Do any of you camp out in potential hot spots?...

[Incorrigible1]

Not to be too critical, and commenting light-heartedly, but Cheetah wasn't a monkey.

 

[Drew]

Whatever Bigfoot or Sasquatch, or Wood Ape is...  If we have a hair, or poop,  or vomit from one, we could get DNA from it.  Heck, if we took a river water sample, we could isolate unknown DNA.

 

And if we could get DNA from it, then we could place it EXACTLY ON THE phylogenetic tree.

 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Drew said:

Whatever Bigfoot or Sasquatch, or Wood Ape is...  If we have a hair, or poop,  or vomit from one, we could get DNA from it.  Heck, if we took a river water sample, we could isolate unknown DNA.

 

And if we could get DNA from it, then we could place it EXACTLY ON THE phylogenetic tree.

 

 

Very true. Even in species that look very similar to each other, the genes that they share will have subtle differences in their base pairs which will express different proteins. Those proteins are what create the small variations (phenotypes) among species, like snakes with different markings. And different phenotypes can be from small genetic changes like black, brown or red hair in Humans and simple things like stripes on cats and long ears and coat colors on dogs.

 

For the Sasquatch vs. the Human the differences at the genetic level should be quite obvious. More obvious than say, the different genetics between us and Neanderthals.

[norseman]

4 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

I am admittedly out of my league and comfort-zone-of-knowledge with this subject.  There are those here who know the evolutionary timeline and each small branch which evolved therefrom. Me, I know there is man and there is monkey. Tarzan and Cheetah. It's a pretty sad statement but true.

 

As Clint Eastwood said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."  Mine aren't this subject matter so I will sit on the sidelines and watch with interest.

Cheetah was a chimp. Chimp is an ape. And a human is an ape. I believe there are 5 species of apes. No worries, let’s get you up to speed.

 

Livings species within the family
Homo Sapiens/Humans

Chimps

Gorillas

Orangutans

Bonobos

There are also “lesser apes” such as Gibbons.

 

The main difference between an ape and a monkey is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. (Plus bigger brains, bodies, etc)  And monkeys are broken down to between new world monkeys and old world monkeys.
 

There are no new world apes discovered..... yet.😜

 

https://news.janegoodall.org/2018/06/27/chimps-humans-monkeys-whats-difference/

 

 

[norseman]

3 hours ago, Drew said:

Whatever Bigfoot or Sasquatch, or Wood Ape is...  If we have a hair, or poop,  or vomit from one, we could get DNA from it.  Heck, if we took a river water sample, we could isolate unknown DNA.

 

And if we could get DNA from it, then we could place it EXACTLY ON THE phylogenetic tree.

 

 

 

[hiflier]

Thanks, Norseman. On that note Mitotyping Technologies charge about $1500 a pop. I think we can rule them out as a potential tester of any DNA samples. I still need to get back on track with Genedaq as they appear to be possibly the best all around, especially where cost is concerned. And the extra perk supplying of the necessary field sampling equipment at no cost is a definite plus. It's been hard to get them to return inquiries though.

[wiiawiwb]

Thanks Norse. That will help me greatly in my quest to get up to speed especially given my unwavering interest in all things sasquatch.

 

Incorrigible1 - It's rather obvious that I am stumbling and fumbling with this subject. I'm definitely a not a ready-for-prime-time primatologist!!

[MIB]

4 hours ago, Drew said:

Whatever Bigfoot or Sasquatch, or Wood Ape is...  If we have a hair, or poop,  or vomit from one, we could get DNA from it.  Heck, if we took a river water sample, we could isolate unknown DNA.

 

And if we could get DNA from it, then we could place it EXACTLY ON THE phylogenetic tree.

 

 

Maybe not that simple, at least in the case of poop, because though it will have the epithelial cells from inside the G.I. tract in it, it will also have the DNA of gut "critters" and whatever our .. pooper .. ate.    There will be a whole bunch of kinds of DNA to separate out, not a single type to focus on.    Tangent: not long ago I read something about species identification based not on the critter's DNA, but by the G.I. tract's organisms' DNA profile.    Apparently there are similar sorts of critters inside most species but they are different enough by host species to be distinct and identifiable.    But, like everything else with DNA, you need a type specimen for comparison.

 

Without a type specimen, about as close as you get is "we don't know what this is."   You can postulate what it might be related to, but there's a guess factor.    You might even guess where it diverged from shared lines, but knowing what its characteristics are is guesswork.    For instance, if you had H. florensis DNA but no physical specimen, you could tell it was related to us and how far back we shared an ancestor, but the DNA alone won't tell you what it looked like.   Every critter we know of has inert DNA sections and active DNA sections and nothing in the DNA tells you which is which.  

 

All that said, if you had definite bigfoot DNA, you could learn a lot.   You could find out if it was ape-derived, monkey-derived, whether it was a primate at all .. etc.  

 

On thing to consider .. parallel evolution.   It does happen.  Example ... the mara or Patagonian hare.   Compare it to European rabbits/hares.    They have similar shapes because they evolved to fill similar niches, but they are only distantly related.   So the possibility of an intelligent, bipedal critter more closely related to lemurs than gorillas is not out of the question.   The challenge to grabbing onto any predicted solution too hard is we, so far as we know, lack fossils of ancestral species from either possible roots. 

 

MIB

 

 

[Incorrigible1]

17 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

Thanks Norse. That will help me greatly in my quest to get up to speed especially given my unwavering interest in all things sasquatch.

 

Incorrigible1 - It's rather obvious that I am stumbling and fumbling with this subject. I'm definitely a not a ready-for-prime-time primatologist!!

As a child, I had it all figured out. Monkeys grew up, and as they got older/bigger, they became various apes, until finally, at adulthood, became gorillas! Mom informed a young, merely brash (not yet fully incorrigible) me, that was not the case. Live and learn.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

Thanks Norse. That will help me greatly in my quest to get up to speed especially given my unwavering interest in all things sasquatch.

 

Incorrigible1 - It's rather obvious that I am stumbling and fumbling with this subject. I'm definitely a not a ready-for-prime-time primatologist!!

Well you have proven yourself correct.

 

If we share bipedalism? We are super close.

 

No other living great ape is bipedal. Just us.

 

It would be a huge discovery.

[wiiawiwb]

2 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

As a child, I had it all figured out. Monkeys grew up, and as they got older/bigger, they became various apes, until finally, at adulthood, became gorillas! Mom informed a young, merely brash (not yet fully incorrigible) me, that was not the case. Live and learn.

 

Incorrigible1....I bet, growing up, you were a challenge (in a good way). Your mom was a woman of wisdom. Kudos to her.

 

I'm still struggling with monkeys-grew-up phase.  :o)   

[wiiawiwb]

19 minutes ago, norseman said:

Well you have proven yourself correct.  If we share bipedalism? We are super close.  No other living great ape is bipedal. Just us.  It would be a huge discovery.

 

Norse you are so right...it would be a huge discovery. 

 

I go out every week to put out trailcams or remove trailcams to see what can be documented.  I try to do an overnight every week, if possible. In my hot spots, I keep moving deeper into areas few people go. 

 

To me, the interesting part is creating a game plan and seeing how it pays out.  Like playing chess, you're thinking three moves ahead and when your opponent does something unexpected you're not always ready to react. Having said that, sasquatches are like the Gary Kasparov or Bobby Fisher of chess. That means I'm playing checkers while they're playing 3-D chess.

 

My hope is that thermal imagers will help to level the playing at night -- a bit.

 

 

[Huntster]

16 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

As a child, I had it all figured out. Monkeys grew up, and as they got older/bigger, they became various apes, until finally, at adulthood, became gorillas! Mom informed a young, merely brash (not yet fully incorrigible) me, that was not the case. Live and learn.

 

Yes, gorillas are the last phase before morphing into a man, which occurs immediately upon visually viewing pornography. This helps explain the explosion of human male population after Guttenberg and the catastrophic decline in gorilla populations. The #1 goal in restoring gorilla populations, therefore, is the elimination of porn.

 

On 10/12/2020 at 6:48 PM, wiiawiwb said:

Most of the time I am quiet and listening once it becomes dark. I will often, but not always, leave camp after sunset but before total darkness and spend an hour or two at a location I've decided on earlier in the day.  There, I will sit quietly, be still, and listen for any noise the forest gives me. 

 

A thermal imager will be with me and I will be scanning the woods and focusing on areas I hear movement or other sound. At some point during the night, I will do a single wood knock and just listen for a response.

 

When I've decided that being away from camp is not paying dividends, I'll head back and then quietly do normal camp activities for the remainder of the evening........

 

I can't imagine a better sasquatch hunting tactic. 

19 hours ago, norseman said:

......Livings species within the family
Homo Sapiens/Humans

Chimps

Gorillas

Orangutans

Bonobos.........

 

 

Anybody looked into any genetic differences between chimps and bonobos in DNA samples?

[MIB]

50 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Anybody looked into any genetic differences between chimps and bonobos in DNA samples?

 

Not in detail.   They are there, but if I recall correctly, they were not noticed in the older tests that just separated human from chimp from gorilla, etc, the testing had to be refined once the existence of "something else" was noticed and a way to screen for one vs the other found and incorporated.     We would most likely face the same issue with sasquatch.   We're not going to detect them using the existing species ident tests, we're going to need the full genome first, then we can find specific loci to test on to differentiate and develop a more specifically detailed test than we have now.    .. that is, assuming they are very closely related to us.   If they are not, then the presence of something novel will either jump out screaming for attention or be missed as garbled / degraded / grossly contaminated and thus ignored.    It's hard to say which of those extremes we're at right now with any scientific certainty.  Opinions, sure, science, no.

 

MIB

[Huntster]

22 minutes ago, MIB said:

........ if I recall correctly, they were not noticed in the older tests that just separated human from chimp from gorilla, etc, the testing had to be refined once the existence of "something else" was noticed and a way to screen for one vs the other found and incorporated.     We would most likely face the same issue with sasquatch.   We're not going to detect them using the existing species ident tests, we're going to need the full genome first, then we can find specific loci to test on to differentiate and develop a more specifically detailed test than we have now.    .. that is, assuming they are very closely related to us.........

 

 

We may be part way there. Sykes claim that Khwit/Zana showed a sub-Saharan human line not before recognized suggests that eventually, we may find a similar hit one day.