot all of the three"proofs" but any one of them can prove the reality of the existenceof any phenomenon. Thus or testimonialevidence eithercircumstantial is to be takenby cryptozoologists as proving theexistenceof the"hidden" or "unknown" animals that are theirsubject matter. Heuvelmans and his now manyfollowers are conscious of the fact that the InternationalCode of Zoological Nomenclaturerequiresthata named animal,whetherRecent or fossil,musthave a typespecimenwhich is objective and available for professional examinationor (usuallyand) figuredin publicationby a reliablezoologistor paleontologist. Heuvelmans, in the here cited essay (1982) deprecatesthis rulingand says that itbanishesmanyspecies to "non-existence," thatis, the supposed species of "hidden" or "unknown" animals. He notes that Moore and Sylvester-Bradley (1957) proposed that taxa based on trace fossils,such as tracks, be considered"parataxa" and have a system of nomenclaturedistinctfromthat of the InternationalCode. In 1958 this proposal was submittedto theInternationalCongress of Zoology, at which the currentCode was adopted. The use of parataxa was rejected. The present Code's firstedition was published in 1961 and a second, somewhat revised editionstillin effectwas published in 1964. As provided in the Code, its interpretationand applicationare supervisedby an InternationalCommissionon Zoological Nomenclature.

In his attack on the nomenclaturalprocedure in the Code Heuvelmans quotes Simpson (1961) as deploring"the factthat thisverysensibleproposition(fora separate nomenclatureof parataxa) did not receive officialrecognition."In factSimpsondid not deplore this fact,he only statedit. Heuvelmans has not understoodwhat theproposal by Moore and Sylvesterreally was. It explicitlyreferredto nomenclatureof fossils knownobjectivelyonlyfrompartsand traces and not definitelyidentifiedas to affinities precise classification.Moore, who founded and foryears edited the massive, multivolalso Paleontology ume TreatiseonInvertebrate wrote an editorial preface to what was planned as the last volume ("Part W") of theTreatise,althoughitspublicationin 1962 preceded that of several othervolumes. In his prefaceMoore, who died at the age of 82 in 1974, discussed the nomenclatureof fossils at considerable length and did not even mentionthe proposal of a nomenclatureof"parataxa." In thesame volume WalterHantzschel (1962) treated"Trace Fossils and Problematica." He concluded that in generalthe "binarysystem"(in formatthat oftheCode) "appears to be themostsuitable one." He listedsystematicdescriptionsand and othertrace genericnames of footprints fossilsand even some "body fossils"which oforganismswithouthardparts. areimprints With special referenceto tracksand other "trace fossils" that are not "body fossils" Hantzschelremarkedthat,"the authorwants to emphasizeagain thatwiththetracefossils the meaning of 'genus' differsmuch from thatapplicable to body fossils." THE KINDS OF HIDDEN OR UNKNOWN ANIMALS

The cryptozoologistsdeal with two differentsubjects.One is the discoveryof animalsnow alive belongingto a taxonalready known fromfossils and formerlybelieved to be extinct.The other is the search for animals, evidence for which is only testi-

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAMMALSAND CRYPTOZOOLOGY monial, circumstantial, or both. As the existence of these animals is not autoptical, they are frequentlythe named subjects of myths. In such cases the aim of cryptozoology is to demythifythem, that is, to searchhopefullyto findthe objective,living animal fromwhich the mythdeveloped. Cryptozoologistsbelieve that many taxa known as fossilsmay be, or indeed are, still fromtheirfossil alive and notmuchdifferent relativesor ancestors.A supposed example is the coelacanth Latimeria,which Heuvelmans (1959) characterizedas "that crossopterygianfishwhich comes straightout of the Devonian period." That reallyis mythifyinga now well-known and living fish. Latimeria is verydifferentfrom anyDevonian fish.It is also different fromany late Creknown fromfossils taceous crossopterygian approximatelysixty-fivemillion years old. UntilLatimeriawas found,seen, and named by a zoologistin 1940 it was believed that the order of fishes Crossopterygii,representedby fossilsfromearlyDevonian to late Cretaceous,was extinct.Latimeriadoes belong to thisorder,but in its "hidden" years sincethelate Cretaceousithad evolved considerably.It is thereforedistinguishedfrom all fossil crossopterygiansby its representationof a separatefamily,Latimeridae.No fossilsof thisfamilyare known,but it must have had membersin or throughthe preRecentCenozoic era. Thislargehiatusin the fossilrecordhas a probable explanationin the fact that Latimeriais confinedto a relativelysmall area of deep sea in the western partof the Indian Ocean. No fossilsof any sortare known fromthatarea or fromany region that has been continuouslyunder deep oceanicwaterthroughout theCenozoic. Heuvelmans (1982), as the messiah of cryptozoology,has declared that, "Every year, an average of . . . nearly a dozen mammals are discovered." If that is meant to referonlyto new species itdoes not mean thateach discoveryis ofan obviouslydistinct and previously unknown animal. Any mammalnot obviouslyrelatedto some pre-

3

viously known taxon would be at least a new genus and if even more distinctwould representa new family.Laterin the present paper tabulation shows that the average numberof acceptablynew genera of mammals named duringthe past fiftyyears has been less than one per year and that very few completely new families have been found and named during that time. Heuvelmans also assertsthat "full catalogs" of mammals and those with "doubtful and controversialpoints,"have been made only forEurope, North America,and Australia. ForAfricahe assertsthat"the best informed authorshave deliberatelyexcluded . . . all thespeciesofsmallsize." He adds thatthere is no equivalent"guide" (a listgivingspecies, genera, families,and orders of mammals) forAsia or South America.Those assertions are incorrect,as will nexthere be shown. NEW GENERA OF MAMMALS DISCOVERED FROM

1900 TO 1983

There are now two recentcompletelists of all known livingorders,families,genera, and species of mammals. One, edited by Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl (1982) was based on severalpreviouslistsincludingone by Seal and Makey (1974). Some 255 professionalmammalogistsin many countriescontributedto the compilation.It includes taxonomyof families,genera, and species,withtypelocalitiesand distribution forspecies,commentsfromcontributors, and ISIS numbersofalmostall taxa forcomputer use. Thereare no descriptionsof theanimals listed. The other complete recentlist is by Nowak and Paradiso (1983). This is a twovolume work with 1362 pages, supplementedby extrapages ofworlddistribution, chartsof all genera, and two indexes. This workwas firstwrittenby ErnestP. Walker, and the firsteditionwas issued in 1964. The second editionalso by Walkerwithrevision by JohnL. Paradiso appeared in 1968, and a thirdedition,published posthumouslyin 1975 (Walkerhad died in 1969) was again

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4

GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON

revisedby Paradiso. The 1983 fourthedition

tury.This is based on the 1983 book edited by Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl. I have considered that genera named in 1900 or later were known before 1900 if based on or includingspecies named before1900. For example the genus of bats now known as ErophyllaMiller,1906, has as its typea species named in 1861 by Gundlach. Therefore although given the now accepted name in 1906, the genus was definitelyknown in 1861 and is not countedas a twentieth-centurydiscovery. The names ofordersin thistableare those used in the 1983 list cited and are in the sequence of that list. The placing of monotremes, marsupials,and thenall sixteen of the here recognizedordersof placentals is in theclassicalsequence. It does notfollow thatthesesuper-ordinal groupingsoriginated in that sequence, as used to be believed or assumed by zoologists. Several studentsof marsupials,fossil and living, divide them

is titledWalker's MammalsoftheWorldbut

has been thoroughly revisedand augmented by Nowak and Paradiso, who appear as coauthors. It has figures,mostly photographs,of at least one species of everygenus and has extensivedescriptivematterand lists of species foreach genus. In view of the foregoingstrongdisagreement with Heuvelmans's statementabout the incompletenessof knowledge of living mammals,it is fairto say thatthe two major workshere citedwere published afterHeuvelmans (1982) was written.However it is notedthatthesemostrecentlistsof all living mammals were developed fromworks that were issued earlier,one in 1964 and one in 1974, and so had been available long before Heuvelmans (1982) wrote. In the followingtable I have enumerated all thegeneraofmammalsfirstmade known and named in decades of the twentiethcen-

Table of Numbers of Genera of Living Mammals Discovered and Named in the TwentiethCentury. Decadescovered NamesofOrders MONOTREMATA MARSUPIALIA XENARTHRA INSECTIVORA SCANDENTIA DERMOPTERA CHIROPTERA PRIMATES CARNIVORA CETACEA SIRENIA PROBOSCIDEA PERISSODACTYLA HYRACOIDEA TUBULIDENTATA ARTIODACTYLA PHOLIDOTA RODENTIA LAGOMORPHA MACROSCELIDEA TOTALS

1900-09 1910-19 1920-29 1930-39 1940-49 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 25 2 0 42

0 4 0 2 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 22

0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 20

0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 8

0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 7

0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 8

0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 9

GRAND TOTAL-126.

