Zoology and Cryptozoology

It seems to me that there are three conditions that have an influence on a species being discovered or not: 1) the creature's size, 2) the frequency of humans in the creature's habitat, and 3) the humans have to be receptive enough to notice the thing. (That last criteria matters when a species is tiny or looks pretty much just like every other bug/monkey/plant that you might run into.... some "discoveries" by scientist are known to local people who don't worry about what western scientists know or don't know.)

Anyway, new species are being found all the time, like the two new primate species found in central america a few years ago.

Is bigfoot next? I'm not holding my breath... the north american wilderness is wild and all, but it's not jungle-dense and "western people" (who have been crawling around there for a long time, and know the financial value of claiming to discover something new) are not likely to ignore something like this if they saw it.

With the "discovery" of a new branch of humanity,Homo floresiensis Bigfoot looks a lot less far fetched. I'm an avid fan of Cryptozoology and people are now able debate the existence of both the Yeti and Bigfoot (and to a lesser extent the Wendigo) as parallel developed Homo species.

We are not talking about extinct creatures here, but "hidden" ones. Even if the hobbits were alive today (which they are definitely not), being isolated on a dinky island makes it more likely that they could suddenly be discovered. Ok, the rockies are big, but that's not quite the same as being isolated.

So you are saying no Bigfoot, but maybe Wendigo or Yeti?

The concept of an 8-foot tall humanoid living largely undiscovered in the wilds of America is hard to swallow. Assuming these creatures lack technology (and we have to, since we haven't come across anything) the amount of calories needed to stay warm and active would be staggering - probably on the order of 5,000 per day - more so in winter when food is scarce. If these creatures live in bands (and basing them on human or simian models, it seems likely) they would strip large sections of forests of animals and edible plants. As a result, they would be nomadic, and eventually like bears or raccoons begin to live of the scraps of humanity, since its the easiest way to get food.

We've seen no evidence of anything like this.

At least I didn't bring up the Skunk Ape of Florida =)

Or the Jersey Devil, el Chupacabra, Nessie and Champy... I do however think thylacines may still be out there.

Out of all the "Criptids" out there 3 have the greatest chance of being "real". (In my opinion).
1) Nessie: I'll have to find the link to a great biology page that explains how such a creature could exist. It involves migration and getting lost and dying a lot.
2)) Mokeli Membe: The Congo Dragon, the area it lived in hasn't changed much in the last 100 million years or so.
3) Megladon: The mega great white (science no says the Great white didn't descend from Meg though). 20,000 years is not all that long in the history of its existence.

1) Loch Ness has a lock that is opened when in use by boats on its south end (it is closed when not in use) and is very shallow at the North. The chances of a bulky creature like a pleiseosaur making his way without being seen is ver, very slim. Sonar scans of the Loch have shown no such residents either. That said, I would be interested in seeing the web page you spoke of.

2) Mokeli Membe - lot's of circumstantial and dubious "evidence". Just cause you want to believe it doesn't make it so.

3) Mega shark - the ocean is a strange place and the deep ocean is largely unexplored. I'm not ready to write it off yet.

Just a few comments on the first two cryptids.

1) One of the little known sightings of a creature near Loch Ness is in those series of locks. (I took a picture of Loch Ness Lock for humor's sake). The theory goes that the creature follows in the salmon while a juvenile and then gets to big to get out. It's seen for a while then dies and sinks to the bottom of the Loch. The area the salmon come from in the ocean has had tons of sea serpent sightings through history.
2) I'm just saying from a biological and geographical standpoint the conditions are favorable for such an "artifact" creature"

You may not have mentioned the Skunk Ape, but you could bring up the gorilla. A quick web search reveals that this elusive beast wasn't "discovered" by Europeans until 1902. Just playing the (Jersey) Devil's advocate to keep this debate going . . .

The gorilla is nothing compared to the colossal squid. It lives of Antarctica and lives in the relatively food barren area of the depths. At 20 meters for the body length (thats not including the long tentacles) I think that a 10 meter Nessie is out of the question.

This is an interesting forgotten backwater. I came across this site , and it seems appropriate to quietly leave a link here.