Edward Simon’s (2017) talks about the various myth and folklore versions of Bigfoot in Why Sasquatch and Other Crypto‐Beasts Haunt Our Imaginations. From the Australian Yowie to the Florida Skunkape, to even the Yeti of the Himalayas, Bigfoot appears in nearly every culture in some adaptation. Simon rides the fence on whether or not Bigfoot exists, but speaks to the power of the “wild man” genealogy. Both “an animal and a man”, [Bigfoot] is a prototypical prehuman, a liminal man-beast, not quite wild and not quite tame (Simon, 2017). Bigfoot, in Simon’s view, is an architype that binds humanity to its darkest animalistic psyche, acting as the link between us and our ancestor’s past. Bigfoot might or might not roam the primeval forests of the Pacific Northwest, watching us and avoiding us, a reminder of our deepest, animalistic past. But whether or not there is an actual creature, the archetypal Sasquatch is, in his own way, very real (Simon, 2017).
Despite decades of research, mystery surrounds the species identity of so-called anamalous primates, i.e. like the bigfoots of North America. Numerous reports including eye-witness and footprint evidence, point to the existence of large unidentified primates in many regions of the world. On the other hand, no bodies or recent fossils of such creatures have ever been authenticated. There is no shortage of theories about what these animals may be, ranging from surviving populations of collateral hominids such as Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis or Denisovans , extinct apes such as Gigantopithecus or even unlikely hybrids between Homo sapiens and other mammals (Skyes at al. 2014). Advocates for Bigfoot complain that science has largely ignored the giant cryptid, and not enough scientific research has been poured into the subject. In an attempt to remedy this Bryan Sykes and his team (2014) completed the first every systematic genetic survey for Bigfoot. They began with rigousous decontamination of each sample, followed by mitochondrial 12S RNA sequencing to identify the species origin of 30 hair samples attributed to anomalous primates. Other than two Himalayan samples having their closest genetic affinity with a Palaeolithic polar bear, Ursus maritimus, all other samples were traced back to living well-known mammals (including humans). The chart above shows the identity assigned to each sample, none of which traced back to the cryptid beast Bigfoot.
J. D. Lozier, P. Aniello, and M. J. Hickerson (2009) created a large database of georeferenced putative sightings and footprints for Sasquatch in western North America. They used this data to create an Ecological niche model (ENMs). Ecological niche models (ENMs) and species distribution models have become increasingly popular tools for predicting the geographic ranges of species and have been important for conservation, for predicting changes in distribution from past or future climatic events, and for investigating patterns of speciation and niche divergence (Lozier et al. 2009). However, one of the biggest factors that impacts the accuracy of the EMH, and is also the most difficult to correct for, is incorrect or incomplete taxonomy. Lozier et al. (2009) had to be careful in their evaluation of the database used to create their EMH (seen above) as many records were based on indirect data samples. At the end of their experiment, Lozier et all (2009) compared the distribution of Bigfoot with an ENM for the black bear, Ursus americanus, and found evidence that many sightings of this cryptozoid may be cases of mistaken identity.
Scientists do believe that there are a few large mammal species waiting to be discovered in North America. However, despite the countless reports of Bigfoot, none have been able to be convincingly verified by science as of this date. Dave Coltman and Corey Davis decided to tackle this head on in 2006 by testing a tuft of hair collected from a Bigfoot encounter. In July 2005, nine residents of Teslin, Yukon, witnessed through a kitchen window a large bipedal animal moving through the brush. The next morning, they collected a tuft of coarse, dark hair and also observed a footprint measuring 43 cm in length and 11.5 cm in width. A wildlife technician for the Yukon Department of Environment, Philip Merchant, identified the hair as belonging to the bison species Bison bison. Coltman and Davis then extracted DNA samples from the hair and found the top 58 matches to be within 99-100% positive for Bison bison. Coltman and Davis (2006) postulate that either Bigfoot is either a highly elusive elusive ungulate that exhibits surprising morphological convergence with primates. Alternately, the hair might have originated from a real bison and be unrelated to the Sasquatch. Parsimony would favor the second interpretation, in which case, the identity and taxonomy of this enigmatic and elusive creature remains a mystery.
On a cold morning just before Thanksgiving of 1969, a small group of residents from Colville in Washington, USA headed to the community garbage dump at nearby Bossburg, a site close to the Canadian border. At the dump, the group were astonished to find 17 inch footprints in the icy snow. As news spread around town of the discovery, a woman in town claimed she saw a mysterious creature lurking around the dump the spring before. A local wilderness guide, Ivan Marx, claimed to also have seen similar footprints just days earlier around the site. The sighting brought naturalists such as John Green and Rene ́ Dahinden to the area. All together, the group found over 1000 additional footprints. These footprints unique from even other Sasquatch prints due to the left foot which sported a pair of unusual protrusions on the outside edge and misshapen toes. These unique traits earned the creature believed to have made the prints the nickname of Cripplefoot (Regal 2008).
|