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 8

1980-82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

MAMMALS AND CRYPTOZOOLOGY into two or more different orders,but they do not agree as to how many ordersshould be recognized or what they should be named. The sequence oftheplacentalorders in this list has no clear significanceas to timesof originor affinities among the orders exceptthatall are placentalsas a verylarge super-ordinaltaxon. Most of these ordinal names are well known,but threehave not been in general use untilrecently.The "Scandentia" include onlytheone familyofso-calledtree-shrews, the Tupaiidae. This familyis of disputedrelationships,havingbeen commonlyclassified as Insectivoraand sometimesas Primates. Placing them as an order on theirown is essentiallycuttinga Gordianknot.All 16 of itsspecies,now classifiedin fivegenera,were discovered and named before 1900. The "Macroscelidea"also includeonlyone living family,Macroscelididae,withfournow recognized genera and fifteenspecies, all but one ofwhichwereknownand named before 1900. They are called "elephant shrews" as theyare superficially shrewlikeand have a flexiblesnoutthatremotelyresemblesa proboscis.Theyareusuallyclassifiedin theorder Insectivora,and are leftthere in the latest (1983) revisionof Walker'sMammalsof the butare givenseparateordinalposition World, in the 1982 compilationhere followed.The Dermopterainclude only one livingfamily, the Cynocephalidae, with one genus, Cynocephalus,with two species, both known and named in the eighteenthcentury.These are known as "colugos," a word said to be Malay althoughthisis not foundin a Malay dictionaryand thereis no letterc in written Malay. In Englishtheyare more commonly called "flyinglemurs,"althoughtheydo not flybut glide (like "flying"squirrels)and are obviouslynot lemurs.They are usually classifiedin theInsectivora,but notin thebooks here cited. In the listhere followedthe ordinalentry between MARSUPIALIA and INSECTIVORA is givenas ORDER EDENTATA (XE-

5

NARTHRA). The classical usage, stillto be found in some studies,includes in EDENTATA the Order here called PHOLIDOTA and sometimes also that here called TUBULIDENTATA. The present consensus, however,includesonlyXENARTHRAin the EDENTATA, thus makingthese two names clearerand more synonymous.It is therefore in accord with the consensus merelyto call the orderin question XENARTHRA. It is noteworthythatof all the generadiscovered in the twentiethcenturymost of them-84 out of 126-were discoveredbefore 1930. It is furtherinterestingthat the greatmajoritybelonged to only two orders: Chiroptera(23) and Rodentia (68), thus for these two orders91 out of 126 in this century.Also note thatthe numberdiscovered in thefirstdecade (42) droppedto about half that in the second (22) and the third(20) decades and thereafter droppedconsistently to less than one a year. The Chiropteraand Rodentia are much the most numerous in individuals and the in species,genera,and fammostdiversified ilies among livingmammals. They also include manyof thesmallestand mostobscure livingmammals,beingrivaledin thisrespect only by the Insectivora,which also include the thirdlargestnumberof discoveries(12) in thiscentury.Marsupials,also mostlysmall and localized ones, are runners-up,with 11 genera discoveredin this century. The high numbersof genera discovered early in the centuryare subject to some doubts. This may in partbe due to the fact thatOldfieldThomas, a notorioussplitterof specificand generictaxa, was especiallyactive duringthe firsttwo decades. In some cases he gave new genericnames to species thathe had himselfearlierplaced in genera previouslydiscoveredand named. In thepresenttabulationthereare ten orders in which no genera or familieshave been discoveredin the presentcentury,and two in which only fromone to threegenera have been found.Those withno discoveries

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

6

GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON

in thepresenttabulationhave relativelyfew livingfamiliesor genera:Monotremata,two families,threegenera;Xenarthra, exceptionally fivefamiliesand sixteenlivinggenera, all knownlongbefore1900; Scandentia,one family,fivelivinggenera,two named since 1900 but based entirelyon species known long before; Dermoptera,one family,one genus, alreadyknown to Linnaeus in 1758; Sirenia, two families,three Recent genera, but one extinctsince about 1770; Perissodactyla,threelivingfamilies,six livinggenera,all knownlongbefore1900; Hyracoidea, one livingfamily,threegenerabefore1900; Tubulidentata,one livinggenus (and species, known and named in 1766); Pholidota,one livingfamily,one genus known to Linnaeus in 1758; and Macroscelidea,one livingfamily,fourlivinggenera,all based on species known long before 1900. It is somewhatsurprising thatsome orders withonlyone or twogeneradiscoveredsince 1900 neverthelesshave rather numerous livingfamiliesand genera. The Camivora, among the most varied orderswith twelve living families,have only two genera discovered and named since 1900; Chrotogale, the genus and its one species named by Thomas in 1912, and Osbornictiswith its one species named by Allen in 1919. Most in this connectionare the Priinterestingly matesbecause manyormostofthesupposed hidden or mythical mammals of cryptozoology are considered to be primatesby those who believe in them.In factonly one doubtfulfamilyand two objectivelyknown primategenera have been discoveredsince 1900. Callimicowas named by Mirando-Ribeiro in 1911 but was based on a species firstknown in 1904. This was placed in a supposedly distinctfamily,Callimiconidae, by Hershkovitzin 1977, but other mammalogistshave placed itin the Callitrichidae, a familyknown since 1758. Allenopithecus was named by Lang in 1923 but based on a species known in 1907. The genus closely resemblesthe Cercopithecidae,and its type

species perhaps should be keptin the genus Cercopithecus.As will be discussed later, thereis absolutelyno objective,autoptical evidence for any new species of primates since 1907 at the latest. GENERA FIRST FOUND AS FOSSILS AND LATER FOUND ALIVE

This genus was found fossilin Burramys. a cave deposit of probable Pleistocene age in Australia,and on thatbasis it was named Burramys parvus,new genus and species,by RobertBroomin 1896. In 1966 a livinganimal of the species was found in a ski hut well up in theso-calledAustralianAlps. That one individualsoon died, but othersof this species were foundin the same climatically rigorousand limitedenvironment. In 1977 a then new familywas named and threeothergeneraknown Burramyidae, much earlierhave now been referredto this family.AcrobatesDemarest,1818, was based on a speciesalreadynamed by Shaw in 1793. CercartetusGloger, 1841, now includes a species named by Demarest in 1818. Distoechurus Peters,1874, has as itssole species one named in the same publication.Thus a livingspecies now placed in thisfamilywas already known and named in 1783, and a livinggenus now in the familywas named in 1818. Burramys and the Burramyidaeare not examples of cryptozoology. Catagonus.This genus was named by FlorentinoAmeghino in 1904 with the type species C. metropolitanus Ameghino, 1904, fromthe Mid-Pleistoceneof Argentina.In 1930 Carlos Rusconi named a supposedly

fossilsubspeciesPlatygonus carlesiwagneri, and in 1948 he made thisa fullspecies Platygonuswagneri.Although evidently PreHispanic, the known specimens were subfossiland possiblygeologicallyRecentor Holocene. In 1975 Wetzel, Dubos, Martin, and Myers announced that this species is stillalive in theGran Chaco, througha large area also extendinginto adjacent parts of

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAMMALS AND CRYPTOZOOLOGY Argentinaand Bolivia. The authors cited Rusconi'sspecies to Ameghino's transferred genus Catagonus.It is definitely a peccaryof the familyTayassuidae, the type genus of which is TayassuFischer,1814. That genus has two livingspecies. One, known as the white-collared peccary or javelina (pronounced as in Spanish), rangesfromnorthern Argentinainto southern Arizona and New Mexico.The other,knownas thewhitelipped peccary, ranges fromnorthernArgentinato southern(old) Mexico. Wetzel(especiallyin 1977) has shown that the subfossilspecies called Platygonuswagneri by Rusconi is the same as the living Chaco peccaryand belongs to Ameghino's supposedly extinctgenus Catagonus,not to Platygonus,a North American genus that spread into South America also duringthe Great Interchange (mainly Pliocene and Pleistocene) but is now apparentlyextinct on bothcontinents. Catagonusand Platygonus are rathercloselyrelatedand musthave had a commonancestry, perhapsin an earlyform referableto Platygonus. Catagonusapparently evolvedeitherin CentralAmericaorin South America.Althoughthe mammalogistswere so late in discoveringCatagonusabundantly alive in the poorlyexploredChaco, its presence thereand its distinctionfromthe other two livingspecies ofpeccarieshad been well knownto nativehuntersforuncountedgenerations. This was then for professional mammalogistsa genuine discoveryof a genus (firstas a subspecies) in 1948 and until 1975 consideredextinct.However the lapse between Rusconi's subfossiland fossilrecognitionof the species' survival was short in geological termsand the species is just another,more localized peccary belonging to a familywell known to mammalogists since Linnaeus in 1758. Aproteles.This is anothergenus of mammals firstknown as a fossiland laterfound living.It is a fruitbat of the familyPteropodidae, the typegenus of which (Pteropus) was knownto Brissonin 1762 but was given

7

a valid technicalname by Erxleben fifteen yearslater.Aprotelesbulmeraewas based on fragmentary subfossil remains found in a kitchenmidden in New Guinea by Hyndman in 1974 and published as a new genus and species by Menzies in 1977. Menzies had thenassumedthatthegenus and species were extinct,but even before Menzies's publicationHyndmanhad sentin skullsand mandibles of this species found in 1975 in a largecave and evidentlyremainsof living bats shot by natives with bow and arrow. Hyndman returnedto the cave in 1977 but foundthatthe colonyof Aprotelesthere had been killed or driven away by native hunters. In 1980 Hyndman and Menzies publisheda shortnote,witha figureof skull and jaw ofAproteles bulmerae, demonstrating that this genus and species had still been alive in 1975. However,searchof otherlarge collectionsof fruitbats fromNew Guinea did not turnup any otherspecimens.Hyndman and Menzies concluded in 1980 that this bat was probably extinctin eastern Papua New Guinea but mightstill survive in farwesternPapua New Guinea or in Indonesian New Guinea (West Irian). Thus it is still not known whether this genus survivesor is recentlyextinct.In any case, it was not a highlydistinctgenus or species, as it ratherclosely resemblesDobsonia moluccensisQuoy and Gaimard,1830, which is still abundantly alive in New Guinea and also in the Molucca Islands and in northernQueensland, Australia. Speothos.This genus of the dog family (Canidae) was named by Lund on the basis oflate Pleistoceneand probablyearlyRecent fossilsfroma cave in the stateof Minas Gerais, Brazil.The genus was named in 1839, and Lund ascribed two supposedly extinct species to it: Speothosvenaticusand S. pacivorus.He also named a fossil and supposedlyextinctspecies Icticyonmajor,which is now considered a synonymof Speothos pacivorus.This has been listedas an extinct species, but it may be only another name

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON

8

forS. venaticus.Beforethe end of the nineteenthcenturyit was foundthatSpeothosis and thelivingspeciesis generally notextinct, consideredthesame as S. venaticusof Lund. Althoughit huntsin packs, it is now somewhat sparsely distributed from Panama southwardeast of theAndes to farnorthern Argentina.The genericname was derived fromGreekspeos,"cave," in referenceto its early discoveryin a cave, and thos,jackal. The now well-knownliving species is genericallydistinctfromjackals,whichbelong to the large genus Canis, and they do not frequentcaves. Theyare now usuallyknown in English as "bush dogs." Speothosis clearlyof NorthAmericanancestry.It probablyevolved in tropicalNorth America,and in any case itsspread in South Americawas partofthelate Cenozoic "Great Interchange"of Northand South American mammals.Kurtenand Anderson(1980) have suggested that the immediate ancestor of an extinctgenus of Speothoswas Protocyon, canids known in the late Pliocene or early Pleistoceneboth in Texas and Argentina. SOME OTHER SUPPOSED

SURVIVORS

Okapia. This is probablythe genus most as theknown oftencitedby cryptozoologists survival of an otherwiseextinctgroup. In 1900 Sir Harry Johnstonlearned from a groupof pygmiesfromthe area now known as Zaire that there was in theirforestsan animallikea mule but withzebralikestripes in places. Sir Harrymanaged to obtain two pieces of stripedhide fromthe animal that the pygmiescalled "okapi." He sent these to theeminentBritishzoologistW. L. Sclater, who, takingit to be a new species possibly ofzebras,named itEquus?johnstoniin 1901. Laterin thatsame yearE. R. Lankester,also a Britishzoologist,on the basis of morematerialdeterminedthat this species belongs to a distinctgenus of the giraffefamilyand designatedit as Okapia johnstoni.The then new genericname was derivedfroma native

Africanname "okapi" for the animal long known to them. Giraffeswere well known to the Greeks and Romans and the species was given the technical name Cervus camelopardalisby Linnaeus in 1758. Giraffeshad been called "camelopards," a name derived through Therewas LatinfromGreekkamelopardalis. were hybridsbetween a legend thatgiraffes camels and leopards ("pards"). (The present Englishname "giraffe"was derivedthrough Frenchfroman Arabicname forthese now strictlyAfrican animals.) In 1756 Brisson wrotethatthe animal did not belong to Cervus,the genericname fordeer,and he gave it the distincttaxonomic name Giraffa.In 1821 Graydefinedand publisheda separate familyGiraffidae. had been Fossilmembersof theGiraffidae knownsince 1860 and theyrangefromMiocene to Recentin age. When the okapi had becomeknownto Europeans,thesuggestion was made thatit mightbe a species of Hellong known as an early (Mioladotherium, This is, however,incorrect.In cene) giraffid. some respectsOkapiais somewhatmorelike early giraffidssuch as PaleotragusGaudry, 1861, (late Miocene to early Pliocene), but it has become distinctly different:(See Churcher,1970, and Harris, 1976.) Fossils of Giraffa are fairlycommon in Africafrom late Pleistoceneto Recent,but only one dubious occurrenceof Okapiain thePleistocene is known. Thus Okapia is not a survivorof a known fossilgenus, subfamily,or family. itis not truethat"mostpeople Furthermore, had doubted" the existenceof okapis after theywere knownto Europeans,as statedby Heuvelmans (1959, p. 58). This genericname has enHexaprotodon. gendered much confusion.It was firstapplied to fossilsand has later been applied to some livinghippopotamuses.It could thus be anothergenus firstknown as extinctbut later found living. However, this is not at all clear or probable,and it is not in accord with the presentusage of most mammalo-

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAMMALSAND CRYPTOZOOLOGY gists.The name Hexaprotodon was published and definedby the Britishpaleontologists H. Falconer and P. T. Cautley in 1836 as a subgenus of Hippopotamus. The name Hexaprotodonis derived fromGreek words meaning"six frontteeth" and refersto the number of incisors,three on each side in upper and lower dentitions.It was applied to fossil and supposedly extinct hippopotamuses fromthe Siwalik Hills, now in partin bothPakistanand India. At the same time Falconer and Cautley gave the name Tetraprotodon as a subgenus for the living

