DALE DRINNON: Mystery Primates - the tote up

Tote-Up

After my survey and commentary on mystery primates of the world,
I thought it would be instructive to compare the results of my reassessment of the cryptid large primate categories as compared to the cryptid large marine creatures categories (comparing the Abominable Snowmen to the Sea-serpents, more or less)

In the case of Heuvelmans's Sea-serpents, the nine cryptid categories were:

1. Longneck,
2. Merhorse,
3. Many-Humped,
4. Super-otter,
5. Many-finned,
6. Super-eel,
7. Marine Saurian,
8. Yellowbelly,
9. Father-of-All-the-Turtles,

out of which I discount merhorse, many-humped, super-otter, many-finned and father-of-all-the-turtles. I retain versions of the long-neck, super-eels and marine saurians, with yellowbelly allowed but of questionable status.

Coleman et al, in The Field Guide to Bigfoot... also gives nine categories, thus:
1. Neo-Giants,
2. True Giants,
3. Marked Hominid,
4. Neandertaloid,
5. Erectus Hominid,
6. Proto-pygmy,
7. Unknown Pongid,
8. Giant Monkey,
9. Merbeing,

out of which I discount true giants, marked hominids, neandertaloids, erectus hominids and proto-pygmys, the last four of them on the grounds that they are not only probably variants of one species, but that species is most likely not separable from Homo sapiens. I retain the categories neo-giants, unknown pongid, giant monkeys and allow the mer-beings but also keep that category as a questionable status.

In this case, the categories unknown pongid, giant monkey and merfolk are NOT unified categories representing a single cryptid as a single species per category. The categories are thus also invalid as formulated. However, in each of those categories I have also eliminated some candidates such that the unknown pongids of Africa are removed from unknown status - they are very likely displaced or unusual chimpanzees and gorillas. The remaining Asiatic and American pongids are all mostly like orangutans and do form a recognisable sequence, although they are not belong to the same species and it is doubtful that they would all belong to the same genus. By the same token, ALL of the giant monkeys are very likely merely outsized monkeys of known species, except for the South American Isnachi. It should be noted that it was a major error to make one category for both Old World and New World monkeys in the same group. The presumed chupacabras creature is likewise a composite based largely upon reports of canines (hairless or on the activities of feral dogs in general) and the classical merfolk creature is possibly a sort of highly adapted marine monkey out of the macaque stock originally, evolved to the point that the typical monkey tail has become something like a dolphin's tail. This does involve a great deal of speculation and if such a creature does exist, it might very well qualify for at least familial distinction from its nearest relatives.

Essentially in both lists of nine candidates, I have taken out two thirds of both lists because they fail to meet my criteria for representing well-defined cryptids, left only three of the nine as well-defined probable new forms of animal life, and allowed the last one as possible but not perhaps as probable in each case.

As far as the categories in Coleman et al's The Field Guide to Lake Monsters... it would seem at first to be a version of the sea serpent categories supplied by Heuvelmans with additions but in fact, the categories are broad enough that they can be reworked to accomodate any possible aquatic cryptids: only such categories as unidentified bony fishes and unidentified lampreys are needed to make a general catalogue of any aquatic creatures that could be reported. The categories would of course need to be fine-tuned a bit more such that the 'mystery manta' category should cover unknown freshwater stingrays as well and thus be on a par with the 'mystery sharks' category that replaces 'giant shark' and so on down the line.

I shall admit that my processing of the nine categories in each instance has some unusual parallels but I would tend to see that as an indicator of how much of the material gathered tends to turn out to be useful, as a general proportion in any largescale inquiry of this nature, rather than some individual quirk I have in looking at cryptozoology. I suppose it would represent a measure of methodological stringency on the researcher's part that I tend to dismiss 2/3 of the cases and concentrate on examining the remaining third in greater detail.

DALE DRINNON: Looking at the Mapinguari

Dale started at IUPUI hoping for a degree in Biology before changing to Anthropology and as a result, has a very diverse background in Geology, Zoology, Paleontology, Anatomy, Archaeology, Psychology, Sociology, Literature, Latin, Popular Culture, Film criticism, Mythology and Folklore, and various individual human cultures especially mentioning those of the Pacific and the Americas. He has a working knowledge of every human fossil find up until his graduation and every important Cryptozoological sighting up to that point. He has been an amateur along on archaeological excavations in Indiana as well as doing some local tracking of Bigfoot there. Now he is on the CFZ bloggo....

My personal contributions to the matter stem from a 1971 letter sent to SAGA magazine after a cover story on the discovery of tracks attributed to the orang dalam. The letter described a creature seen in parts of Brazil and called Capelobo [= Pelobo], basically a version of the Mapinguari and describing it as looking like an upright tailless howler monkey the size of a man (height of a short man, but weighing about 250 pounds). I immediately recognised this as a version of the Mapinguari or Pe-de-Garrafa as described in Bernard Heuvelmans's book On the Track of Unknown Animals. Heuvelmans mentions that it is said to leave a track like the bottom of a bottle and later on mentions this is something like the shape of an orangutan's track [this begins from the oldest editions of the book, from 1955]

The same description is mentioned as the characteristic description of the mono rei or king monkey in the 2001 book The Monster of the Madidi by Simon Chapman. From this it seems the mono rei and the mono grande (big monkey) are two distinctly different things. That would seem to correspond to the reported footprints since the mono grande's 'Hand-like' tracks do not agree with the 'Bottle foot.' Something like the 'Bottle foot' tracks were also reported from Honduras and British Honduras at least as far back as the 1930s, and Eberhart mentions this.

