I was wondering...

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Has there ever been a case where confirmed misidentifications, hoaxes, etc. made up the bulk of sightings/"evidence" of an animal prior to its official discovery? Hell, has that ever been the case for any discovery?

I've repeatedly heard people try to justify the existence of things like cryptids, ghosts, UFOs, etc. by noting that a small fraction of reports can't be explained, but the question above makes me wonder if that's actually a valid point (especially if it turns out that it's never happened before). I'd also like to post a quote from The Skeptical Inquirer article "Bigfoot at 50": (http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html)

"There will always be cases in which there simply is not enough evidence to prove something one way or the other. To use an analogy borrowed from investigator Joe Nickell, just because a small percentage of homicides remain unsolved doesn't mean that we invoke a "homicide gremlin"-appearing out of thin air to take victims' lives-to explain the unsolved crimes. It is not that such cases are unexplainable using known science, just that not enough (naturalistic) information is available to make a final determination...A lack of information (or negative evidence) cannot be used as positive evidence for a claim. To do so is to engage in the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance: We don't know what left the tracks or what the witnesses saw, therefore it must have been Bigfoot."

[The Atheist]

Giant squid. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_squid#Cultural_depictions)

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Giant squid. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_squid#Cultural_depictions)

Well, I know people assumed that they were only legends, but it's not like people were caught faking sightings, confessed to carving fake sucker marks into whales, etc.

[Jeff Corey]

I was going to say coalacanths, but like the giant squid, they were not hoaxed.

[this charming man]

It has been suggested that sailors once thought manatees were mermaids.

http://images.google.com/images?q=manatees&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-17,GGGL:en&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermaid

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

It has been suggested that sailors once thought manatees were mermaids.

http://images.google.com/images?q=manatees&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-17,GGGL:en&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermaid

True, but mermaids were never confirmed as being real. If they were, then the whole issue of manatees being misidentified as them would've definitely counted.

[The Atheist]

Well, I know people assumed that they were only legends, but it's not like people were caught faking sightings, confessed to carving fake sucker marks into whales, etc.

Dunno about fake carving in whales, but the tales of eye-witness sightings of ships being pulled under by giant squid are clearly false, so were they fakes or mistakes? I don't know of any faked info on Nessie - other than photographs.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Dunno about fake carving in whales, but the tales of eye-witness sightings of ships being pulled under by giant squid are clearly false, so were they fakes or mistakes? I don't know of any faked info on Nessie - other than photographs.

Not knowing the history of the accounts, I don't know if they're outright lies, exaggerated accounts of small boats getting pulled under (or boats that merely got attacked, but didn't sink), or someone merely attributing an accident at sea to a giant squid (similar to how someone over in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42523&page=198)tried to attribute the deaths of some climbers to Bigfoot).

This website (http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=156)mentions a giant squid attacking a ship owned by the Norwegian Navy, only to be unable to get a good grip on the steel ship's sides and got chopped up in the ship's propellers when it fell. However, it doesn't give a source for this account. If it is true, it would show that a giant squid attacking a ship isn't entirely out of the question.

Any more hard information on the subject would be greatly appreciated. Google gives some stories of giant squids attacking ships on various websites, but rarely cites any reputable texts on the matter.

As for non-photographic hoaxes involving the Loch Ness monster, here are a few off the top of my head: fake footprints (which inadvertainly spawned the famous "Surgeon's Photograph" of Nessie), an animatronic model placed in the loch (http://www.crawley-creatures.com/recent/lucy.htm), aa planted fossil, and planted conger eels (presumably to represent "baby Nessies"). (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Loch_Ness_Monster_Hoaxes)

[The Atheist]

This website (http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=156)mentions a giant squid attacking a ship owned by the Norwegian Navy, only to be unable to get a good grip on the steel ship's sides and got chopped up in the ship's propellers when it fell. However, it doesn't give a source for this account. If it is true, it would show that a giant squid attacking a ship isn't entirely out of the question.

Any more hard information on the subject would be greatly appreciated. Google gives some stories of giant squids attacking ships on various websites, but rarely cites any reputable texts on the matter.

Certainly shows that the mythology was well established before the species was documented. Someone will know more about it, no doubt.

As for non-photographic hoaxes involving the Loch Ness monster, here are a few off the top of my head: fake footprints (which inadvertainly spawned the famous "Surgeon's Photograph" of Nessie), an animatronic model placed in the loch (http://www.crawley-creatures.com/recent/lucy.htm), aa planted fossil, and planted conger eels (presumably to represent "baby Nessies"). (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Loch_Ness_Monster_Hoaxes)

There you go - I need to brush up on my Nessian mythology, I hadn't heard of those, but it's not something I watch all that closely and all I'd ever seen were dodgy photos and films.