Hippopotamus amphibiusLinnaeus, 1758,

which has two incisorson each side, upper is no longerused and lower. Tetraprotodon eitheras a genus or a subgenus, as it is essentiallysynonymouswith Hippopotamus. Like the giraffe, the commonAfricanhippopotamus was already known to the classical Romans and Greeks. In Greek it was called hippos potamios, literally "river horse,"and variantsoftheGreekname have been passed down to almost all European languages, includingmodem English. As a itwas adopted genericname,Hippopotamus, in theearliestworkvalid in presenttechnical nomenclature,the tenthedition of Systema Naturaeby Linnaeus,publishedin 1758. The likewise African pigmy hippopotamus, however,was not known to non-nativesof Africauntilearlyin the nineteenthcentury. It was named as a distinctspecies, Hippopotamusliberiensisin 1844 by Samuel Morton,an Americannaturalist(1799-1851). In 1852 another American naturalist,Joseph Leidy (1823-1891) maintained that the pigmy hippopotamus is a distinctgenus, whichhe first named Choerodes. Thatproved tobe a preoccupiedname,and in 1853 Leidy named it Choeropsis.Leidy was a paleontologistas well as a zoologist,but his genus Choeropsiswas based entirelyon the living pigmyhippopotamusand he did notinclude any fossilsunder this name. In 1977 two posthumouspapers on hippopotamuses were published by Mrs.

9

R. J.G. Savage under her previousmarried name S. C. Coryndon.She was a vertebrate paleontologistconcernedwith fossil mammals, especially those of Africa.(Much of her life was spent in Kenya.) In these final papers, published together,she maintained that the livingChoeropsisLeidy, 1853, is a synonymof the otherwisefossil Hexaprotodon,publicationof which antedated that of Choeropsisby seventeen years. She did not base this synonymyon the numberof incisors,whichin thetypespeciesis six(three on each side) both above and below and not four(two on each side) as in Hippopotamus and Choeropsis.She also referreda number of Eurasian and African fossil species to Hexaprotodon, althoughtheyhad fourincisors and not the six impliedin theirgeneric name. Her referenceof seven fossilspecies and the living species liberiensisto Hexaprotodonwas based on some charactersof theskull(when knownin thefossilspecies), wear on the incisors (hence nature of the bite),and proportionsof some known limb bones. Choeropsisliberiensisdoes somewhat in some ofthese resemblefossilHexaprotodon but it seems about characters, equally like in otherrespects.Coryndon's Hippopotamus own phylogeneticdiagramshows Choeropsis liberiensis branchingseparatelyfromthatof fossilspecies ofHexaprotodon althoughfrom a commonancestor,butitalso shows Hippopotamus,fossiland recent,branchingfrom the same ancestry although inferentially somewhatearlier. Almost all mammalogistsnow consider Choeropsisto be a distinctand valid genus. It is not known in Eurasia, where Hippopotamuswas widespreadin thelate Cenozoic but is now extinct. It probably evolved somewherein Eurasiaand migratedto Africa over a land connectionin the Pliocene. Up to now only one fragmentof Choeropsishas been foundfossilin thePleistocene,and the genericidentification of thatspecimenis decidedly dubious. It seems probable that Choeropsisevolved locally in Africa. (The

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

10

GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON

genus has also been reported fossil or subfossilfromthe Mediterraneanand from Madagascar, but those generic references may be incorrectand based only on island dwarfingof species of Hippopotamus.)The upshot of thissomewhattangledtale is that Choeropsisis not clearlyknown as a fossil, has never been considered extinct,and is definitelynot an example of the discovery as stillalive of a supposedlyextinctanimal. It is of interesthere,althoughdigressive, that in the second of her two posthumous publicationsCoryndondescribedas new a fossilspecies fromthe "earliestPleistocene" of Africaas Hexaprotodon karumensis. From the descriptionand illustrations,this certainlyappears to be a valid species, but so extraordinarily peculiar that it cannot be reasonablyassigned to any but a new and otherwiseunknowngenus. The othersurely known genera of hippopotamids are only Hexaprotodon(extinctas such), Choeropsis (living),and Hippopotamus(living). Megalonychidae.The statusof thisfamily, itsincludedtaxa,and its survivalintoeither the geologicalor the colloquial "Recent" or "recent"are uncertainand disputable.Several generaand species clearlyof thisfamily are now known as fossils,only,in the West Indies (Hall and Kelson, 1959, and Hall, 1981; the two editionscited have the same title,and both include the West Indies as if parts of North America). These fossils are sub-Recentin geologicaltermsor quite possibly Recent. There is evidence that they were still living when the pre-European Carib Indians reached the islands. They are certainlynow extinct,and it is probable for some or all thattheirextinctionwas caused by the Indians. A different part of the problem depends on the classificationof Choloepus,the genus of two-toedtreeslothswithtwo livingspecies confinedto CentralAmerica(Nicaragua and southward) and to lowland South America.The classical arrangementby neomammalogistswas to place thisgenus in the

similarlivingtreeslothfamilyBradypodidae, also a lowland and mainly tropical South Americangroup,the type genus, Bradypus, with three living species. Paleomammalogists,however, since the 1960s have been and Choloepus generallyagreedthatBradypus had quite different ancestors among early so-called "groundsloths."This has been acceptedby a consensusof neomammalogists to the extent of placing Choloepus in a separate familyCholoepidae. Lately,however,a paleommalogisthas placed Choloepus in the otherwise "ground sloth" family Megalonychidae(Webb, in Montgomery,in pressas of 1983). If thisbecomes generally accepted, Choloepuswill be considered as the lone genus survivingfroman otherwise extinctfamilyrepletewithfossilgenera.Even ifaccepted,thiswould hardlybe an example of a clear-cutcryptozoologicaldiscoveryof anothersurvivorpreviouslyconsideredextinct.Choloepuswas known and named by Illigerin 1811 and Megalonyx was notvalidly named by Harlan until 1825. In any case, the fossil genus Megalonyxand the living thatit genus Choloepusare so verydifferent never occurredto a systematistto collocate themexceptin thelargeand vague category of "sloths" untilwell intothetwentiethcentury. Heptaxodontidae. Somewhat similar doubtsand questionsarise forthisfamilyof hystricomorph or caviomorphrodentsas for the Choloepidae or Megalonychidaeamong theXenarthra.Genera now usually ascribed to thisfamilywere varied and abundant in the geological sub-Recentor Recent of the West Indies. One genus from there,Amblyrhiza,was described and named by the paleontologist Cope in 1868. Five more closelyrelatedgeneraincludingthe typegenus of thefamily,also fromtheWestIndies, were definedand named by the neomammalogistAnthonyin 1916, 1917, and 1920. In 1917 Anthony also placed these as a subfamilyof Dinomyidae, a related South Americanfamilywithone livinggenus, Di-

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAMMALS AND CRYPTOZOOLOGY nomys.In 1918 Millerand Gidleyraised the Heptaxodontinaeto the familylevel, and in 1929 Miller described and named another West Indian genus, Quemisia. Heptaxodon itselfis probablya synonymof a previously named West Indian genus, Elasmodontomys Anthony,1916, but under the presentInternationalCode of Nomenclaturethisdoes not invalidate the familyname Heptaxodontidae. ContinentalSouthAmericanfossilrodents clearlyrelatedand generallyreferredto this familyare abundant in the Miocene and Pliocene.Many SouthAmericangenerahave been named, mostlyby FlorentinoAmeghino and Lucas Kraglievich, and thelatteralso named several familiesnow generallyconsideredsynonymouswithor subordinateto the Heptaxodontidae. There is no serious doubt that the familywas of continental South American originand that it is now extinct,even though in the West Indies it probablylived on intothegeologicalor even the historicalrecent.There is here no questionof belated or cryptozoologicalrediscovery of a familyof mammals,as a member of this one was known as a fossilin 1868 and no scientific zoologisteversaw one alive. FAMILIES DISCOVERED IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

