The Cryptid Triptych Explained

 

At its core, I think this blog is an art and history blog. I tend to avoid calling my cetacean subjects “cryptids”, but cryptozoology is certainly an interest of mine, specifically as an interesting grey area between folklore and zoology (I took a whole one class on cultural anthropology in college, but the field still interests me). I was hesitant to post this here, but my desire to ramble about it won out, and in the end this is probably the best place to post it.

 

I enjoy categorizing things. I enjoy systems that explain abstract concepts. For a long time now, I’ve wanted to create a classification system for cryptids because I share the same gripes as others who feel like the layperson definition of “cryptid” is far too broad, or at least, encompasses a strange handful of fundamentally different creatures.

After a less successful attempt in 2024, I present The Cryptid Triptych.

For a more thorough explanation of these definitions, scroll down to the “To elaborate” section.

 

I had three main goals with this classification system: 

• I didn’t want it to be a taxonomy based on physical traits.
•  I wanted the definitions to directly contrast with each other.
• I didn’t want it to suggest I or anyone else is the central authority on cryptids.

Regarding the first point, it is INCREDIBLY tempting to attack cryptid classification like conventional animal taxonomy. It’s just fun to do. It’s been done many times before (a well-known example is Heuvelmans’ system of sea monster classification) and it’s been taken on as both an earnest and creative endeavour by many people online. But I never liked it as a form of actual cryptid classification. It doesn’t address the issues I have with the Windigo being placed alongside bigfoot and the thylacine. Most attempts at cryptid taxonomies that I’ve seen rely on the animals’ physical traits, since descriptions are all we have in most cases. The resulting taxonomies are very Aristotelian. I’m sure there’s use cases for trait-only classification systems, but they are very literally skin deep. They don’t support any deeper analysis.

My second goal was to have the definitions in each category directly contrast with each other, to make categorization easier. A creature cannot simultaneously have folkloric and secular origins, it will only fit into one of those.

As for my third criteria, there is no central authority on cryptids like there is for conventional animal taxonomy. For conventional taxonomy, that central authority is a big book called the ICZN. There is no ICCZN. (Fun Fact: any made-up scientific name you've ever seen applied to a cryptid is a nomen nudum.) I wanted my system to function independently. Anybody should be able to look at the chart and use it to decide where a cryptid lands without having to ask for my input. I had to sacrifice rigidity for this – different people may place cryptids in different spots – but I think the system is as useful as I could hope for it to be. If I try to get more rigid than this, I’ll probably just go mad trying to micromanage it.

I knew what I wanted to create would end up being a classification of folklore and concepts, not animals. I think the term might be “pragmatic classification” – the groups are formed by what each creature seeks to prove. I was familiar with the Aarne–Thompson–Uther Index, a catalogue of folktale types, so I knew at the very least something as nebulous as folklore had been categorized before in a way that had proven useful. Would this system give cryptids more credibility as animals? Absolutely not. If anything, it diminishes the credibility of many. But it clarifies their position relative to zoology and folklore.

 

To elaborate

I personally recommend basing the analysis of your chosen cryptid on either the earliest reports of the cryptid or the most accepted pop-culture portrayal of the cryptid. If you’re trying to build an argument, make your source material known (i.e. “the earliest reports of Nessie” or “the popular conception of bigfoot”). In animal taxonomy you use the oldest name given for the animal in writing or, occasionally, the best known name.

 

Mythical Creature

I got some protestations, but I feel like we need to keep mythical creatures in the conversation if we want to explain why they differ from other cryptids. Many of these creatures are considered cryptids by the general public.

Originates from a specific culture: The creature’s origin can easily be narrowed down to a culture more specific than “North America” or “Europe”. Some examples: Iroquois mythology, Celtic mythology, lumberjack folklore, internet horror, etc.

Is supernatural or symbolic in nature: Mythical creatures are often invented to play specific roles in stories, and their traits reflect these roles. (An excellent example of this is the Dahu.) Additionally, these traits are often too story-specific and evolutionarily improbable to simply be played off as natural selection.

Arguments for their existence rely on faith: The creature’s implied biology does not hold up to zoological scrutiny. Belief in this creature is dependent on belief in the religion they originated from or belief in the supernatural in general. For example, you will not be able to convince an atheist that angels exist if your argument relies on evidence (the Bible) that they don’t buy into.

Their existence would imply that the supernatural exists: Self explanatory. To clarify, I’m going off of the dictionary definition of supernatural

 

Classic Cryptid

These are animals that I’ve seen cryptozoology fans refer to as “true cryptids”, albeit without a clear definition. This is my attempt at a definition.

Secular origins, often sensational: There’s no religion or belief system you need to believe in as a prerequisite to believe in this cryptid. Their stories often come from newspapers and interviews and are usually framed as candid encounters, not stories with a moral lesson. (That said, I suppose you could make the argument that most modern cryptid tales fulfill the same purpose as a bogeyman story.)

Traits conflict with accepted biology, evolution, or extinction: Bigfoot would drastically change our current understanding of the primate family tree. Nessie would prove that a lake as small as Loch Ness could support a breeding population of cow-sized aquatic animals, or perhaps prove that plesiosaurs survived for millions of years without leaving any evidence in the fossil record, and possibly also have centuries-long lifespans. These animals have a lot to answer for, scientifically speaking.

Arguments for their existence selectively use zoological facts: Cryptozoologists like to cite zoology but often suffer from confirmation bias, cherry-picking their arguments. They may also take issue with arguments that use zoological facts against the existence of cryptids.

Also includes long-extinct species (pre-Holocene, >11,700ya): In the case of extinct animal cryptids, I felt the need to include an approximate Plausibility Threshold, and that threshold is the Holocene, about 11,700 years ago. The Holocene marks when the planet’s environment changed significantly, exiting the last ice age. Much of the megafauna outside of Africa also went extinct around the beginning of the Holocene. This covers cases like Nessie and Congolese dinosaurs, as well as potentially mammoths and ground sloths.

Their existence would imply that our accepted model of biology needs significant revision: Their existence would rock the zoological, phylogenetic and evolutionary boats significantly. These animals would probably make headlines in non-science outlets and spark heated debates within the field.

 

Unaccepted species

Again, I have seen some cryptid fans argue that these should not be considered crypids for unspecified reasons.

Scientific or unsensational origins: These new species claims often don’t make headlines outside of zoology. If a non-scientist is making the claim, the animal described is mundane enough to be taken seriously.

No supernatural qualities: Their anatomy and behaviour generally conforms to what we know is possible in the animal kingdom.

Arguments for their existence are purely zoological: Self explanatory.

Also includes recently extinct species (post-Holocene, <11,700ya) and misplaced extant species: We know these animals exist or have existed, just not where/when proponents claim. This covers cases like the dodo, thylacine, and British big cats.

Its existence would imply that a new species exists within our current model of biology: If confirmed, this species could be slotted into the phylogenetic tree without shaking the branches too much.

 

Concerning aliens

I’m apparently an outlier among cryptid fans because I have no issue with considering aliens to be cryptids. I feel like distinguishing aliens from other animals in this case would be totally arbitrary. Aliens can land anywhere on the triptych, it all comes down to how grounded the arguments are relative to legitimate astrobiology research.

• Aliens with supernatural powers or lore, like lizard people, would fall under Mythical Beings.
• Most alien and UFO sightings, like the Flatwoods Monster and Betty and Barney Hill encounter, would fall under Classic Cryptid.
• The Wow! Signal, interpreted as evidence of extraterrestrial communication, might fall under Unaccepted Species (the intelligent alien species being suggested is unaccepted)

 

The effect of bias

The chart I created is merely a tool for analysis, it accommodates arguments.

Personal opinion can affect where the cryptid lands, which is important to keep in mind. A hard skeptic will categorize bigfoot with unicorns and leprechauns. Someone interested in cryptozoology as a whole will recognize that bigfoot lands somewhere between folklore and zoology. A cryptozoologist dedicated to the bigfoot cause will pursue bigfoot evidence under the assumption that it’s a real animal. I tried wording my definitions to avoid ambiguity, but if you’re bullheaded in favour of your own opinion, confirmation bias will win out either way.

The most arguments I received when I first posted this chart online were about the middle “Classic Cryptid” category, which I admit has the weakest definition. I got feedback that the middle category was redundant, but I don’t think it is. Things like Bigfoot and Nessie do not fit cleanly into either folklore or unaccepted species, and forcing them into either would be misrepresenting the nature of these creature stories, so some middle ground in necessary in my opinion.

Interestingly, I got some replies from bigfoot die-hards and they all attempted to downplay how biologically exceptional a bigfoot discovery would be in order to fit bigfoot into the Unaccepted Species category. In a world where new Homo species discoveries regularly make headlines in non-science media, I don’t think a new giant ape species could be quietly slipped into our current phylogenetic tree without sparking debates.

 

More rambling, about faith and cryptids

I think my whole desire to create a classification system started with Wendigoon (YouTuber). I was a big fan during his come up but I didn’t like the bizarre, seemingly random assortment of creatures that he considered cryptids, and I wanted to investigate why. Now that I’ve got my chart to where I want it, I understand why – we are drawn to cryptids for different reasons. He was clearly drawn to cryptids because of the supernatural element. I’m drawn to them because of the human element. A die-hard bigfooter likely falls somewhere between this, drawn to the idea that there might be something slightly beyond belief out there.

There was a line in Hunting Monsters that Darren Naish brought up in passing, that those who already believe in the supernatural (gods, religion) are more inclined to believe in cryptids. Their baseline for what is believable, their bar for entry, is higher than that of an atheist. I couldn’t find studies that examined this idea, but this concept makes sense to me. A couple months ago on r/cryptozoology I posted a photo of a Young Earth Creationist book that presented the Zuiyo Maru carcass as possible evidence of a late-surviving plesiosaur, a conclusion it implied using weasel words. I bought this book as an adult out of curiosity, but a surprising number of commenters mentioned that they had the book as a kid. While they might be more skeptical now, these people (all members of r/cryptozoology) were nonetheless raised in environments where Young Earth Creationist theories were accepted. The line about religious people being more likely to believe in cryptids came back to me.

If you are faith-inclined, my system probably comes across as killjoy and maybe a bit hostile. I’ve been fascinated by religion as a human invention for a long time; analyzing it from an outsider perspective is easy for me because I am an outsider. If you’re an insider, a believer, it’s probably difficult and uncomfortable to put your own worldview under glass like that, which is understandable.

I don’t see my system endearing itself to those who actually believe in cryptids, but it satisfies my desire to figure out why we believe (or at least want to believe) in cryptids.

 

In conclusion,

This system may get tweaked and refined in future. I welcome feedback, particularly from those interested in cultural anthropology and similar subjects.

 

Acknowledgments

My definitions are my own, but the following helped me arrive at them:

• Hunting Monsters by Darren Naish
• The Native Bigfoot, video by Trey the Explainer
• Can We Be Good Without God? Biology, Behavior, and the Need to Believe by Robert Buckman
• Truthisscarier’s original cryptid classification
•  The comments that I got on both Twitter and Reddit (AKA the poor man's peer review process) which helped me revise the system