There has been much discussion of the theory that the Mapinguari represents a surviving ground sloth in more recent years. The giant ground sloth does seem to correspond to a cryptid reported in those same areas, but the key difference is that the Mapinguari types are described as being tailless monkeys or apes, often walking upright. The part about them being tailless probably invalidates the suspected ground sloth candidacy. On the other hand, the clawed yehos or yahos ('Devils') of the West Indies could possibly be smallish surviving ground sloths, about chimp-sized.

Going back to the theory that the Mapinguaris are usually arboreal apes that leave ring-shaped (orangutan-like) footprints on the ground, it is noteworthy to look at some traditional depictions of them as posted on the internet (the photos come from internet sources and no attempt to defraud the owners is intended. The reproduction of the photos as educational materials is protected under international copyright law).

It seems that the Mapinguari is regularly depicted as a cyclops and furthermore that the head is barely distinct from the body. Furthermore, the mouth is large and fanged but does not seem to bear any direct placement on the head. It arises from below the level of the shoulders. Some acounts also say that the mouth is protruberant, like the nose end of a horse's snout and shows round nostrils pointing forwards. This does not say that the face is horse-like, the mouth part is described as being distinct from the indistinct head. Furthermore, the entire body is covered with a long and coarse coat of hair. The hair is usually reddish but may be darker.

Looking at an orangutan's head it is possible to see how some of these descriptions might come about. First of all the head of an orangutan is rather bizzare and in some cases barely presents any aspect that would normally register as a face. The mouth area is distinct from the rest of the face and a beard sometimes accentuates the distinction. The eyes are set very close together and the eyelids can be lighter than the rest of the face. In several higher primates this is a warning sign; the mouth is opened and the eyelids dropped as a threat. Looking at the close-set eyes with pale lids and the darker strip between them, it is possible to see how that might look like a single eye from a distance. And the stances and limb proportions are shown as being pretty much like an orangutan as well.

I also include Ivan Sanderson's reproduction of the orangutan foot extended and the track, and the adjoining footprint by contrast would be more like the 'Hand-like' track of the mono grande (as opposed to the mono rei).

So this brings us to the map that explains the hypothesis. Most apes do not have much of an identifiable fossil ancestry. Orangutans are an exception, 'pongo' (orangutan) fossils are well known from mainland Asia, especially in China. But this brings up another problem. The fossils clearly belong to larger ground-living apes and modern orangutans of the proper genus pongo have a large number of very specific and very peculiar adaptations to life in the trees. They cannot be the same. Therefore I had proposed the name 'protopongo' for the fossil ground-living ancestors to the modern tree-living pongo. There follows the suggestion (including by Heuvelmans) that the classical abominable snowman or yeti represents a survival of these fossil apes, and a further suggestion implied by Coleman and others that the apes crossed the Behring land bridge and remnants had been reported in modern times (the name 'Hesperopithecus' [?] is on the map because there remains the possibility that some alleged dental fossils and alleged associated 'cultural' bone-cracking remains unaccounted for by the decision that all of the later fossils ascribed to this genus were pig's teeth).

And so there remains the possibility as indicated on the chart that the South American forms described as Mapinguari are parallel-evolved arboreal apes descended from the same generalised ground-living ancestors. At the time in question there was very much demonstrable faunal exchange between East Asia, North America and then South America in turn. And in order to indicate the possibility that the South American apes are separate parallel-evolved arboreal forms out of the same ground-living ancestors, I have given them the tenative name 'parapongo' ('Like an orangutan'). I do not insist that this name necessarily become official if this is proven to be the case; what I am doing is simply showing how these forms must be related to while also being distinct from one another. The actual honour of naming the creatures should go to their official discoverers, whomever they turn out to be.

And of course any professional anthropologists or primatologists can feel free to say that the whole idea is daft up until such a time that actually happens.

In part this material was submitted to the SITU for publication in 1990-91, together with several other articles of a similar nature. Unfortunately, the journal PURSUIT folded shortly after that point.

NEW PAPER ON FOSSILS OF `UNKNOWN APE` IN ASIA, HAS SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS FOR CRYPTOZOOLOGY...

Nature 459, 910-911 (18 June 2009) doi:10.1038/459910a; Published online 17 June 2009


The mystery ape of Pleistocene Asia
Russell L. Ciochon

Russell L. Ciochon is chair of anthropology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA. This Essay is based on a contribution to the book Out of Africa I: Who, When and Where? (eds., Fleagle, J. G. et al. Springer, 2009).
Email: russell-ciochon@uiowa.edu

Abstract: Fossil finds of early humans in south-east Asia may actually be the remains of an unknown ape. Russell Ciochon says that many palaeoanthropologists — including himself — have been mistaken.

Fourteen years ago, a Nature paper by my colleagues and I described a 1.9-million-year-old human jaw fragment from Longgupo in Sichuan province, China. The ancient date in itself was spectacular. Previous evidence had suggested that human ancestors arrived in east Asia from Africa about 1 million years ago, in the form of Homo erectus. Longgupo nearly doubled that estimate. But even more exciting — and contentious — was our claim that the jaw was related to H. habilis, a species of distinctly African origin. If this descendant of H. habilis had arrived so early into south-east Asia, then it probably gave rise to H. erectus in the Far East, rather than H. erectus itself sweeping west to east.

Read On

MYSTERY PRIMATE SKULL

This is one of two images currently available of a mysterious primate skull found yesterday just outside Dallas. I am waiting to see how long it will be before someone leaps upon it with glee, proclaiming it to be the skull of bigfoot.

It's not, because, although there is nothing in this picture for scale, the video embedded at http://www.nbcdfw.com:80/news/local/Its-a-Skull-But-What-Kind.html shows that it fits comfortably on the palm of the hand of the geezer who found it. It will, however, be interesting to see how the story unfoldS.