Onlytwo familiesoflivingmammalshave been discovered in the fullyobjective and autopticalsense duringthe presentcentury. This entailsipso factothe simultaneousdiscoveryof a new genus and species in each ofthesetwo families.Itis notsurprisingthat these two familiesbelong to the two orders most abundant and diverse in the present mammalian faunas of the world: the bats (Chiroptera)and the rodents(Rodentia). Therehas been some confusionas to who firstdescribedand named therodentfamily Seleviniidae,genus Selevinia,and species eitherSeleviniabetpakdalaensis Belosludovand Bashanov, 1938, or Selevinia paradoxa Ar-

11

gyrapoloand Vinogradov,1939. The former authors and their name apparently have priority.The animal involved, now fairly well known,was foundin the Betpak-Dala desertin Kazakhstan,U.S.S.R. It seems to be mostnearlyrelatedto thedormousefamily Gliridae,but it is so extremelyaberrant thattherehas neverbeen any questionabout in a distinctand well-defined itsclassification family.Nothingmoreis clearlyknownabout its ancestryor relationships,and it was obviouslynotthediscoveryofa foreseen,even a hinted,or a mythicalhidden animal. The factthatit is small (between threeand four inches in head and body length) and lives in a remoteand littlefrequenteddesertexplains its late discovery.The most nearly relatedfamily,Gliridae,was known to Brisson in 1762, and the etymologyof the Englishvernacularname "dormouse" suggests thatexistenceof thisfamilyhad been known to western Europeans many generations earlier. The bat familyCraseonycteridae,genus thongCraseonycteris, species Craseonycteris Hill, 1974, were found at Sai Yoke, longyai Kanchanaburi,Thailand some timepriorto 1974 and named by J.E. Hill on the basis of a specimen sent to the BritishMuseum (NaturalHistory).It is stillknownonlyfrom thelocalitywhereit was firstfound.It is the smallestknownbat and has been compared with a bumblebee for size. It may be the smallest of all known living mammals, in this respect rivaled only by a very small shrew such as Suncus etruscus.(Some early fossilmammalswere smallerthan any now living.)It most nearlyresemblesthe genus in the vernacularthe threespeRhinopoma, cies of mouse-tailedbats, but Craseonycteris differs obviouslyin the completeabsence of a tail,much smallersize, and otherdetails. Here again the small size of the animal and its limitedand remotegeographicrange explain its late and unheralded discovery.It also roostsin small caves as faras possible fromtheirentrances.

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

12

GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON

The factthatthesediscoveriesof definitely new and distinctfamiliesof livingmammals have been only two in the course of more than 80 years, holds out littlepromise of otherdiscoveriessoon, ifever,of equally or moredistincttaxa ofmammals.Thatis especially trueas those rumoredare largerand nearerto home forthe many hunters. CREDOQUIA IMPOSSIBILE Humans are themostinventive,deceptive, and gullibleof all animals. Only those characteristics can explainthebeliefof some humans in creationism,in the arrivalof UFO's with extraterrestrial beings, or in some aspects of cryptozoology. In several respects the discussion and practice of cryptozoologysometimes, although not invariably,has demonstrated both deceptionand gullibility.An example seemsto merittheold Latinsaying"I believe because itis incredible,"althoughTertullian, itsauthor,applieditin a way moreapplicable to the present-daycreationists. In 1920 a Swiss geologist(not a zoologist or paleontologist)named Fransois de Loys was exploring along the border between Venezuela and Colombia. There,according to his report,he or his companions killed a male in a group, as he claimed, of apelike animals. He propped up the dead animal and photographedit. He did not bringback any part of the animal but he claimed that it had no tail and (at different times)thatit was about 4 feet5 inches or about 5 feet2 inches tall. The photograph,sole evidence thatthecreatureexistedat all, does notshow whetherithad a tailor not or make possible any checkon itsheight.On the basis of this photographand ofLoys'svaryingstatements a French Professor Georges Montandon "identified"theanimalas an anthropoidape (the only one "known" outside of Asia and Africa)and named itAmeranthropoides loysi (Montandon, 1929). There is no reason to doubt thatMontandon acted in good faith,

but he did not displaygood sense. The photograph,which is the only objective evidence, is quite surelyof a spidermonkeyof the well-known genus and species Ateles belzebuth, which occursin the regionwhere Loys said theanimalwas killed.This species was named by Geoffroyin 1806, and the genus was already known to Linnaeus in 1758. A matureadult would be about as tall as Loys's statement(or guess) if it stood up on its hind feet,which was apparentlyassumed by Loys. To be sure, Ateles and all otherknownSouthAmericanmonkeyshave fairlylong tails. As to this, one can only assume that Loys was lying,and that he posed the dead animal on a box so that its tail did not appear in the photograph. Heuvelmans (1959) devoted a whole chapter(chapter14, pages 305-328) to this supposedly "unknown animal." His book, which in effectstartedsubsequent interest in cryptozoology, had as frontispiece a copy of Loys's photograph,titled as "Ameranthropoides loysi,the only 'unknown' animal of whichthereis a good photograph."Heuvelmans,like Montandon,may be assumed to have acted in good faith,but evidently not withgood sense. He concluded thatthe existence of a South American great ape could not be disputed "except by the disingenuousor theblind." Yet the area where the animal was reportedby Loys had been explored since the beginning of the 19th centuryand has been eversincethenwithout any sign of a primateremotelyresembling a greatape. In thatsame workHeuvelmans discussed other "hidden animals" that have become classics for later cryptozoologists.Notably the "yeti" or "the not so abominable snowman" has a chapter of 56 pages. He also devoted some attentionto "the Queensland marsupial tiger,"which is no longer taken seriouslyeven by cryptozoologists. Heuvelmans did, however,treatwith betterjudgmentthe "impossible" New Zealand "waitoreke"(nota Maoriname) and themythical

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAMMALS AND CRYPTOZOOLOGY Patagonian"Iemisch" (notan Indian name), also called "Neomylodon." Such of Heuvelmans's "unknown animals" as have been scientifically identified have turnedout to be long known. The African "nandi bear," forexample, has been found to be a honey badger or ratel,Mellivoracapensis,alreadyknown to zoologists in 1776-a possibility that Heuvelmans mentionedbut rejected.On the otherhand the "orang pendek," also called a "sedapa" or a "sindai," a supposed small semi-human Sumatran animal, still seems to be an unidentifiedor solelymythologicalcreature.In theIndonesianlanguage "orang pendek" or "orang pandek" means "short person (human)." "Sedapa" is probably a version of "sedap," meaning"delicious" (to eat). "Sindai" does not appear to be an Indonesian word. This "unknown" may have been a dwarf human or if not purely mythical probablya Malayan bear, Helarctos(or Ursus)malayanus,a smallbear occurringin Sumatraand known since 1821 at latest. Moving on, there is a marginallycryptozoologicalstudy,one of thefewby a leading zoologist,anthropologist, and anatomist, JohnNapier (1973). Underthetermof "Bigfoot," Napier includes both the Asiatic (mostly Himalayan) Yeti or "Abominable Snowman" and the northwesternUnited States and westernCanadian "Sasquatch." (Heuvelmans had missed the latter.)Napier went over the masses of evidence, or supposed evidence. He concluded that,"If we confineourselves rigidlyto what most scientistswould regardas hard evidence,then the answer is heard loud and clear: Bigfoot does notexist.There is no scrap of hard evidence. . . ." As an anthropologistNapier thinksthatforethnologicaland psychological reasons, and perhaps forgeneticones, humans need folktalessuch as those of Bigfoot.On the available indirectevidence,he discardsthe realityof the Yeti. Yet he finds himself"convincedthattheSasquatchexists, but whetherit is all it is crackedup to be is

13

another matteraltogether."This is in the face of recognitionthat many of the footprintsare hoaxes and thatmanyofthecitings are eitherhoaxes or "psychologicalabnormalities"-and yetthatSasquatch does exist if anyare true.Finallyhe says, "Man needs his gods-and his monsters-and the more remote and unapproachable they are, the better."And thena postscript:"Perhaps by the time this book is published somebody will have discovered a Bigfoot.I hope so; butifnot,I willhappilysettleforthemyth." As this is being written,ten years have passed since Napier's book was published. No Bigfoothas been discovered. Less than ten years ago, in 1978, Heuvelmans followedup with anotherbook in French,on "The Last Dragons of Africa." In thefirstissue of thejournalCryptozoology thereis a review of Heuvelmans (1978) by Jean-FranfoisTrape (1982), an overseas (ORSTOM) French scientist stationed in Brazzaville,People's Republicof the Congo. While payingdue homage to the "Fatherof Cryptozoology,"Trape goes on to say that itis "always ratherriskyto draw excessively definitiveconclusions from simple statementsby witnesses. . . . The problembecomes stillmore delicate when it comes to second-hand reportseven if obtained directlyfromwitnesses." Finally,with reference more specificallyto the belief thatdinosaurs survivein Africa,Trape concludes that . . theseseveraldecadeswithout concrete proof of thesurvivalof such animalsis beginning to havea weightmuchheavierthanthe70 million yearswithout fossilevidence. Whilenohypothesis shouldbe excludeda priori-andthatis indeed theveryessenceofcryptozoology-one mustadmitthattimeis notworking in favorofthe"last dragonsof Africa!" *

The presentessay is not concernedwith dinosaurs,but it is concernedwith Heuvelmans's statementthat, along with aquatic dinosaurs, amphibious machairodonts(sa-

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

14

GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON

bertooth"tigers,"whichbecame extinctnot 70 millionbut less than 1 millionyearsago) are stillpresentin Africa.No machairodonts were amphibious,and thereis no objective evidence that any surviveanywhere. Anotherfairlyrecentbook by Canadian JohnGreen (1978) about "Sasquatches" is a prolix gatheringof indirectevidence. It oddly,confusinglystartsout by statingthat the author does not believe in Sasquatch, but then goes on to give supposed reasons why one should believe. Stillanotherbook, a symposial volume edited by R. Sprague and G. S. Krantz(1979) indicatesthatmuch of the "evidence" forthe Sasquatch is admittedlyfaked.Stillanother,editedby Marjorie Halpin and Michael Ames (1980), is a collectionof papers read at a conferenceon "Manlike Monsters" (mainly the so-called Sasquatch) held in 1978 at the Universityof BritishColumbia (in Canada). Thereis a review of this book, seven pages long, by GroverS. Krantz(1982). One would expect thatattendantsat such a conferencewould tend to be favorableto the existenceof the Sasquatch, but as analyzed by thisreviewer tenof thetwenty-four articlespublishedare "Skeptical," nine are "Neutral," and only fiveare "Favorable." WiththecurrententhusiasmforYetisand Sasquatches one mightthinkthat no more is necessaryto sufficeforwhatNapier (1973) has called the "primevalurge,"perhaps geneticprogramming, forat leastsome humans to need monsters,whethernatural or unnatural,real or mythical.New candidates for these roles are neverthelessstill added to the long list thatincludes the "Bigfeet." An example is provided by Roy Wagner (1982), who is head of the Departmentof Anthropology (notzoology)at theUniversity of Virginia.He had been doing fieldstudies of the humans on New Ireland,which is a narrow,elongated island at a considerable distance northeastof Papua New Guinea, althoughpoliticallya part of that country. Here he was repeatedly told of creatures

called a ri in Bartok,which is one of the Melanesian languages. The accounts varied greatly,and some were similarto the "menagerie" thatWagnerrecognizedas "rather fanciful 'bush' creatures-spirit beings, monsters,and fearsome animals." There were,however,repeateddescriptionsof the a ri as marinecreaturesresemblinghuman males and femalesfromtheirheads to their genitaliabut withoutlegs and ending in a fishlikelower partwith lateralfins.He was assured that Europeans (and evidently Americans,too) knew all about a ribecause "you put picturesof them on matchboxes and canned goods." Referencewas to picturesof mermaids.The a ri were said to be very common, seen every day, known to everyone,and eaten by some. Nevertheless, while living with his informants,Wagner never definitelysaw one. Only one was pointed out to him as an a ri, but he saw only "a long dark body . . . which submergedand did notreappear."Wagnerdoes to understand commentthat,"It is difficult how such disparateperceptions"-mythical projections-"of the ri have come about." He findsthat "the physical descriptionsof the ri also pose problems,"which he does not explicitlydiscuss. This articleby a presumablycapable anthropologistposits a mammal that is not merelyunknownbutis impossible.The most logicalinferenceis thatWagnerput together in his own imaginationelementsin a varying folkstorywidespreadamonghis informants, and also that it is quite possible that the nativeswere enjoyingleading a white man up the garden-path,as the English say, or kiddinghim, as Americanssay. DISCUSSION

AND CONCLUSIONS

It is evident that cryptozoologyis interestingto manypeople, includingsome who reject its definitions,methods, and proclaimedresults.Forthosewho supportcryptozoology,italso seems clearthatthissubject

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAMMALSAND CRYPTOZOOLOGY satisfiessome emotional need or perhaps some inborntendency.The cryptozoological animals here previouslyexemplifiedamong supposed mammalsinclude various distinct categories. What they include are kinds (zoologicallyspeaking,taxa) of animalssupposedly now livingbut consideredhitherto extinctor unknown. The supposed examples of cryptozoological animals that have had the most extensive publicityat a journalisticlevel, at least,are two groupsof reptiles:plesiosaurs and dinosaurs. Paleontologistsconsidered and stilldo considerthese taxa extinctsince the end of the Cretaceous,some 65 million yearsago. The mostdiligentsearchby skilled paleontologistsformore than two centuries now has notturnedup any evidenceofpostCretaceous Plesiosauria or Sauropoda (one of the two main taxonomicgroups of dinosaurs). The cryptozoological supposed membersof these major taxa now most diligentlypursued, but not yet found or objectivelyidentified,are the Scottish "Loch Ness monster,"which has aspects of being a publicitystunt,usually as a supposed survivingplesiosaur,and the AfricanMobeleMbembe, which has aspects of the entirely mythicalor folkloric,but has been sought in vain so far as a survivingsauropod dinosaur. (A dubious plesiosaurhas also been reportedfromLake Champlain,and a more than dubious dinosaur fromFlorida.) Among the mammalsthathave been the subjectof cryptozoologicalenquiryor speculationtherehave been: hoaxes,forexample Ameranthropoides; purely mythicalor folktale inventions,for example the African "nigve," which as describedby Africannatives could not have been a pigmyhippopotamusbutwas laterthoughtto have been; a nativename notunderstoodby Europeans but eventuallyidentifiedas a mammal long knownto zoologists,liketheAfrican"nandi" (also known regionallyas "chimoset," "isata," and so on, dependingon the local dialect) which turnedout to be in most if not

15

all cases a ratel,an animal which had been known to scientific zoologistssince 1776; or an animal known firstas a fossil but later found living,like the Australianmarsupial Burramysand very few otherexamples involvingonly fossilsknown to have been of almostrecentage; or, most touted,animals likethesasquatchand manyothersassumed to exist on testimonial or circumstantial groundsalone but never found as real objective and autopticalanimals. Among mammals perhaps the most extraordinary example of an ignoranceof the science of zoology and downrightsilliness was providedby a Russian,B. F. Porshnev. From1966 until1974, theyearof his death, he was supportinga "revolutionin primatology"whichwas a successionof one blunder afteranother(see Porshnev,1974). The major pointsof thisexample of cryptozoologyare: first, thattheonlygenus and species ofthehumanfamilyis Homosapiens;second, thatthishad as an ancestorthe missinglink (betweenapes and humans) Troglodytes fossilis,which name he used forNeanderthal man; third,thatthisspecies was an animal and thereforedid not belong to the human family;and finally,that Troglodytes in the formof Troglodytes recensis stillliving.There is no evidence at all forhis conclusion,and his attemptedclassificationis one blunder after another. He ascribed Troglodytesto Linnaeus as a generic term,but Linnaeus (1758) used Troglodytes(from Greek for "cave dweller") at firstas subordinate to Homoand withtwo speciesH. nocturnus and H. sylvestris, the latteras applicable to the Orang Outang, a formof the Malay name stillused in colloquialEnglishorangutan.(In Malay it means "foresthuman," a far cry from"cave dweller.") Linnaeus later used the combinationSimia troglodytes. In 1758 he gave the geographic habitat as Africa ("Aethiopia") and caves in Java,Amboina, and Temate.In 1758 Linnaeuswas evidently includinggorillasand orangutansin a taxon (of somewhat uncertainlevel) Troglodytes.