In terms of planted evidence, we've had lots of that going on, but for an extinct species rather than a mythical one. Moa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa#Claims_by_cryptozoologists) have been extinct for 500 years, but some Bigfootian types maintain they still survive. Quite a number of people have found 15 minutes of fame by placing fake evidence of moas. (http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950116/01140039.htm)

I don't think it matters whether myths are based on legend or fact, people will always try to jump on the bandwagon.

[Correa Neto]

Quite often some proponents try to bring some validation to cryptzoological claims (and sloppy methodology) by invoking stories about the way species such as gorillas and giant squids were described. According to these versions, these would be (some of) the similarities:
-Eyewitnesses reports and myths were disregarded as evidence;
-Mainstream scientists never bothered "to descend from their ivory towers" untill a specimen was produced;
-Those few who dared to investigate these animals were riduled.

Unfortunately, the similarities dissipate as soon as one takes a closer look at the facts.
Regarding gorillas, there were no controversies associated with the description of the species or any problems with the guys who published it:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2163183&postcount=4899
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2164709&postcount=4913
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2166922&postcount=4929
Huntster's reasonings can be found by scrolling up or down.

A and when it comes to the giant squid / Kraken analogy, its again a flawed analogy. Check these posts:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1454693&postcount=2554
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2202738&postcount=5097
The original kraken descriptions were very different from any octopus or squid. This "correlation" dates back from the XVIII century.
Other similar cases, such as platypus and giant pandas, also when investigared a little further are of no help. I could go on and discuss how flawed were some attemps of classifying mythical species, the fact that current taxonomy started back in the XVIII and XIX centuries, so to say "science ignored tales about animal X for centuries" is a strawman, as well as the influence of the proliferation of taxidermic frauds, but it would be an overkill.

In sum,
Has there ever been a case where confirmed misidentifications, hoaxes, etc. made up the bulk of sightings/"evidence" of an animal prior to its official discovery? Hell, has that ever been the case for any discovery?
As far as I know, no. If anyone has evidence of the opposite, please feel free to show it.

[h0mesch00led]

I don't think these "phenomenons" were made up. Sick and twisted as they were, I actually think these "legends" were true.

[The Atheist]

Seeing the comment on gorillas reminded me of another - Koko & the great ASL scam.

Scientists were adamant that Koko could communicate by using sign language. Trouble was, they cheated on all the evidence and she could not communicate at all.

Blow me down; even though they've been exposed, they're still doing it! (http://www.koko.org/index.php)

[sthomson]

Seeing the comment on gorillas reminded me of another - Koko & the great ASL scam.

Scientists were adamant that Koko could communicate by using sign language. Trouble was, they cheated on all the evidence and she could not communicate at all.

I cannot find a citation for this supposed "debunking". There are some ethical and procedural issues with great ape language research, but I would not call it a scam.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

A and when it comes to the giant squid / Kraken analogy, its again a flawed analogy. Check these posts:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1454693&postcount=2554
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2202738&postcount=5097
The original kraken descriptions were very different from any octopus or squid.

Very interesting! The Wikipedia entry on the Kraken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken) mentions something like that, but sadly doesn't have a source. However, it does provide a source for this hilarious little tidbit:

A French malacologist named Pierre Dénys de Montfort "...proposed that ten British warships that had mysteriously disappeared one night in 1782 must have been attacked and sunk by giant octopuses. Unfortunately for Montfort, the British knew what had happened to the ships, resulting in a disgraceful revelation for Montfort."

I should also note that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_giant_squid_specimens_and_sightings) notes a case (#7 on the list) where the remains of a giant squid were referred as being those of a "coal crab" by locals, which suggests that the legend of the crablike version of the Kraken was applied to the giant squid and that the unsourced material on the subject isn't off-base.

While reading about giant squids to see if I could find anything else about them attacking ships, I realized that the (hoaxed?) accounts of giant squids pulling ships underwater would only fit my criteria if the stories predate the official recognition of the giant squid by science and if they made up the bulk of reports.

But when was the official recognition? This Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_squid) notes ""Architeuthis dux Steenstrup, 1857" as the earliest classification of a species of giant squid. However, it also says that "Steenstrup wrote a number of papers on giant squid in the 1850s. He first used the term "Architeuthis" (mistakenly spelled Architeuthus) in a paper in 1857."

If Steenstrup's paper is considered to be when the giant squid was officially recognized by science, then 1857 is the cutoff date for ridiculous accounts/possible hoaxes. But if we need remains for qualify for official recognition, we get dates running from 1873-1880.

That Wikipedia entry also gives the year 1873 for Harvey's finding of the remains, but also gives the date of 1875 for the name "Architeuthis hartingii Verrill." This site (http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/squid_myths.html) notes that an 1880 study by Professor A.E. Verrill, based on remains found by the Rev. Moses Harvey in 1874.

While flipping through a book left over from when I had a less skeptical interest in cryptozoology, "Monsters, Strange Dreams, and UFOs" by Phyllis Raybin Emert, I managed to find a 1874 account of a giant squid (apparently with a "black head") pulling a ship called "The Pearl" underwater was reported in "...the London Times" (Emert 46).

It also gives two undated accounts: one where a giant squid almost toppled a ship over after grabbing at the masts and one where the squid ate one of the ship's masts! The book's mentioning of an incident where a giant squid attacked survivors of a sunken ship in 1941 just before giving those accounts seems to imply that they occurred around that time.

Does anyone have any more information about those? I found a reference to the Pearl incident in that Wikipedia listing of giant squid sightings, but not much luck on the others. I did find another reference to the 40's account (http://books.google.com/books?id=Mf7ujOGDzZ8C&pg=PA506&lpg=PA506&dq=giant+squid+1941+mast&source=web&ots=eB0r5R0IEe&sig=sJZFLxxA8DJy4pfbBLZV_ewHAOE#PPA507,M1), but the date given there is 1943. It also claims that the giant squid was recognized by most scientists in 1861.

I have lots of problems with the "giant squid ate a mast" story, but it might have happened after the recognition of the giant squid, which would make it an invalid example of a hoax by my criteria. Well, that, and there's still the issue of whether or not the hoax stories make up the bulk of accounts prior to its confirmation.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Seeing the comment on gorillas reminded me of another - Koko & the great ASL scam.

Scientists were adamant that Koko could communicate by using sign language. Trouble was, they cheated on all the evidence and she could not communicate at all.

Blow me down; even though they've been exposed, they're still doing it! (http://www.koko.org/index.php)

Speaking of questionable activities and Koko... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)#Sexual_harassment)

[The Atheist]

I cannot find a citation for this supposed "debunking". There are some ethical and procedural issues with great ape language research, but I would not call it a scam.

Should've searched the JREF forum first!

Enjoy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65071&highlight=koko)

[manofthesea]

The wonderfully twisted magic wands, derived from unicorn horns, were apparently narwhal tusks. I saw that on television.

My favorite, popularised by one of the greatest novels (woo book) ever, is the white whale. White humpback is now confirmed in Australia.

And of course, the white buffalo. Terrible Ted and various native tribes perpetuated that myth.

All we (Americans) need to find now is bigfoot, maybe thunderbird too, but just to make it hard.

[Big Les]

What magic wands?

[sthomson]

Should've searched the JREF forum first!

Enjoy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65071&highlight=koko)

Ah, I see. This is quite a derail, so I will be very brief. There were and continue to be methodological problems with the research produced by certain great ape language institutes. This does not make Koko a "scam" - it means that the research is probably quite flawed, due to the ethical concerns with primate research. Famous linguists continue to insist that great apes are not capable of language, while most primate researchers are in the "we don't really know yet" camp. Wikipedia article on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language). Straight Dope article (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030328.html).

[The Atheist]

Ah, I see. This is quite a derail, so I will be very brief. There were and continue to be methodological problems with the research produced by certain great ape language institutes. This does not make Koko a "scam" - it means that the research is probably quite flawed, due to the ethical concerns with primate research. Famous linguists continue to insist that great apes are not capable of language, while most primate researchers are in the "we don't really know yet" camp. Wikipedia article on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language). Straight Dope article (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030328.html).

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that the jury's still out on whether apes can acquire language, but in the case of Koko, the fraud is fairly clear. That the "evidence" is flawed isn't in question. The problem seems to centre on the fact that the scientists involved knew it was flawed and cherry-picked results to suit their hypothesis anyway. Koko's "language", when seen in transcript is just word salad.

Pity

[sthomson]

The problem seems to centre on the fact that the scientists involved knew it was flawed and cherry-picked results to suit their hypothesis anyway.

I think the scientists involved would strenuously disagree with that. Like I said, there are certainly problems with the evidence they're presenting, but the researchers can probably present rational, ethical reasons for raising Koko and the other gorillas the way they do. Also, I really must point out that the main researcher involved with The Gorilla Foundation, Penny Patterson, is a Developmental Psychologist, not a linguist, biologist, or zoologist. I don't want to start a debate about the "soft sciences," but in general psychological research studies are subject to similar biases that we see in Koko's case. If you'd like to call the entire field a fraud, then that's certainly your prerogative.

[The Atheist]

Also, I really must point out that the main researcher involved with The Gorilla Foundation, Penny Patterson, is a Developmental Psychologist, not a linguist, biologist, or zoologist. I don't want to start a debate about the "soft sciences," but in general psychological research studies are subject to similar biases that we see in Koko's case. If you'd like to call the entire field a fraud, then that's certainly your prerogative.

Quite how we get to dismissing all of psychology from failing to accept that a psychologist has meaningful input into gorilla behaviour studies by using human standards applied to the gorillas, is a very long bow indeed.

Let's just stick at Koko being phony, whether contrived to appear otherwise or not.

[Correa Neto]

Regarding the kraken, wikipedia is known for being sometimes not very reliable. But every now and then we can find old illustrations and tales of animals that resemble the early kraken renderings as described by wikipedia. Its a reminder to take myths as backing for cryptos with a good ammount of care.

An extra point that must be made is that the "classic" kraken illustrations seemed to show octopus instead of squids. Well, if the matching criteria is "has tentacles" then the interpretation is OK, but I feel it is a very loose one.

As for the reports, here we have a mjor problem, since its very hard to separate nowadays what was sheer invention to spice newspapers or books from some story with a grain of reality at its core. The tale's "plausibility" sounds OK, but only at a first approach. Another possibility would be to check with what we know about the creature's habits. Under this light, a squid eating a mast may be hard to swallow. But still, we have problems. Where to draw the line between a plausible and an implausible report? How to avoid the biased cherry-picking of details within reports? I consider these to be possibly unsolvable problems when it comes to using myths, old tales and sighting reports as backing for cryptozoological claims.

At last but not least, there are many many renderings of sea monsters. Some are just overblown fishes with some "add ons". Being octopus such a different type of creatures, I don't think its far-fetched to suppose this "weirdness factor" helped creating giant squid/octopus myths even where no real giant squid were around.

ETA: "Spicing up" or making up an account for a newspaper or book would certainly count IMHO as a hoax. It was not uncommon back then (only back then?) to "enhance" a weak news day...

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Regarding the kraken, wikipedia is known for being sometimes not very reliable. But every now and then we can find old illustrations and tales of animals that resemble the early kraken renderings as described by wikipedia.

Excellent point; I can't believe I forgot about looking at old artwork!

An extra point that must be made is that the "classic" kraken illustrations seemed to show octopus instead of squids. Well, if the matching criteria is "has tentacles" then the interpretation is OK, but I feel it is a very loose one.

True, just as anything that's "hairy and walks on two feet" gets twisted into a Bigfoot story by some proponents.

As for the reports, here we have a mjor problem, since its very hard to separate nowadays what was sheer invention to spice newspapers or books from some story with a grain of reality at its core.

Another excellent point. Now that I think about it, if we can't confirm some stories involving giant squids as being hoaxes then they can't be used to find the "confirmed hoaxes" criteria that I gave. So that takes giant squids out of the running as an answer to my question.

[manofthesea]

So that takes giant squids out of the running as an answer to my question.

Now you just have to tackle these (for starters)

White whale = found in Australia, popularized by novel

White buffalo = found in NA, perpetrated by indians

Unicorn = just a myth perpetrated on Euros, based on narwhal 'tusks'

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Now you just have to tackle these (for starters)

White whale = found in Australia, popularized by novel

That doesn't count since "Moby Dick" was a work of fiction (albeit loosely based on the true story of a whale destroying a whaling ship). There'd have to have been a bunch of confirmed fake sightings that were passed off as being real, people painting whale corpses white, etc.

White buffalo = found in NA, perpetrated by indians

You seem to have misunderstood my question. What/where are the confirmed hoaxes and misidentifications of white buffalo? I should also note that they were confirmed to Western science pretty early on. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_buffalo)

Unicorn = just a myth perpetrated on Euros, based on narwhal 'tusks'

That's not a valid example since unicorns were never confirmed as existing.

[Correa Neto]

White whales... OK, ever heard of belugas? And what's the big deal with albino specimens? No cryptozoology here...

White Buffalos... So what's the big deal with albino specimens, again? No cryptozoology here again...

Unicorns/narwhals... Wait, narwhals are whales! Next time try the unicorn=rhinos line. Since the three contenders are "a bit" different from each other, once again, no cryptocritters here, sorry...

Backing for a cryptocritter will only come in form of a real animal that really matches the legends and/or sighting reports used to "build" it. None of the former fullfils such criteria.