There is one statement that I always find myself at odds with when it comes to cryptozoology and that is the insistence that there are no such things as black pumas, more often than not you find this stated in regard to big cat sightings in the UK.
Now I really have trouble with the fact that this is quoted like gospel.
From this point of view any report of a sighting of an animal described as a black puma can be nothing more than the viewer being mistaken in his or her sighting. The animal being some other type of big black cat, may be a melanistic leopard or just a domestic cat that has been eating lots of healthy food and putting hours in at the gym until it appears as a fearsome looking beast to the untrained observer, but certainly it can’t possibly be a black puma because there is no such thing.
Now I did read a while back that there has been one confirmed black puma and that unfortunate animal was shot in Brazil in 1843, but in good cryptozoological tradition no proof other than the written word exists to back up this supposed example. Unfortunately, and all too believably, the skin of this unlucky black cat was not preserved and unlike today nobody had a phone to take a picture of the dead cat ready to post on YouTube the next day.
Of course even the picture would be unlikely to have been taken as sufficient proof of the animal’s existence. I should say however that on the whole the theory of ‘no black pumas being possible’ does sound a good argument with quite a few scientific reasons to back it up. It is not because I am ideologically opposed to it that I find myself at odds with it, rather it is because of the following - if you can loudly state that there is no such thing as a black puma do you not then run the risk of someone else using the same argument to state that there can be no possibility of any big cats being found in the wild in Britain, after all many would agree they too cannot possibly exist.