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16

GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON

In 1812 E. Geoffroydefineda genus Troglodytes, butthatwas preoccupiedby thesame genericname given to a bird by Vieillotin 1806 and was replaced by the name Pan (Gmelin, 1788) Oken, 1816. Pan troglodytes is now the accepted name of the common Africanchimpanzee. (Linnaeus' geographic referencefor the orangutanwas incorrect, followingvague statementsby explorersof theEast Indies; thespeciesnow called Pongo pygmaeus is confinedto Sumatraand Borneo, but thereis fossilevidence forits presence in the Pleistoceneand earlyRecentin Java and on the southeasternpartof continental Asia.) These mattersof nomenclatureand classification,here simplifiedand abbreviated, are importantto the extentthat theyshow thatPorshnevhad littleor no grasp on scientificzoology and also on historical or physicalanthropology.An English translation of a Russian summarywas published in 1974, shortlyafter in Current Anthropology Porshnevdied. In the styleof thatjournal, themanuscriptwas referredto six noted anin Spain, India, and theUnited thropologists States for commentsto be published with the article.All six severely and adversely criticizedPorshnev's views and expression of them.As he could not replyto this concertedrejection,a reply,much longer than Porshnev's articleor any of the criticisms, was writtenby two Russians,Bayanov and Bourtsev,and was published in the same In a laterissue Anthropology. issue ofCurrent they followed this up with another article (Bayanovand Bourtsev,1976) in whichthey argued for the survival of Neanderthals based on some ancientstatuesand ceramics and on the extensive literatureon "wild men"or"wolf-children"(forexampleSingh and Zingg, 1942). These latterare not relevant to the argument,as they were supposed to be feralHomo sapiensand not prehuman survivors. The commenthere thatPorshnev's work is an example of cryptozoologyis justified

by the fact that Heuvelmans in 1974 (the year of Porshnev's death) published in Frencha statementthat"Neanderthalman is stillalive,"withPorshnevas juniorauthor. As justificationfor the judgment that this was about the nadir for cryptozoology,a commentby EmilianoAguirre,an excellent Spanish anthropologistand vertebratepaleontologist,will suffice.About Porshnev's Aguirrewrote,"Let us notclassify infra-man it beforewe findit." This statementapplies to the miscellany of cryptozoologyas a whole. It is absurdto considercryptozoology as an equal adjunct to zoology and to state as its mission the completionof the roster of livinganimals. In the present study objectivelyknown living(geologicallyand historicallyRecent) mammals are used as a way to determine how much cryptozoologyhas in fact contributedto the modern science of zoology, and also to estimatethe probabilityof any futurediscoveryof new and distinctivetaxa of mammals. Mammals are betterfor this purpose than most otherhigh taxa. At the levels of genera and families,living mammals are now more completelyknown than any otherclass of animals,withthepossible exceptionof birds. The precedingtable of numbersofgeneradiscoveredin thiscentury in the various orders of this class and the subsequentdiscussiongive a basis formeasurementsof these accomplishmentsup to now and forestimationof probabilitiesfor the future. The intensivesearch fornew taxa in the and nomenclatureof mammals classification is formallydated fromthe tentheditionof the SystemaNaturaeof Carolus Linnaeus in 1758. Discoveries,clearlyabundantby 1758, reached a heightin the nineteenthcentury, and fromhigherto lower taxonomiclevels therateof objectivediscoveryhas thereafter been diminishing.Attentionis here focused on thetwentiethcenturyas thespan of time in which completionhas been approached, and also the whole span of the formation

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAMMALSAND CRYPTOZOOLOGY ofcryptozoology as the"science" ofreaching thatcompletion. As previouslynoted,therateof discovery of genera has markedlydiminishedduring thiscentury,and it is now and has been for thelastfifty yearsbelow one genus per year. None of these genera were discovered by followingcryptozoological,i.e., non-objective,principles.Since among mammals the cryptozoologicalsearch is largelyfor supposed primates,it is significantthat no objective genera of primateshave been discovered since 1907, at the latest. There are only fourgenera of mammals firstfound as fossiland later found living. In all of these the known fossilspecies, as well as genera, were of late Pleistocene or early Recent age. All belonged to families with othergenera and species known long beforethese.Thereis no significant timegap here and no discoveryof a previouslytruly unknownspecies,genus, or family.As previously noted, the only completelynovel families,genera, and species discovered in thelast fifty yearsare the Craseonycteridae, based on a species of bats, Craseonycteris thonglongai Hill, 1974, and a rodentfamily Seleviniidae, type-speciesSelevinia betpakdalaensisBelosludov and Bashanov, 1938. As both these discoverieswere of relativelysmall animals foundin ratherremote regions,in caves in Thailand and in a desert in Kazakhstan, respectively,it might be hoped thata further searchin unlikelyplaces may yetreveal manymorenoveltiesamong known, livingmammals. It is importantto note not only when, but where, fairlylate discoveriesof mammals have been made. The whole world has been searched forliving mammals for well over two centuries now. It is not surprisingthat the most distinctivespecies, genera, and few families discoveredin thepresentcenturywere small animals in unusual and remote environments.This facthas led naturaliststo explore intensivelyjust such places, although with decreasingsuccess.

17

In AustraliaBurramys, long known as a fossil,was discoveredalive as late as 1966. It was in theonlyalpine environment in that continent, a regionnow a nationalpark,with a museumdemonstrating itsfauna,crowded with touristsin summerand with skiersin winter. Another Australian marsupial, WyuldasquamicaudataAlexander,1918, was discoveredin a West Australianpart of the extensiveAustraliandeserts,but thoseareas, too, have been extensivelyscouredfornovelties since then, withoutreally significant furtherdiscoveries.Goeldi's marmoset,discovered in the rain forestsof the Amazon Basin,was named as a speciesin 1904,raised to a monotypicgenus in 1911, and to a monotypicfamilyin 1977. (The latterrankingis disputed.)Since 1904 theAmazon Basin and its rain forest(now rapidly being cleared) have been thoroughlyexploredfor mammals.The distribution of species of primates and of genera of all familiesthereis well known, and discovery of any new mammals above the species level there is quite unlikely. The dense forestsof WestemNew Guinea (Indonesian Irian Jaya) have not been exhaustivelyexplored for theirfauna. There are quite a few fieldrecordsand specimens fromthere,but itis quite possible thatsome obscure,small,mammalianspecies may still be discoveredin New Guinea. The likewise dense forests of western equatorial Africa have yielded some distinctivenew mammals and have recently been reexaminedin partby cryptozoologists, butunsuccessfully. Theymay stillhold some undiscoveredspecies of mammals,although thisis unlikely.Two striking and ratherlarge mammalshave been discoveredthere,in the sense of "discovery"as a knowledgeof them by non-tribalpeople and theirdefinition and namingby zoologists.These are the pigmy hippopotamusChoeropsis,known as noted above to zoologistsas earlyas 1852, and the giraffid Okapia,definedand named in 1901. Both of these genera belong to families

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

18

GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON

knownfromantiquity,longbeforeLinnaeus and 1758. No large livingmammal, not to mentiondinosaurs,has been discoveredin Africa since 1901. In South America the largestmammal recentlyclearlyidentified, defined,and named is the Chaco peccary, a survivorof the Pleistocene genus Catagonus, as also noted above. It had surely been known to the tribalIndians fromtime unmeasured,and almostas surelyknown to earlySpanish explorersbutprobablyknown to themonly as peccaries,originallya Tupi (AmazonianIndian)name,or by one of their names in Guarani,thetribalIndianlanguage stillcurrentin Paraguay. In this connection,it is relevantthat the and claimed sightingsof reportedfootprints the most discussed cryptozoologicalmammals are in regionsquite thoroughlyknown by many people, includingzoologists. The yetiis supposed to be in a regionof difficult access, fromabout 12,000 to about 22,000 feetof altitudein the Himalayas. There are residentsin thelowerpartof thisrange,and every year there are expeditions of competenthumans into the higherparts.As for the footprintsand claimed sightingsof the sasquatch,thesehave occurredin well-populated regionsin BritishColumbia, Alberta, Washington State, Oregon, and northern California. It is simply incredible that so many educated people, including professhould sionalzoologistsand anthropologists, have failed to produce any objective evidence thatyetisor sasquatches do exist.(A supposed yetiscalp proved to be a hoax; a poor filmof a supposed sasquatchcould well be a hoax also.) As to predictionof futurediscoveries,on presentevidence thiscan be done only in a generalway, but thereis relevantevidence. Afterso many futileyears, the chances of objectiveand adequate evidence forthe living zoological realityof the yetior the sasquatch are extremelysmall. There is some reasonable probabilityof the discoveryof new livingspecies of mammals objectively

and taxonomicallyestablished,within the next few decades. There is a slighterprobabilityof the discoveryof decidedly new genera but here, too, thereremains a possibility.The chancesof any discoveryofnew living families are very slight. That new familytaxa,includingspecies and generaalready known,will be proposed and named in thefutureis highlyprobable,but thatwill notbe discoveryin an acceptablesense. That reallyand entirelynew taxa above the level of familieswill be discoveredis improbable, approachingor reachingzero as the taxa are higherin the hierarchyof classification. REFERENCES BAYANOV, D., and I. BOURTSEV. 1976. On Neanderthal vs. Paranthropus.CurrentAnthropology, 17 (2): 312-318. CHURCHER, C. S. 1970. Two new upperMiocenegiraffids fromFortTeman, Kenya,East Africa.Fossilvertebratesof Africa,(2): 1-106. Academic Press, London and New York.(Withan exhaustivebibin general.) liographyof fossilgiraffids CORYNDON,S. C. 1977. The taxonomyand nomenclature oftheHippopotamidae(Mammalia,Artiodactyla) and a descriptionof two new fossilspecies. Proceedings of the KoninklijkeNederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen,Series B, 80 (2): 6188. GREEN, JOHN. 1978. Sasquatch, the apes among us. Hancock House, Saanichton,BritishColumbia. HALL, E. R. 1981. (Two volumes.) The mammals of North America. 2nd edition.JohnWiley,New York. HALL, E. R., and K. R. KELSON. 1959. (Two volumes.) The mammalsof NorthAmerica.Ronald Press, New York. HALPIN, M., and M. M. AMES, editors.1980. Manlike monsterson trial:Earlyrecordsand modem evidence. Universityof BritishColumbia Press, Vancouver. HANTZSCHEL,W. 1962. Trace fossilsand problematica. Treatise on invertebratepaleontology. W177W245. Geological Societyof America and Universityof Kansas Press, Lawrence,Kansas. HARRIS,J.M. 1976. PleistoceneGiraffidae(Mammalia, Artiodactyla)from East Rudolf, Kanya. Fossil vertebratesof Africa,(4): 283-332. Academic Press, London, New York,and San Francisco. B. 1955. Sur la piste des betes ignorees. HEUVELMANS, LibrairiePlon, Paris. 1959. On the trackof unknownanimals.Richard Clay and Co., Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk,England, and Hill and Wang, New York,U.S.A. 1978. Les demiersdragonsd'Afrique.Plon, Paris.

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAMMALSAND CRYPTOZOOLOGY . 1982. Whatis cryptozoology? 1 (1): Cryptozoology, 1-12. HEUVELMANS, 1974. L'homme B., and BORISPORSHNEV. de Neanderthalest toujoursvivant.Plon, Paris. HILL,J. E. 1974. A new family,genus and species of bat (Mammalia: Chiroptera)fromThailand. Bulletin of the BritishMuseum (Natural History), Zoology (27): 301-336. K. E., and KOEPPL,J.W. 1982. HONACKI, J.H., KINMAN, Mammal species of the world. Allen Press and AssociationofSystematics Collections.Lawrence, Kansas. GRANTZ,GROVERS. 1982. [Reviewof Halpin and Ames 1 (1): 94-100. (1980)]. Cryptozoology, KURTEN,BJORN,and ELAINE ANDERSON. 1980. Pleistocene mammals of North America. Columbia UniversityPress, New York. MONTANDON, G. 1929. Singe d'apparence anthropoide de l'Amerique du Sud. Comptes Rendus, Academie de Science, Paris, 11 March 1929. MONTGOMERY,G. G., editor.In press,1984. The evolution and ecology of sloths,anteatersand armadillos. SmithsonianInstitutionPress, Washington,D.C. MOORE, R. C. (editorand authorof Preface)1962. Treatise on invertebratepaleontology.Part W. Miscellanea. GeologicalSocietyofAmericaand Universityof Kansas Press, Lawrence,Kansas. MOORE, R. C., and P. C. SYLVESTER BRADLEY. 1957. Zoological nomenclature.Proposed addition to the "Regles" of provisionsrecognizingand regulatingthe nomenclatureof "parataxa." Journal ofPaleontology, 31: 1180-1183. MOORE, R. C., and forty-four others. 1968. Develop-

19

ments, trends,and outlooks in paleontology. 42 (6): 1327-1377. JournalofPaleontology, NAPIER, JOHN. 1973. Bigfoot.The Yeti and Sasquatch in mythand reality.E. P. Dutton,New York. NOWAK, R. M., and J. L. PARADISO. 1983. Walker's mammalsoftheworld,4thedition.Two volumes. The JohnsHopkins UniversityPress, Baltimore and London. PORSHNEV,B. F. 1974. The Troglodytidaeand theHominidae in the taxonomyand evolutionof higher primates.CurrentAnthropology,15 (4): 449450. (Commentsby sixzoologists-anthropologists and replyby Bayanov and Bourtsevin lieu of the recentlydeceased authorfollowin the same issue of the journal.) SIMPSON, G. G. 1959. Creaturesextinct,livingor fictional.[Reviewof On the trackof unknownanimals by BernardHeuvelmans.]NaturalHistory, 68 (9): 492-494, 544-546. 1961. Principlesof animal taxonomy.Columbia UniversityPress, New York. SINGH, J.A. L., and R. M. ZINGG. 1942. Wolf-children and feralman. Harper,New York and London. SPRAGUE,R., and G. S. KRANTZ,editors.1979. The scientistlooks at theSasquatch (II). University Press of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. TRAPE, JEAN-FRAN4OIS.1982. [Review of] Les demiers dragons d'Afrique by Bernard Heuvelmans. 1 (1): 83-84. Cryptozoology, WAGNER,Roy. 1982. The ri-unidentifiedaquatic animalsof New Ireland,Papua New Guinea. Cryp1 (1): 33-39. tozoology, WETZEL, R. W. 1977. The Chacoan peccaryCatagonus wagneri(Rusconi). Bulletinof the CarnegieMuseum of Natural History,No. 3: 1-36.

This content downloaded from 137.22.11.39 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions