Regular readers will know that I have been fighting a gallant rearguard action for some years against the prevailing habit of calling the hairless blue dogs of Texas (and other parts of the United States) Chupacabras. They are nothing of the kind. And the Montauk Monster was a dead racoon! It is stuff like this that brings cryptozoology into much more disrepute than me having been drunk at a UFO conference ten years ago. Now someone agrees with me...
Hairless animals (that we conventionally think of as having hair) are weird looking. Hairless dead animals freak people the hell out.
Hairless monkeys? Sad.
Hairless humanoids (no matter how lame) make people panic.
Hairless coyotes, foxes, dogs, raccoons, yada, yada, yada? They are now called chupacabras.
There are perfectly natural reasons for why these pathetic animals are follically impaired. It’s not unnatural or mysterious and it’s not a reason to shoot them or think they sucked the blood out of your livestock. Why do the hairless dead engender our morbid fascination and disgust?