Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I’m sure a number of people have thought on this, but wouldn’t it be good if we had a common name we applied to BF, Sasquatch, Yeren, Yeti, Yowie, Yahoo, Dooligah, Alma, Mongolian Monster and Wild Man? Thing is when answering threads on BF Im constantly reminded that there are little to extremely small Sasquatch type bipedal hominids and using the term Big Foot doesn’t sit right (nor really to use the US Sasquatch or Tibeten Yeti or Chinese Yeren or Aussie Yowie). It would be great to have a word that incorporates these types of beings in general. I am aware there is much discussion on whether the Australia Yowie (and really there are many types of Yowie and names) is the same as Sasquatch and whether the Yeti is the same as Yeren etc. Still we can have such a debate but at least have a word to direct those we are communicating with to the general group of very hairy bipedal (mostly) hominids . We could be the ones to come up with such a name on the Big Foot forums and this could be utilised anywhere in the world. There are a number of benefits to having a word which by definition means those in the group of hairy hominids such as yeti, yeren, yowie, sasquatch of all sizes throughout the world. One benefit is that it immediately tells a new comer to the discussion on these beings, that there are many sizes and they are reported throughout the world. Secondly it would bring more people into a discussion who previously thought the discussion was only for the American sasquatch or the chinese yeren or the Australian Yowie. Of course there are problems in giving one label to a whole group and this includes boxing all into one type. In general in fact I’m not one to try to label anything as I’m sure one day will not see such divisions between species or divisions in the way we may currently perceive. I imagine in time the group label will change in its definition in various ways. Still on the whole for now I think a group name may be beneficial, bring more people into the discussion , and educate people from the definition of the name in itself (so more people know there are recorded in sightings across the world in various sizes etc) . A group name would direct people to seek more differentiated detail as well. I think the name should be positive. What say y’all and who has a good, positive name for all these hairy wild hominids reported throughout the world of all sizes – a name pronounceable in any culture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 8, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 8, 2012 Feral Forest People; Homins (Bayanov et al); zoologically unknown bipedal entities (zubes; apologies to the good Doc in So.Cal. who coined Zoobies: "here chicky chicky"); lost my mojo.......about there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Feral Forest People; Homins (Bayanov et al); zoologically unknown bipedal entities (zubes); lost my mojo.......about there! Yeh I was thinking of a name along those lines but then it may not be they are always feral (story of the Alma woman in Russia long ago who had children by the village men) and may not always be they are forest people such as the Mongolian Monster and Yeti. The Hairyotherones? Not so easy... Maybe there could be a forum competition for the best name, win a pat on the head or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dr. Boogie Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Crypto-hominids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Personally, I prefer "Stanley" but I think Dr. Boogie has nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Crypto-hominids. Crypto-hominids maybe a bit too general (would include leprechorns which are not reportedly hairy). Also it will be inaccurate once BF, Sasquatch etc is established more conventionally. Once scientists feel they have proof of BF Sasquatch etc existance, they will no longer be cryptozoological (as cryptozoological means study of hidden animals). Edited January 8, 2012 by Encounter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dr. Boogie Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Crypto-hominids maybe a bit too general (would include leprechorns which are not reportedly hairy). Also it will be inaccurate once BF, Sasquatch etc is established more conventionally. Once scientists feel they have proof of BF Sasquatch etc existance, they will no longer be cryptozoological (as cryptozoological means study of hidden animals). That was the best I could do! I should imagine that if/when they are established more conventionally they would be given a latin name like any other accepted species which IMO would lead away from a generic name name (I don't think that they'd assume or accept that say the Yowie is the same species just because say the Bigfoot was proved). Edited January 8, 2012 by Dr. Boogie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 That was the best I could do! I should imagine that if/when they are established more conventionally they would be given a latin name like any other accepted species which IMO would lead away from a generic name name (I don't think that they'd assume or accept that say the Yowie is the same species just because say the Bigfoot was proved). I think if a group name became common people would use that rather than a scientific name - generally we dont call flowers, humans and other animals by unfamiliar names. I agree that once BF was proved (for science as it is absolutely proved to those people who have witnessed it) that a yowie may not be seen as absolutely of the same family etc - still I think a group name for those that look to most people as fairly much the same (think on the cat family and how diverse that is) will be helpful. People like myself come to a US forum because it is a good place to discuss encounters with hairywild hominids but then have some problems with the word Big Foot being used for discussion on such encounters. Having a group name means we can at times be very specific and say a Washington Sasquatch, a desert Yowie etc or speak more widely by saying something like Haircoveredwildhominid (like that but shorter and kinder to the tongue). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Homo arcana-- arcane man, old, hidden, mysterious = the arcane ones Shadow people is also a good one Edited January 8, 2012 by Kings Canyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Crypto-hominid sounds good to me. How many satyr and leprechaun reports have we seen lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Depending on the genetic findings upon recognition of their existence we might consider an established term like Proto-human. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-human Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I can't imagine HOW you can have a common name for something that IF it can be found around the entire world, IS the same kind of creature. Sasquatch works fine for me. That's what I'm going to keep using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Homo arcana-- arcane man, old, hidden, mysterious = the arcane ones Shadow people is also a good one Good ideas. Close to that sounds good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 8, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 8, 2012 I'm gonna call them Sir or Mam, no matter the results of this soon to be poll?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I think you did pretty good, Dr. Boogie. You probably have Kingdom through Family covered. Since we have nothing tangible at this point, stopping there is a great guess. Probably the others spilt off at around Genus>Species so it wouldn't be fair to lump them together at that level. Who knows, well I don't at least. It's just a guess from reading other people's guesses. Leprechauns don't even make the first cut of same kingdom and that's true because one is standing right next to me and told me so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts