The Family Tree - Different Species Of Bigfoot? Or... Maybe Not? (Theory/opinion)

[Guest]

As many of you know, I am a pretty hardline believer in science, and the belief that, if bigfoot exists, it's a flesh and blood creature, no different than a bear, a cougar, a wolf, or any other of the large predators that make their home in the vast wilderness of North America. 

 

This system of belief has, for me, cast some doubt on the possibility that there could be multiple different species of sasquatch living on this continent. But why? Allow me to explain.

 

One of the most oft-cited reasons why people doubt the existence of bigfoot is that, for a population to sustain itself, there must be a pretty large number of individuals to not only reproduce, but a large number of genetically distinct individuals to maintain genetic diversity. Without genetic diversity, you have an unhealthy population that is more susceptible to disease due to similar immune systems; not to mention various genetic disorders in time.

 

It's difficult enough for one species of upright ape to exist undetected in these numbers in North America. But say there are two species... that effectively doubles the number of individuals that are required to exist.

 

So... what explains the regional differences that so many observers report? Well, I believe this can be explained through regional variance within a single species... localities or even distinct subspecies, but belonging to the same single species. This means that, even though they are distinct, they can still interbreed with eachother. It blurs the boundaries between subspecies where there is overlap, but I find this to be a more reasonable explanation than there being multiple species, each carving out their own autonomous existence. 

 

Regional/subspecies differences can be quite distinct. Just have a look at one of my favorite North American predators, the mountain lion. On the west coast, a full sized mountain lion tomcat can tip the scales at nearly 250 pounds. However, the mountain lions that live in the Florida Everglades rarely exceed 150 pounds. They feed on smaller game and live in much tighter, thicker terrain, so a smaller size overall makes sense. It's likely that the Florida mountain lion was even smaller before the introduction of Pacific coast mountain lions to boost the populations.

 

 

It's worth noting that this isnt meant to be an attack on anybody's position. It's merely a theory I am putting forth. If bigfoot exists, it's in the best interest of everyone... bigfoot included... to understand them as best as possible from a scientific standpoint. Of course, until the species is scientifically described, it's all speculation... 

[Guest DWA]

There's really nothing that prohibits there being more than one species of bipedal primate in NA.  

 

The objections always run along the lines of 'there would have to be so many more individuals.'  Well, not that many more, really; besides which, not having conducted any longitudinal studies of these animals at all, we have no idea what environmental or evolutionary factors are at work.

 

And the animal is hardly 'undetected.'  People are running across them all the time.  Not scientifically confirmed is hardly 'undetected.'

Edited September 22, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

I have no problems with your 2-species theory, we know the is the Ape version and the Dog version, just need to get our hands on some real DNA...!

[Guest]

As many of you know, I am a pretty hardline believer in science, and the belief that, if bigfoot exists, it's a flesh and blood creature, no different than a bear, a cougar, a wolf, or any other of the large predators that make their home in the vast wilderness of North America. 

 

This system of belief has, for me, cast some doubt on the possibility that there could be multiple different species of sasquatch living on this continent. But why? Allow me to explain.

 

One of the most oft-cited reasons why people doubt the existence of bigfoot is that, for a population to sustain itself, there must be a pretty large number of individuals to not only reproduce, but a large number of genetically distinct individuals to maintain genetic diversity. Without genetic diversity, you have an unhealthy population that is more susceptible to disease due to similar immune systems; not to mention various genetic disorders in time.

 

It's difficult enough for one species of upright ape to exist undetected in these numbers in North America. But say there are two species... that effectively doubles the number of individuals that are required to exist.

 

So... what explains the regional differences that so many observers report? Well, I believe this can be explained through regional variance within a single species... localities or even distinct subspecies, but belonging to the same single species. This means that, even though they are distinct, they can still interbreed with eachother. It blurs the boundaries between subspecies where there is overlap, but I find this to be a more reasonable explanation than there being multiple species, each carving out their own autonomous existence. 

 

Regional/subspecies differences can be quite distinct. Just have a look at one of my favorite North American predators, the mountain lion. On the west coast, a full sized mountain lion tomcat can tip the scales at nearly 250 pounds. However, the mountain lions that live in the Florida Everglades rarely exceed 150 pounds. They feed on smaller game and live in much tighter, thicker terrain, so a smaller size overall makes sense. It's likely that the Florida mountain lion was even smaller before the introduction of Pacific coast mountain lions to boost the populations.

 

 

It's worth noting that this isnt meant to be an attack on anybody's position. It's merely a theory I am putting forth. If bigfoot exists, it's in the best interest of everyone... bigfoot included... to understand them as best as possible from a scientific standpoint. Of course, until the species is scientifically described, it's all speculation... 

A dying population might have smaller numbers. I tend to agree though. At most there is probably just one species of bigfoot with all the other variations being either mere variations or misidentifications. Humans are lousy witnesses.

[Guest]

^This. I dont buy into the bipedal dogman, either.

 

There is moderate evidence to suggest that a bipedal ape could exist in North America. There is zero precedent for bipedal canines, anywhere.

 

None.

 

I consider dogman to be one of those sensationalized claims that makes the rest of the community look foolish... but that's another thread, hahaha.

[Guest DWA]

It's not that anything about observations proves in any way that more than one species is being observed.  It's just that everything we know about primates tells us not to be surprised if that turns out to be the case.

 

Before the taxonomy is done, it's all "bigfoot."  We might be surprised to find out how complicated things get when science is spending full-time money and time on it.

[WSA]

You know I think humans are pretty good witnesses....but you need a whole lot of them before you can really tell if you have agreement. On this subject, we have a lot of agreement, but there are some peripheral narratives, no doubt about that.  By their very nature, BF sightings are typically short in duration, scary, in poor lighting, under tree/vegetative cover, by surprise and completely unbelievable to the unprepared. With those characteristics, I think folks do pretty well to sight the primary features.  The advantage of talking about a recognized species is that it possibly allows people to more calmly observe and say to themselves, "Oh, that's a Bigfoot, look!" and take in more details. Plus, they'll know what to look FOR.

[Guest DWA]

And actually Meldrum's field guide does an admirable job of that.  It's not summarizing somebody's fever dream.  It's summarizing the encounters.

 

When one can do that, one isn't faced with bad witnesses.  One is faced with bad follow-up.  By everyone other than Meldrum, some significant names to the contrary notwithstanding.

Edited September 23, 2014 by DWA

[WSA]

You know, that is what it does, yes. Or at least tries to do.  I had not thought of it in those terms.

[Guest]

Slight tangent, the similarity in humans is due to a population bottle neck. Seven daughters of eve etc. lions and tigers are a good example, close enough to mate but look very different (if shaved or dyed)

[Guest]

I only have experience with southern bigfoot, hence my interest in southern bigfoot reports.

 

As I have mentioned here on the forum before, based on the many, many reports of creature sightings there seems to be three types of creatures in the southern states.

 

We refer to them as ugly, very ugly and monsters.

 

The ugly ones look like a big monkey without a tail.

 

The very ugly ones seem to have a snouted appearance, sort of baboonish.  (These may be where some of the dogmen reports come from.)

 

The monsters have a countenance so ugly that the only discription that fits is.....monster.

 

Also, based upon reports, the three different looking creatures seem to habitate the same areas, almost as if they run together.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Splash7

[Guest]

I could see some of these variant appearances as due to aging. As an individual becomes older and perhaps larger, their appearance may become more pronouncedly monstrous. Some think the black ones are juveniles (or do they think the red ones are? Where did I read that?) and perhaps some other traits are linked with aging.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

For the Too Long Didn't Read version scroll to bottom...

 

I'm not sure if I've posted this idea before, but I think that the similarities between encounters in North America, Russia, Australia, among other countries, suggests that there is a single species that is quite widespread. We know from humans that certain differences in physical characteristics does not translate into a separate species, and it seems to me that the majority of encounters describe a creature whose main differences are superficial. Granted however that B does not logically follow A, meaning that the similarities in sasquatch across the globe does not necessarily mean they are a single species, but I believe that is probably what it does mean.

 

I suppose one could challenge the notion that the majority of worldwide reports describe an almost identical creature, as I know in China the reports often describe a smaller animal, which could point to a different species. Although I do hold a bit more reserve where sightings from countries like that are concerned, simply because it is more likely for there to be documented primates around, which is not the case in North America, and this increases the chances of misidentification. In North America the only animal that is likely to be confused with a bigfoot is a bear, and luckily a bear is relatively easy to identify, with its pointy ears, stubby legs, and general proportions. The only reason it ever gets mistaken for a sasquatch is likely because it is furry.

 

One thing that would help determine if multiple species are even probable is the time sasquatch arrived in North America. This continent will prove the best place to study bigfoot, if they exist worldwide, simply because of its isolation. Although Australia is in the same position. Bigfoot in Australia suggests to me that these creatures have existed for quite some time. I still puzzle over how they got there, because to my knowledge there was never a real land bridge after Australia separated millions of years ago. I do know that during an ice age the sea level will drop, but even if that is the case there would be relatively vast stretches of ocean separating Australia from the mainland.

 

And I do not think sasquatch would have evolved separately from the sasquatch in other parts of the globe. If they are there, they had to get there somehow. <---(Profound!!!) I have always been of the opinion that the sasquatch migrated right behind earlier humans, even to North America. I would like to know about how long it would take for an independent species to develop from a parent species...? If it takes an extreme amount of time, then it follows that for sasquatch to be present in multiple species in North America they would have been here long enough for such a deviation to occur, or there were multiple migrations across the Bering Land Bridge, the last one being the last glacial maximum. I do not deny the possibility of sasquatch first having existed for thousands of years in Asia, at which point some migrated to North America, followed by more of their kind, but of a different species, thousands of years later, but I do not find the idea very appealing, basically because there are more steps involved, meaning more assumptions.

 

TLDR:

 

The differences in sasquatch descriptions around the world appear superficial to me, and such variation, which is also found in humans, does not necessarily mean a new species.

 

Bears have pointy ears and are furry.

 

Australia is separated from Asia by ocean and I ponder how sasquatch could have reached the continent, concluding that even during the low water levels of an ice age there likely would not have been a route entirely devoid of water. It seems unlikely that sasquatch would have evolved into existence, independently, both in Asia and Australia. I do not really know what this means, other than that sasquatch likely originated in Asia and then branched outward. I have no good reason for thinking they originated in Asia, except they are reported all over the place in that general region.

 

By determining the time sasquatch arrived in North America we could determine whether there has been enough time for an entirely new species to develop from the parent species. If not, then it is likely that all N. American sasquatch belong to the same species, as long as there were not independent migrations from Asia across the Bering land bridge by sasquatch who developed into independent species before crossing hundreds or thousands of years later, an idea which I do not care for. That is all.

 

 

[Guest DWA]

 

I'm not sure if I've posted this idea before, but I think that the similarities between encounters in North America, Russia, Australia, among other countries, suggests that there is a single species that is quite widespread. We know from humans that certain differences in physical characteristics does not translate into a separate species, and it seems to me that the majority of encounters describe a creature whose main differences are superficial. Granted however that B does not logically follow A, meaning that the similarities in sasquatch across the globe does not necessarily mean they are a single species, but I believe that is probably what it does mean.

 

Keep in mind that without reference guides, people seeing North American deer for the first time might have trouble separating species.  Sasquatch/yeren descriptions have enough variation that there might be surprises down the road.  This is a question that awaits the work of taxonomy.  It will likely not take long after confirmation to find a species separation if there is one.  But everywhere we have found one ape, we have found another.

 

I suppose one could challenge the notion that the majority of worldwide reports describe an almost identical creature, as I know in China the reports often describe a smaller animal, which could point to a different species. Although I do hold a bit more reserve where sightings from countries like that are concerned, simply because it is more likely for there to be documented primates around, which is not the case in North America, and this increases the chances of misidentification. In North America the only animal that is likely to be confused with a bigfoot is a bear, and luckily a bear is relatively easy to identify, with its pointy ears, stubby legs, and general proportions. The only reason it ever gets mistaken for a sasquatch is likely because it is furry.

 

I'm thinking personally that the "bear" thing is more a construction of 'skeptics' than something that is actually going on.  And there isn't a documented primate anything like the sasquatch-equivalent seen in Asia.

 

One thing that would help determine if multiple species are even probable is the time sasquatch arrived in North America. This continent will prove the best place to study bigfoot, if they exist worldwide, simply because of its isolation. Although Australia is in the same position. Bigfoot in Australia suggests to me that these creatures have existed for quite some time. I still puzzle over how they got there, because to my knowledge there was never a real land bridge after Australia separated millions of years ago. I do know that during an ice age the sea level will drop, but even if that is the case there would be relatively vast stretches of ocean separating Australia from the mainland.

 

There are aboriginals in Australia without the slightest vestige of seagoing capability, something I find very hard to believe a seagoing people would simply purge given all its obvious advantages.  Besides which sasquatch is reported to have an extreme aquatic component compared to other primates.  I once frowned at yowie; seeing the reports as I now have, I have to wonder what people are seeing.  I know that at various times, "island hopping" or rafting would have been plausible from the Asian mainland.  I think that once the subject is tackled by the mainstream, possibilities will be investigated that simply aren't now.

 

By determining the time sasquatch arrived in North America we could determine whether there has been enough time for an entirely new species to develop from the parent species. If not, then it is likely that all N. American sasquatch belong to the same species, as long as there were not independent migrations from Asia across the Bering land bridge by sasquatch who developed into independent species before crossing hundreds or thousands of years later, an idea which I do not care for. That is all.

 

Of course we know there is a non-sapiens primate record in NA.  (Richard Dawkins says in The Ancestor's Tale that the separation of the primate line that became tarsiers from the one that evolved into humans might well have happened in North America.)

[Guest]

^I agree with a good bit of this. Quibbles though. Skeptics did not manufacture bears-misidentification out of whole cloth. People make mistakes all the time and bears are a reasonable starting point.

 

And it is somewhat true that everywhere we have found one ape we have found another but apes are native to Asia and Africa where they evolved. Doesn't mean there can't be two species of ape in N. America but an invading species would not come in with a related species necessarily. Nor will one species necessarily evolve into two. It is not required. One place can have just one ape.

 

As for Yowies, I've been partial to the idea that they were transported by tidal waves from one of the Indonesian Islands. Not necessarily a bigfoot type though. Possibly closer to Floresian hobbits.

 

Bigfoot as derived from lemur type ancestors is plausible as convergent evolution. There was a giant lemur on Madagascar when humans first arrived there. Only about a hundred pounds or so but on a whole continent perhaps it got bigger?