#chupacabra — Public Fediverse posts

Made another cryptid home. This time for my little chupacabra figure.

#diorama #cryptid #chupacabra

Made another cryptid home. This time for my little chupacabra figure.

#diorama #cryptid #chupacabra

Made another cryptid home. This time for my little chupacabra figure.

#diorama #cryptid #chupacabra

Made another cryptid home. This time for my little chupacabra figure.

#diorama #cryptid #chupacabra

Stream results from tonight~

#furryart #cryptids #jerseydevil #kelpie #fresnonightcrawler #mothman #chupacabra #alien

Stream results from tonight~

#furryart #cryptids #jerseydevil #kelpie #fresnonightcrawler #mothman #chupacabra #alien

Stream results from tonight~

#furryart #cryptids #jerseydevil #kelpie #fresnonightcrawler #mothman #chupacabra #alien

Stream results from tonight~

#furryart #cryptids #jerseydevil #kelpie #fresnonightcrawler #mothman #chupacabra #alien

Stream results from tonight~

#furryart #cryptids #jerseydevil #kelpie #fresnonightcrawler #mothman #chupacabra #alien

Let's go #Cryptid crazy!! Check out my huge selection of cryptid artwork, featuring all your favorite creepy beasties on personally signed 11x17" prints! All available now at shawnlangley.myshopify.com .
Find art of #mothman, #bigfoot, #chupacabra, #flatwoodsmonster, the #hodag, #fresnonightcrawler, #skinwalker and MORE! Some even in 3D!
This particular piece might still be my favorite Mothman illustration I've ever done, originally created using Pentel brush pens, Copic markers & Posca pens.

Let's go #Cryptid crazy!! Check out my huge selection of #cryptid artwork, featuring all your favorite creepy beasties on personally signed 11x17" prints! All available now at shawnlangley.myshopify.com
Find art of #mothman, #bigfoot, #chupacabra, #flatwoodsmonster, the #hodag, #fresnonightcrawler, #skinwalker and MORE! Some even in 3D!

Catch-all cryptids

Among the few things I’ve noticed while following the history of certain cryptids for many years is how the same supposed creature changes in description over time. Considering that no one has captured a cryptid to carefully document is, we don’t actually know the details of what they look like. Therefore, each telling of a story, or imaginative depiction, adds or subtracts a feature which can be carried on or dropped in the next iteration.

If you have not yet sensed a theme in the 12 days of cryptids, here it is: cryptids are creatures of culture, not so much of zoology. It is expected their descriptions will change in response to cultural trends and influences because stories are their flesh and blood.

No cryptid exhibits this better than the chupacabra. That’s where I’ll start with the idea of catch-all cryptids.

Chupacabras – the leader in catch-all cryptids

Head back to this first post in this series to get the story of Type 1 (spiky alien) and Type 2 (hairless dog) chupas. However, the chupa is still changing. Checking on the latest online art or objects for sale, chupas increasingly look like dogmen… or are confused with anything that kills livestock. The 2025 chupacabra is becoming a blend of the two originally unique types with a heaping addition of testosterone.

Or you can even make it cute to appeal to younger crowds. Cute cryptids are certainly marketable.

You can depict a chupacabra in almost any way you want because its features always remained unclear. It was never pinned down to one description possibly because the initial description was improbable. Or, because the only lifelike visuals showed it as a dog.

The term chupacabra moved rapidily from Spanish speaking areas to English speaking areas and, in doing so, became culturally valuable meaning “any weird-looking or mysterious creature”. It was applied to rotting carcasses, diseased animals, and real animals that couldn’t be readily identified by the average person. The use of a new strange term for a mystery animal revealed how little people knew about wildlife and the animals around them. It also carried a scent of controversy that invited online commentary, generating sharing and clicks, enhancing the growing trend in conspiracies and mysteries, and providing a signal that something weird and possibly dangerous was around.

Various depictions of a chupacabra in media where anything goes:

There are other catch-all cryptids or monsters. Two in particular are ambiguous “monster” legends native to Australia and New Zealand.

Bunyip

Another perfect example of a changeable, anything goes cryptid/monster is the Australian bunyip. It is a spirit being of Aboriginal lore. However, when white colonists came to the continent and saw all the unique and astounding wildlife, they assumed that the bunyip was just another of these oddities. According to Quirk (2023, Folklore, 134:1), The continent certainly was teeming with bizarre and dangerous creatures, why not another one! Everyone heard of a “bunyip”, but no one saw it. What did it even look like? Apparently, it could look like nothing or anything.

Derived from ‘banib’ of the Wemba Wemba language of the people of Western Victoria, the descriptions varied wildly. The creature could be huge or small, and included characteristics of starfish, emu, platypus, alligator, seal, water rat, dugong, and bittern.
Mostly associated with water (a medium most able to hide a big unknown creature), rumors of the beast spread.

The bunyip, like other indigenous cryptids, both exists and does not exist – it’s a matter of worldview. When Europeans encountered these concepts in the framework of The Dreaming – the Australian Aboriginal mythology of the world – they had no Western analog. Belief in layered ideas of reality was not well-received by the white westerners, so they removed the bunyip from its context as a spirit creature and imposed their status upon it. (The term and concept of cryptid did not yet exist, but they assumed it was a mysterious animal). Quirk’s explanation painted a picture of a rich, culturally meaningful entity that was reduced to just another animal that the colonists must capture.

The bunyip was said to be aggressive and was feared because it ate people. The stories included supernatural qualities for the creature – it could hurt you with just its roar, it could change the water levels or even hypnotize people. The bunyip was associated with the mulyawonk, another pre-European Aboriginal idea, that represented a creature that inhabited Ngarrindjeri Country. When drownings occurred, people might still say the mulyawonk got him.

Being a water being, it was vulnerable to drought. Eventually, it became a symbol of respecting the environment, especially areas where waters were naturally dangerous, especially to children. The Bunyip was used as an excuse to not exploit natural resources.

Various depictions of a bunyip:

The term ‘bunyip’ was applied to monsters said to be aquatic, amphibious, or known from near water. Some indigenous tribes identified the bunyip as an emu-like animal, and others described a large, bulky, quadrupedal mammal with thick limbs and a short or absent tail. (From Naish, Hunting Monsters). Infamous Australian natural mystery monger, Rex Gilroy represented them as big cats or reptiles.

One idea about the identity of the bunyip was that it represented the cultural memory of people who lived alongside diprotodon, that died out around 46,000 years ago. If indigenous people lived alongside diprotodon for thousands of years, could that have influenced the story? Maybe. There is no way to tell for sure.

The bunyip was also used as a bogeyman to keep children close by. It eventually featured in popular children’s literature and for conservation purposes.

Occasional sighting were recorded, usually in the form of a seal-dog, but any mystery animal could be a bunyip. Some websites still consider the bunyip to be a genuine cryptid, although a bizarre, shapeshifting one.

Healy and Cropper’s Out of the Shadows has a wonderful chapter on the bunyip. They describe how serious scientific interest peaked in 1847 when a ‘bunyip skull’ was discovered. Oh, the scientists were going to pin it down, now! Upon scientific examination, however, the skull was found to be that of a calf. After this, scientific interest cooled. The term ‘bunyip’ became synonymous with a hoax or fraud. And, subsequently, it was used in pejorative political discourse.

The bunyip is important as an aboriginal tradition that was embraced by non-aboriginal Australians. Weinstein & Koolmatrie (2025, Folklore, 136:2) noted that the stories surrounding the bunyip had changed so much that, with the loss of traditional knowledge, tribal lore of today incorporated modern depictions of the monsters. This goes to show that monsters like the bunyip dwell, change, adapt, and may disappear, as the worlds in which they exist and function change.

Taniwha

Sailing from Australia to New Zealand, we find the taniwha acts as a monster of many forms and supernatural powers. Also a water creature, it can take the form of a whale, share, eel, dolphin, dragon, or log and lived in the sea, lakes, rivers or caves. Taniwha (pronounced TAN-ee-FA) was a spirit guardian or protector of the Maori, though it could also be dangerous. People made offerings to their local taniwha. Its depiction could resemble our idea of a dragon.

Early cryptozoologists were eager to strip away the myth and figure it as a real animal. Some thought it was a cultural memory of large monitor lizards that existed previously. Eberhart (Mysterious Creatures) mentioned the idea that could be an undiscovered population of giant gecko. Others assumed it was folklore developed from rare crocodile attacks, or that it was a prehistoric survivor, like a mosasaur. Magin (2016, Time and Mind, 9:3) writes of the comparison to the Loch Ness monster. He cites an article from the New Zealand Evening Post in December 1933, which labeled Nessie (all the rage that year) as a ‘Scottish Taniwha’. Today, he clarifies, Nessie has overtaken that tale in popularity. Every lake creature is a version of local “Nessie”.

When a rotting carcass was hauled up in 1977 by the Zuiyo Maru fishing vessel off the coast of Christchurch, people not only thought it was a plesiosaur, but also a taniwha.

Modern usage continues to invoke the taniwha as a protector. Local Maori will utilize the legend against disturbance from development.

• In 2002, the Ngāti Naho hapū in Waikato objected to construction of a highway in a particular area, because it would destroy the lair of one of their taniwha, known as Karutahi. Eventually, Transit New Zealand agreed to partially reroute the highway.
• The building of a prison in Ngāwhā, Northland, was also opposed in 2001 because of belief in a taniwha, Takauere, in the form of a log. The prison was built over the objections.

The taniwha remains culturally valuable no matter what form it takes.

Mapinguary

Finally, the mapinguary is a highly confusing creature of the Brazilian rainforests. Often listed as a cryptid, it is historically described as a supernatural creature – a giant, one-eyed, monster with a mouth in its belly and its feet facing backwards. Like the taniwha, the bunyip, and even the Sasquatch, it was seen as a protector of its domain from those who seek to exploit it.

Cryptozoologists like Heuvelmans and others stripped it of its more fantastical features and suggested it was a hairy anthropoid creature that just smelled bad, like a Bigfoot. You will find it categorized this way in cryptid media. More recently, however, Oren proposed it was an extant giant ground sloth based on the description of its size and large claws. Sloths don’t eat people, though. But, cryptozoologists will pick and choose their characteristics.

Making sense of ambiguous cryptids

Almost all cryptids can be extremely flexible in their definitions because they are unconfirmed. We can obviously see the wide variation of creatures that did not have what I might call an “anchoring” imagery -unlike the Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Surgeon’s photo. But even with these iconic touchstones, we see the framework spread to other varieties and evolve like the skunk ape, Momo, Yeti, etc. which eventually become their own things and continue to change with the times.

Why does this happen? To be frank, it’s because these are not real creatures. The descriptions are not converging over time, they are changing due to cultural trends.

For those who have an cryptid experience, they will attempt to make sense out what they see in terms of what they already know. If an experience defies immediate explanation, the brain will attempt to fill in the details based on existing experiences or cultural knowledge. Sometimes people know more about a legendary creature than biological creatures so the experience is said to be that of an encounter with Bigfoot, a dogman, a bunyip or a taniwha, depending upon where you are. Applying these categories make for easy references for the listener as well as the experiencer.

Ambiguous, catch-all cryptids are a problem for cryptozoology. But often they are made into opportunities to say there must be something going on here. The widespread belief is fallaciously assumed to represent a mysterious creature that will eventually be dragged out of the shadows and identified. However, the cryptid in the shadows has much more to do with human social interactions and our need for storytelling. We will always, therefore, have abundant mysterious monsters in the shadows.

This is part 11 of the 12 Days of Cryptids.

#12DaysOfCryptids #bunyip #chupacabra #mapinguary #taniwha

Catch-all cryptids

Among the few things I’ve noticed while following the history of certain cryptids for many years is how the same supposed creature changes in description over time. Considering that no one has captured a cryptid to carefully document is, we don’t actually know the details of what they look like. Therefore, each telling of a story, or imaginative depiction, adds or subtracts a feature which can be carried on or dropped in the next iteration.

If you have not yet sensed a theme in the 12 days of cryptids, here it is: cryptids are creatures of culture, not so much of zoology. It is expected their descriptions will change in response to cultural trends and influences because stories are their flesh and blood.

No cryptid exhibits this better than the chupacabra. That’s where I’ll start with the idea of catch-all cryptids.

Chupacabras – the leader in catch-all cryptids

Head back to this first post in this series to get the story of Type 1 (spiky alien) and Type 2 (hairless dog) chupas. However, the chupa is still changing. Checking on the latest online art or objects for sale, chupas increasingly look like dogmen… or are confused with anything that kills livestock. The 2025 chupacabra is becoming a blend of the two originally unique types with a heaping addition of testosterone.

Or you can even make it cute to appeal to younger crowds. Cute cryptids are certainly marketable.

You can depict a chupacabra in almost any way you want because its features always remained unclear. It was never pinned down to one description possibly because the initial description was improbable. Or, because the only lifelike visuals showed it as a dog.

The term chupacabra moved rapidily from Spanish speaking areas to English speaking areas and, in doing so, became culturally valuable meaning “any weird-looking or mysterious creature”. It was applied to rotting carcasses, diseased animals, and real animals that couldn’t be readily identified by the average person. The use of a new strange term for a mystery animal revealed how little people knew about wildlife and the animals around them. It also carried a scent of controversy that invited online commentary, generating sharing and clicks, enhancing the growing trend in conspiracies and mysteries, and providing a signal that something weird and possibly dangerous was around.

Various depictions of a chupacabra in media where anything goes:

There are other catch-all cryptids or monsters. Two in particular are ambiguous “monster” legends native to Australia and New Zealand.

Bunyip

Another perfect example of a changeable, anything goes cryptid/monster is the Australian bunyip. It is a spirit being of Aboriginal lore. However, when white colonists came to the continent and saw all the unique and astounding wildlife, they assumed that the bunyip was just another of these oddities. According to Quirk (2023, Folklore, 134:1), The continent certainly was teeming with bizarre and dangerous creatures, why not another one! Everyone heard of a “bunyip”, but no one saw it. What did it even look like? Apparently, it could look like nothing or anything.

Derived from ‘banib’ of the Wemba Wemba language of the people of Western Victoria, the descriptions varied wildly. The creature could be huge or small, and included characteristics of starfish, emu, platypus, alligator, seal, water rat, dugong, and bittern.
Mostly associated with water (a medium most able to hide a big unknown creature), rumors of the beast spread.

The bunyip, like other indigenous cryptids, both exists and does not exist – it’s a matter of worldview. When Europeans encountered these concepts in the framework of The Dreaming – the Australian Aboriginal mythology of the world – they had no Western analog. Belief in layered ideas of reality was not well-received by the white westerners, so they removed the bunyip from its context as a spirit creature and imposed their status upon it. (The term and concept of cryptid did not yet exist, but they assumed it was a mysterious animal). Quirk’s explanation painted a picture of a rich, culturally meaningful entity that was reduced to just another animal that the colonists must capture.

The bunyip was said to be aggressive and was feared because it ate people. The stories included supernatural qualities for the creature – it could hurt you with just its roar, it could change the water levels or even hypnotize people. The bunyip was associated with the mulyawonk, another pre-European Aboriginal idea, that represented a creature that inhabited Ngarrindjeri Country. When drownings occurred, people might still say the mulyawonk got him.

Being a water being, it was vulnerable to drought. Eventually, it became a symbol of respecting the environment, especially areas where waters were naturally dangerous, especially to children. The Bunyip was used as an excuse to not exploit natural resources.

Various depictions of a bunyip:

The term ‘bunyip’ was applied to monsters said to be aquatic, amphibious, or known from near water. Some indigenous tribes identified the bunyip as an emu-like animal, and others described a large, bulky, quadrupedal mammal with thick limbs and a short or absent tail. (From Naish, Hunting Monsters). Infamous Australian natural mystery monger, Rex Gilroy represented them as big cats or reptiles.

One idea about the identity of the bunyip was that it represented the cultural memory of people who lived alongside diprotodon, that died out around 46,000 years ago. If indigenous people lived alongside diprotodon for thousands of years, could that have influenced the story? Maybe. There is no way to tell for sure.

The bunyip was also used as a bogeyman to keep children close by. It eventually featured in popular children’s literature and for conservation purposes.

Occasional sighting were recorded, usually in the form of a seal-dog, but any mystery animal could be a bunyip. Some websites still consider the bunyip to be a genuine cryptid, although a bizarre, shapeshifting one.

Healy and Cropper’s Out of the Shadows has a wonderful chapter on the bunyip. They describe how serious scientific interest peaked in 1847 when a ‘bunyip skull’ was discovered. Oh, the scientists were going to pin it down, now! Upon scientific examination, however, the skull was found to be that of a calf. After this, scientific interest cooled. The term ‘bunyip’ became synonymous with a hoax or fraud. And, subsequently, it was used in pejorative political discourse.

The bunyip is important as an aboriginal tradition that was embraced by non-aboriginal Australians. Weinstein & Koolmatrie (2025, Folklore, 136:2) noted that the stories surrounding the bunyip had changed so much that, with the loss of traditional knowledge, tribal lore of today incorporated modern depictions of the monsters. This goes to show that monsters like the bunyip dwell, change, adapt, and may disappear, as the worlds in which they exist and function change.

Taniwha

Sailing from Australia to New Zealand, we find the taniwha acts as a monster of many forms and supernatural powers. Also a water creature, it can take the form of a whale, share, eel, dolphin, dragon, or log and lived in the sea, lakes, rivers or caves. Taniwha (pronounced TAN-ee-FA) was a spirit guardian or protector of the Maori, though it could also be dangerous. People made offerings to their local taniwha. Its depiction could resemble our idea of a dragon.

Early cryptozoologists were eager to strip away the myth and figure it as a real animal. Some thought it was a cultural memory of large monitor lizards that existed previously. Eberhart (Mysterious Creatures) mentioned the idea that could be an undiscovered population of giant gecko. Others assumed it was folklore developed from rare crocodile attacks, or that it was a prehistoric survivor, like a mosasaur. Magin (2016, Time and Mind, 9:3) writes of the comparison to the Loch Ness monster. He cites an article from the New Zealand Evening Post in December 1933, which labeled Nessie (all the rage that year) as a ‘Scottish Taniwha’. Today, he clarifies, Nessie has overtaken that tale in popularity. Every lake creature is a version of local “Nessie”.

When a rotting carcass was hauled up in 1977 by the Zuiyo Maru fishing vessel off the coast of Christchurch, people not only thought it was a plesiosaur, but also a taniwha.

Modern usage continues to invoke the taniwha as a protector. Local Maori will utilize the legend against disturbance from development.

• In 2002, the Ngāti Naho hapū in Waikato objected to construction of a highway in a particular area, because it would destroy the lair of one of their taniwha, known as Karutahi. Eventually, Transit New Zealand agreed to partially reroute the highway.
• The building of a prison in Ngāwhā, Northland, was also opposed in 2001 because of belief in a taniwha, Takauere, in the form of a log. The prison was built over the objections.

The taniwha remains culturally valuable no matter what form it takes.

Mapinguary

Finally, the mapinguary is a highly confusing creature of the Brazilian rainforests. Often listed as a cryptid, it is historically described as a supernatural creature – a giant, one-eyed, monster with a mouth in its belly and its feet facing backwards. Like the taniwha, the bunyip, and even the Sasquatch, it was seen as a protector of its domain from those who seek to exploit it.

Cryptozoologists like Heuvelmans and others stripped it of its more fantastical features and suggested it was a hairy anthropoid creature that just smelled bad, like a Bigfoot. You will find it categorized this way in cryptid media. More recently, however, Oren proposed it was an extant giant ground sloth based on the description of its size and large claws. Sloths don’t eat people, though. But, cryptozoologists will pick and choose their characteristics.

Making sense of ambiguous cryptids

Almost all cryptids can be extremely flexible in their definitions because they are unconfirmed. We can obviously see the wide variation of creatures that did not have what I might call an “anchoring” imagery -unlike the Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Surgeon’s photo. But even with these iconic touchstones, we see the framework spread to other varieties and evolve like the skunk ape, Momo, Yeti, etc. which eventually become their own things and continue to change with the times.

Why does this happen? To be frank, it’s because these are not real creatures. The descriptions are not converging over time, they are changing due to cultural trends.

For those who have an cryptid experience, they will attempt to make sense out what they see in terms of what they already know. If an experience defies immediate explanation, the brain will attempt to fill in the details based on existing experiences or cultural knowledge. Sometimes people know more about a legendary creature than biological creatures so the experience is said to be that of an encounter with Bigfoot, a dogman, a bunyip or a taniwha, depending upon where you are. Applying these categories make for easy references for the listener as well as the experiencer.

Ambiguous, catch-all cryptids are a problem for cryptozoology. But often they are made into opportunities to say there must be something going on here. The widespread belief is fallaciously assumed to represent a mysterious creature that will eventually be dragged out of the shadows and identified. However, the cryptid in the shadows has much more to do with human social interactions and our need for storytelling. We will always, therefore, have abundant mysterious monsters in the shadows.

This is part 11 of the 12 Days of Cryptids.

#12DaysOfCryptids #bunyip #chupacabra #mapinguary #taniwha

Chupacabra Rises and Evolves

Cryptids don’t become popular without important context and cultural influences that lift them up for all to see, and hold them there. The chupacabra (first known as El Chupacabras) is a complex mystery creature that has evolved and expanding in scope in response to social needs and cultural feedback. It has an amazing history that is still being written today.

The rise of El Chupacabras

Officially, the first cryptid that evolved on the Internet, the stories of El Chupacabras began in Puerto Rico in March 1995, when farmers noticed dead livestock, particularly chickens and goats. The prey was dead, apparently via neck bites, but were not consumed, leading to the idea that some vampiric beast had drained their blood. A previous vampire legend, known as the Moca Vampire, was prevalent in 1975. The same idea was applied to the new crisis, as blood sucking fiends were a cultural touchstone that people understood.

From the San Juan (Puerto Rico) Star (1996)

A couple of decade ago, the Moca monster was sucking blood of assorted animals around that small mountain town, while the garadiablo was a devilish looking creepy crawly from the lagoon seen in local swamplands. “This seems to be a very Caribbean phenomenon, especially of the Spanish-speaking islands,” said [Marvette Perez, curator of Hispanic history at the Smithsonian Institution’s American History Museum]. “It’s part of our folklore. It’s interesting that the chupacabras has not been found on the English-speaking islands, but has migrated only in places where people speak Spanish.

As with the Moca vampire, the subsequent El Chupacabras (or goat-sucker) beast was associated with alleged UFO sightings. The early speculation on the origins of the creature was not zoological, but supernatural, conspiratorial, cultural, and media-driven. The less dramatic and more likely explanation (that was put forward at the time, but ignored) was that the livestock was killed by feral dogs. The blood coagulates and pools inside the carcasses, leading people to think it was drained of blood. No mammal can suck blood. But the facts didn’t stand in the way of the evolution of a great story.

Things REALLY ramped up in Puerto Rico in August of 1995 when witness, Madelyne Tolentino said she saw a bizarre, reptilian, bipedal animal with spiky protrusions on its back, and big eyes. The account was linked to the livestock deaths and the “chupacabras” label, resulting in local panic and an explosion in media coverage. In January 1996, the story of the sightings was covered in the New York Times, kicking off chupa-mania.

The beast jumps to the mainland and changes form

Reports of strange animals surfaced in Mexico, Texas, and Florida – areas with Latino populations that had knowledge of the modern legend. Some cattle deaths that were previously linked to UFOs shifted to being ascribed to the mystery killer. But the move of the chupacabra (now with the shortened name) into the US also came with a change in its description. The original demonic, kangaroo-like, hopping, two legged monster (Type 1) transformed into “any weird strange looking animal”, most often a hairless quadruped (dog, coyote, raccoon, etc.) (Type 2). Over the next several years in the Fortean-zoology community, Type 2 creatures became known as the Texas Blue Dogs based on speculation that these animals may represent a hybrid or new species of canid.

It’s fitting that the original livestock deaths were attributed to dogs, and then the alien-like El Chupacabras description morphed into a strange-looking dog. Shortly, the Type 2 chupa provided something extremely rare in cryptozoology – actual specimens. Ranchers were able to spot and/or kill several of these animals, providing evidence as to what they actually were. The following are some of the most famous incidents:

• 2004. Elmendorf Beast. Caught in Elmendorf Texas by D. McAnally, the skin of the animal was bluish gray, hairless, and it had a severe overbite. Conclusion: a canid with mange, either a dog or coyote – the DNA was too degraded to be conclusive.
• 2006. Blanco Chupacabra. The unusual-looking animal shot in Blanco, Texas was taxidermied. It also had hairless dark gray skin. The mount later was displayed in oddities museums, including a Creationist museum for a while. DNA test results were not revealed, suggesting it likely came back as coyote, as expected.
• 2007. Cuero beast. Phyllis Canion had seen the live animal that later turned up dead near her property. She had it taxidermied and the DNA tested, twice. The first results showed it was a coyote but she did not agree. The second test also returned “coyote” but with a possible trace of Mexican red wolf. Focusing on that hybridity, she still calls it a “chupacabras” and points out its strange tail glands and other odd features.
• 2008. The Sheriff in Dewitt County, Texas shot a dashcam video of a hairless, gray canid running on road. The animal has a severe overbite and it didn’t look like a usual coyote. This led to news media promoting the animal in terms of the chupacabras legend.
• 2015. The Rockdale, Texas creature was killed by Philip Oliveira’s dogs. The verdict was mangey coyote. The pattern was now well established.

The non-controversial zoological explanation is that these animals are coyotes or coy-dog hybrids, maybe some are Mexican hairless dogs. The hairlessness in many cases is caused by mange. Note the overbite mentioned frequently. This is a genetic defect of the jaw, making the snout look abnormal and resulting in the unfortunate animals having a harder time killing and consuming prey. Ultimately, this would lead to its weakened state, with the animal more susceptible to disease (mange), and perhaps a penchant to go for livestock as an easier meal.

Pop culture chupacabra

There is complex cultural context to the rise and evolution of the chupacabra. The definitive book on the subject is Benjamin Radford’s Tracking the Chupacabra (2010). But since that book was written, the cryptid has increased in popularity to a greater degree and their form and description continues to transform and expand.

The horror movies began in 1996 and have continued, depicting the creature mostly as a bloodthirsty monster. But not always. More importantly, the word “chupacabra” became the top catch-all cryptid. Any weird creature that wasn’t immediately identifiable was labeled “chupacabra” no matter what animal family it resembled. The media reporting was credulous, not investigative, and simply repeated the tropes.

Meanwhile, the original outbreak in Puerto Rico was its own study in the effects of cultural influences. Wild explanations circulated about the Type 1 hairless hopping demon version.

• A biomedical lab experiment that escaped
• Alien, alien hybrid, or alien pet (recall the UFO associations)
• Created by the FBI or CIA as a hybrid human-dog or human-monkey
  (Rhesus monkeys did escape from US bio-med labs from the 1950s)
• A metaphor for US capitalistic policies sucking their “blood”
• A reflection of the HIV/AIDS problem, that the cynical believed was created to kill minorities.

However, the first visual of the monster, from Tolentino, whose sighting set off the local panic, was discredited. Radford’s field work in the country and, particularly, his interview with Tolentino, conclusively showed that she was heavily influenced by the movie Species in describing what she said she saw prowling her street. The image and stories that circulated were so novel and interesting that people remembered it and it stuck. But it was imaginary.

Many people connected the legend of the Moca vampire to the chupacabra 20 years later. The difference in names strongly suggests this is not the same phenomenon, though it has some similarities. There is no mention of “El Chupacabras” prior to 1995 so we can consider it its own cultural phenomenon. Perhaps the two incidents had the same source – feral dogs killing the livestock combined with cultural priming.

The term “goat sucker” was associated in medieval times to the myth of nightjars (whip-poor-will) that described the birds’ behavior of flying into goat pens at night to suck milk from goats, leaving them dry and blind. This was untrue, but still a fun fact of etymological history.

The move from “El Chupacabras” as the cryptid label to “chupacabra” annoyed some early cryptid commentators as incorrect grammar. Attempts to gatekeep language most often fails in cryptozoology, as words and creature labels develop and change in response to a social need. When a creature is never found but still “seen”, the descriptions and meaning will drift with each telling. When the stories of the Puerto Rican monster went international, the label transitioned into a word that everyone adopted and ultimately understood.

As with other cryptids, the chupacabra was used to cast doubt on the scientific community and their credibility. John Adolfi exhibited the Blanco beast as an example of the fallibility of science. His Lost World Museum featured exhibits that aimed to show what he believed is proof that scientists don’t have all the answers. Adolfi is a Young Earth Creationist who irrationally thinks that by showing that scientists haven’t figured out the chupacabra, they could also be wrong about evolution and the age of the Earth. This simply doesn’t logically follow, but the same idea turns up with other cryptid themes.

We have our answer

Many still wish to believe that the chupacabra is something more mysterious than a social panic from Puerto Rico, or diseased canids in North America, even though we have strong evidence to explain most incidents. Weird animals were seen, identified, killed and tested. We have our answer. But the answer is not really what the audience wanted. The legendary themes hint at an underlying and more tricky sociocultural problem – loss of livestock and economic hardships, cultural fear of vampires, a precarious sense of the future, and distrust in authority that leads to conspiracy ideas.

In conclusion, the chupacabra has a fascinating history that is only mildly zoological and heavily cultural. The legend was super-charged by the rising World Wide Web, our ever-decreasing familiarity with nature, sensationalist media coverage, and a need for dramatic story-telling in a frightening world. Yet, there still remains some scientific questions as to why we are seeing “blue dogs”. And, there is a recent discovery of the genetic history of the “weird looking” Galveston coyotes. In these ways and more, the chupacabra chronicles lead us out of the mysterious and towards discovery.

This post is part 1 of the 12 days of Cryptids.

#12DaysOfCryptids #chupacabra #cryptid #Cryptozoology #elChupacabras #MocaVampire #paraCryptid #TexasBlueDogs

Why would you drop m— ..oh I see now

#comics #ohthatseanart #cryptictinseltown #comicpages #digitalart #cryptid #chupacabra #comicstrip

@thejestpress I could tell this was a joke because we don't have #Sasquatch in #Arkansas, only #ChupaCabra.

We see our first monster(s)! You don’t need to go to a butcher Seb, I’m sure they’d be happy with a can of tuna or spam. They’re like actual cats in that way. Do you have any pepperoni?
#comics #cryptictinseltown #webcomics #cryptid #chupacabra

Bare ink scan, plus a different colorway for the sticker version cuz I am indecisive with colors.

#art #chupacabra #cryptids

SCUMSUCK Sticker Club, May 2025: Chupacabra

It was originally a goat sucking reptile in Puerto Rico. When it was spotted in Mexico + United States, it became a hairless dog.

Supporters, please enjoy the png, layered clip file, and physical sticker in the mail.

https://ko-fi.com/scumsuck?viewimage=IZ8Z41FG400#galleryItemView

#cryptids #chupacabra #art

Is the Chupacabra a real creature lurking in the shadows, or just an enduring myth fueled by cultural legends and sightings? Explore the enigma that challenges science and stirs the imagination. Link: YouTube #Chupacabra #Mystery #Paranormal #Legends #AI

Chupacabra (Spirit Halloween)

The chupacabra (Spanish for “goat sucker”) is a cryptid whose origins can be traced back to1995, when in Puerto Rico livestock began turning up dead, drained of blood, and possessing puncture wounds. Eyewitnesses described a bipedal creature, with large red eyes, spines running down the back, hairless skin, and standing 3-4’ (0.9 to 1.2 m) tall. In his book Tracking the Chupacabra, […]

Read more... https://monstertoyblog.com/chupacabra-spirit-halloween/

#Chupacabra#Uncategorized

Pop Cryptid Spectator #1

In this edition:

• What’s up with this project
• Pop Goes the Cryptid explainer
• r/cryptid aims to be inclusive
• New cryptid media
• Texas’ Chupacabra coaster
• Cryptozoology.com shuttered

Hello! Welcome to the first edition of the Pop Cryptid Spectator, my regular (hopefully) posting of observations and commentary on my current favorite personal project – watching the parade of “cryptids” in popular culture. 

I recently recalled that when I was a kid, like 9 years old, I used to collect interesting things about whatever I was interested in at the time and send to my friends or just pretend to be running a newspaper. Here I am, still doing that decades later. It seems to be what I do.

My intent with this regular posting is, roughly:

• To highlight the fun ways legendary or dubious animals are showing up in modern media. 
• To explore the expansion of cryptozoology from what was originally framed as a “science-based” endeavor to what is now a mass cultural phenomenon – a profusion of strange entities that are labeled “cryptids”.
• And, to share interesting news bits I find related to “hidden” or legendary creatures.

If you are looking for me to criticize Bigfoot believers, or to make fun of Hodag hunters, there will be none of that. I would suggest that might a.) lighten up because this is not a highly serious subject and, b.) stick around to just enjoy it, because the cryptid scene is crazy right now. It’s so diverse, creative, and complicated. It’s so much more than monster hunting or extinction guilt. Cryptids are a way to express personal and regional identity, attract tourism, inspire art, examine history, explore spiritual ideas, represent liminality and a sense of the “other”. I could go on and on. There is a lot to say. So I’m going to get started.

But, I feel I have to backtrack just a bit first. 

Pop Goes the Cryptid

I put out an explainer presentation called Pop Goes the Cryptid a little while ago as part of the Virtual Folk Zoology conference hosted by researcher and data scientist, Floe Foxon. Check it out if you haven’t already. I reworked the presentation a little bit and put it up on my website, as well as re-recording it into a video for people who prefer that. The reaction has been interesting. I received comments by some respected colleagues that highlighted some hot button issues in the cryptozoo. My subsequent post noting these issues just fanned the flames. In short – there is a bifurcated view of the world of cryptozoology in more than one way. And each side can be broken into additional factions. It’s messy. The two opposing camps argue a lot.

First, there is the division between those with a scientific view of cryptozoology and those who embrace the paranormal and supernatural. Now, that is grossly oversimplifying it. I’ll may try to address that at some later time but I think you get the general idea.

There is also a more nuanced break between those who wish cryptozoology would return to a more scientific framework and those who say it never was scientific and might never be. And, that’s also is an oversimplification. You can take a look at my recent writings for more explanation on that dispute.

And, there is the evergreen argument about what does or doesn’t fit under the label of “cryptid”? What’s the definition? How should the word be used? The reasons for the bickering about labels and boundaries is very much under the umbrella of my Pop Cryptid framing. However, I’ll attempt to be neutral in this forum.

Alternative naming

Venturing into the latest goings-on, I begin with a specific dispute regarding the inclusion of two popular “cryptids”. The moderator of the cryptid subreddit has broached the sensitive topic of the use of two entity names that represent Native spiritual creatures. I’ll say them once, with apologies, to clarify. It is common to see Skinwalker and Wendigo referred to as “cryptids” in the broadest sense of being secretive or hidden creatures of dubious existence. They are in no way zoological animals to be named and collected, which is why many on the subreddit don’t think they should be mentioned at all. However, they are both extremely popular in media. The “what is a cryptid” question remains the core of contention. For now, the moderator is asking contributors to come up with alternative names for these two beings. The ’S’ word has already been substituted with options “flesh gait”, “flesh pedestrian” (which is objectively stupid) and “pale crawler” based on modern storytelling, not indigenous lore. The W creature doesn’t seem to have a ready substitution, and the floor is open to suggestions. If you are familiar with the legend of the cannibal monster with a heart of ice, you probably noticed how the modern depictions play fast and loose with the lore.

And they will continue to change because they are not physical things able to captured and measured, they can morph into whatever we need them to be. 

New cryptid media

The venerable Adrian Shine has a new book out on sea creatures titled A Natural History of Sea Serpents. You certainly know him – he’s the exceptionally bearded scholar of Loch Ness legends. The book was out in the UK in October and is now available in US markets and looks like a worthy volume.

Jenna Ortega and Paul Rudd are starring in a very bizarre-looking film featuring life-saving and life-threatening unicorns. In a setup that reminds me of Harry and the Henderson’s, they have a vehicular encounter with the magical creature. Death of a Unicorn is set to be released in the next few months.

Once again, we see how the line between cryptid and not-a-cryptid is more porous than a bad email spam filter. The title unicorn is labeled in at least in some media outlets as a cryptid even though it historically was not seen as such. However, in this case, it seems to literally be one.

Six Flags Fiesta Texas amusement park in San Antonio announced that it’s changing the branding of its Goliath roller coaster into that of the Chupacabra. The news release for the transformation includes mention of the chupa as a “Texas folklore legend”. Indeed! I was interested to see which version of the chupacabra they picked – the spiky alien kangaroo or the mangy vampire dog. Turns out they combined them both and added additional parts, embracing the chupacabra tradition of being a cultural shape-shifter representing any weird thing that looks scary.

Loss of an OG cryptid website

WordPress sent me a notice that I’ve been blogging for 18 years on that platform. But 25 years ago, there was cryptozoology.com. The site was registered in 1998, before some of you were even aware that the subject, or the internet, even existed. The site had articles about lots of popular creatures and stuck mostly to the zoological framing, as much as I can remember. I hadn’t visited in a while but, when looking for other cryptid forums online, I checked in. And it was gone. Shut down. This happened in (oops) November 2022! The domain name is still registered for the next several years. I have no clue as to what might happen to the site. 

During those 25 years, the scene changed drastically. Most of the content on cryptids has shifted to Cryptid Wiki which includes more modern media and depiction of many new creatures that seem to appear or resurface from the past on a weekly basis. 

Will the original .com site return all new and shiny? If it doesn’t, what a lost opportunity. However, the loss of this place on the web feeds into the Pop Cryptid trend very neatly. People don’t do an internet search for the word “cryptozoology” like they do for “cryptids”. The zoology part, while still guarded by the stalwart old-school gatekeepers, is completely overrun by the pop cryptid scene all over the web that deals in folk horror, AI and game-based creatures, cosplayers, DeviantArtists, and pokecryptids. Although a bit sad, it seems appropriate that cryptozoology.com would fade away at this time as a symbol of how things used to be.

For more on this trend from cryptozoology to cryptids, check out my post called “Cryptid” out-trends “cryptozoology”, which includes the Google trends data results comparing the two terms. There is a story being told there. 

Pop Goes the Cryptid Facebook group

If you are still on Facebook, I have a page where I drop all the links I find to new cryptid content. Read them there first at facebook.com/Popcryptids

Here are some recent posts:

• Cryptid dogs subreddit r/crytpiddogs
• A Russian creature called the Witkes that may have been inspired by buried frozen mammoth carcasses
• A cryptid themed holiday bar that popped up in Wilmington, NC
• A cryptid themed band called Beach Creeper. Their surf rock content is creative and cover art is hilarious. Check them out on BandCamp.

That’s all wrap for the Pop Cryptid Spectator. I hope to be back soon to supply new observations from the world of mystery creatures.

Go to SharonAHill.com and click on Pop goes the Cryptid landing page. While you’re there, make sure you subscribe to all the posts – it’s always free and I don’t send annoying spam. 

You can also email me with comments, suggestions or questions at Popcryptid(at)proton.me

Watch the video version of Pop Cryptid Spectator on my YouTube channel.

https://youtu.be/Q5MXw_uOd3k

#1 #chupacabra #cryptid #Cryptozoology #deathOfAUnicorn #popCryptid #reddit #rollerCoaster #scientific #seaSerpents #Skinwalker #Wendigo

https://sharonahill.com/?p=9144

GP USA - Analisi strategie: #Leclerc el #chupacabra del Texas. Il pit di #Sainz? Geniale https://www.formula1.it/news/22174/1/gp-usa-analisi-strategie-leclerc-el-chupacabra-del-texas-il-pit-di-sainz-geniale-?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon

Lost Monster Files – Carolina Chupacabra review

The Discovery Channel’s new series “Lost Monster Files” (LMF) is promoted as a cryptozoology program that uses a team of experts that consult the archives of “founder of cryptozoology”, Ivan T. Sanderson, in their investigations of modern claims of unclassified animals. The first episode, titled Carolina Chupacabra, aired on 9 October 2024. Here is my review about the content and conclusions.

Not a promising start

There is not a lot of reliable background information on this show on the web. There was a press release and that’s about it. The episodes listed in various places are jumbled and they are not yet airing on the usual streaming services (that is, it’s not on Discovery +). Here is the official blurb for the first episode:

In the premiere episode, the group investigates a series of strange livestock mutilations in the Smoky Mountains that locals fear could be tied to the infamous Chupacabra, which has terrorized the Southwest for decades. Using journals and evidence from Sanderson’s archive, the team investigates a rash of deadly encounters in North Carolina to try and document this killer canine…and the possibility that the creature could be migrating east.

Interestingly, I also found this alternate wording on another TV listing site that was more or less the same except for this part:

…the team attempts to uncover the identity of this killer canine and whether or not it could be part of a secret government testing program.

Right from the start, with the intro (“A horrifying, blood-sucking beast is terrorizing Appalachia…”), and the hint of conspiracy mongering from what might have been an earlier draft blurb, we’re in outlandish BS paranormal territory. The episode ends up NOT going there, at least, but I can’t help wonder if that was an editing decision. Before we get to the content, let’s check out the show’s “experts.”

A Team of “Experts”

From the press release:

The team includes field scientist and tech expert Charlie Mewshaw, cryptozoologist Brittany Barbieri, predator experts and wildlife trackers Troy Lillie and Justin Igualada, and former CIA officer and FBI agent Tracy Walder. Following evidence and theories buried away for decades and chasing up-to-the-minute encounters, they aim to bring fact to fiction by documenting one of these legendary creatures for the first time.

In the intro, we also are told that all of these people are “experts”. Obviously, we are meant to find them credible and experienced in investigating mystery animal claims. Mewshaw says he has several degrees,

• Barbieri is listed as a “cryptozoologist”, and the others are touted for their experience and knowledge. My idea of experts must be different than the producers as none are zoologists or biologists. Barbieri, is known as a paranormal researcher who has interest in UFOlogy. She has given herself the title of cryptozoologist like many others in that field. But her IMDB bio states Actress, Writer and Producer.
• Charlie Mewshaw is an author, podcaster, and artist (and now “program host”) who cites his “natural resource science” background. It’s unclear what that means but it that is not “biology” or “zoology”.
• Troy Lillie is Brittany’s brother. His job, according to Facebook, is Co-Owner of Crocstar clothing and produces crocodile-related conservation media content.
• Justin Igualada is a wildlife handler and alligator wrestler.
• I don’t doubt that CIA/FBI person Tracy Walder was what she said but it doesn’t actually have any value to a show about mysterious animals unless they are going to focus on eyewitness accounts (which seems like the way it’s going to go) or government secrets (which also might be the direction they are headed).

So, from my point of view, this is a team of people who call themselves experts but they haven’t done much, if any, scientific research, published papers, and undergone peer review for their work. Discovery producers can call them “experts” and won’t get in trouble for it. I’ll drop in here a reminder that Sanderson himself had a degree in Zoology. Calling oneself an “expert” is usual for paranormal content, so this flummery is almost expected.

If I’m wrong about any of these assertions, feel free to let me know. The reason I’m irked by this use of “expert” in a presumably zoological show is because, if you are going to do animal investigations regarding interpretation, conclusions, etc., that is framed as scientific, you had better have some legit cred and know how science actually works. None of these people have that, though it will not be obvious to the casual viewer. This is a Monster Quest-style show where people are pretending to do science and look very serious-minded, but their conclusions mean little because the results are contrived without peer review and critique. Scientific discoveries aren’t legitimized via TV show.

Oh dear, I’ve shown all my cards already. But it’s no surprise that I deeply despise this ‘I play a scientist/researcher on TV’ gambit. It is how many nonfiction mystery docu-shows are formatted, which is, unfortunately, promoting misinformation to the audience. My choice would have actual scientists talking about this stuff, but, I’d bet they are busy creating actual knowledge.

At least LMF does not appear to be manufactured fiction like previous Discovery Network shows. And, it is possible that the content could be informative. Plus, we all know that Monster Quest was useful in getting people interested in animals. Some of those people undoubtedly realized that the MQ content was not altogether reliable; that it was solely entertainment, not scholarship.

Episode 1: A tale of two chupacabras

I’ll hit the few points that stuck out to me in this episode.

Sanderson is emphasized as “the” founder of cryptozoology.

I’m going to assume that the people reading this have some background in the history of cryptozoology. The program uses Ivan T. Sanderson’s ideas as a foundation, and maybe nothing more than a plot device. I’m a bit concerned about that. Sanderson was problematic but I enjoy his writing without taking it too seriously. The narration tells us Sanderson was “the” founder of cryptozoology. The press release says “a” founder of cryptozoology, which is more correct. There is no mention of Bernard Heuvelmans (“father of cryptozoology”) so far, but they do head to Minnesota…

Where is the archive from?

The archive of recordings, papers, binders, casts and animal remains are said to have been “lost” for 50 years and that this team got access to it in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I don’t know the background for this. Sanderson’s paper are known to be in the archives of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. I do not know the difference between the collections. Could this content be some of the material taken from his Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained (SITU) headquarters in New Jersey? It was known that after his death people made off with stuff from the headquarters. The origin story of the archives is not addressed in the first episode.

Hybrid canids and the chupacabra

For this episode, the link to Sanderson, who wrote back in the 1950s and 60s, is that he considered that hybrid wolf-like canids could account for mystery animals in the US. This is the show’s jumping off point to discuss livestock deaths by mystery canids in both North Carolina and Texas. Brittany, Troy and Justin visit farmers in Appalachian North Carolina who report seeing a large canid and experiencing livestock deaths. Notably, the creature is said to be bigger than a coyote with some reporting “glowing green eyes”.

Meanwhile, Charlie and Tracy pay a visit to Phyllis Canion, owner of the iconic “chupacabra” that was killed and taxidermied in Cuero, Texas. Canion’s DNA test showed that the strange animal was a coyote with a mix of Mexican red wolf. However, it is notable that the “wolf” portion could have been introduced generations ago, according to information from UC Davis. In LMF, however, the DNA result is said to include a “unknown” portion as well. Much is made of this “mystery” as I will circle back to in a bit.

In North Carolina, a stake out by the crew with a live goat as bait resulted in a brief glimpse on infrared video of a canid shape racing through the area. Almost unbelievably, the animal ran into a pole they placed in the ground to act as a hair trap, dislodging it. It left not hair, but skin. The skin sample was sent for DNA testing and the result was said to be exactly the same as Canion’s result, leading to the team to conclude that it’s the same species of animal.

Blood-sucking beast

The history of the cryptid called a “chupacabra” is socially complex and rather confusing. If you know, you know. Throughout the episode, the cast states that it would be awesome to finally get proof of whatever the “chupacabra” is. However, not only is Canion’s animal referred to as a “chupacabra” (so we already know that, in this four-legged chupa-form, it’s a coyote), but the legend of other sightings are assumed to be factual, as if this is all one-in-the-same “new” species of animal that “drains the blood” of livestock. At no point is there ever mention of the fact that canids do not and cannot “suck” blood. Dead animals don’t bleed because blood quickly coagulates. If the carcass is “mutilated” by scavengers after it is deceased, there will not be blood everywhere. The cast appears to be egregiously ignorant of how biology works. Or the whole vampire angle is emphasized for creepy effect.

Ridiculous conclusion

A trendy idea by non-scientists in the fantastical cryptid scene is that dire wolves are still living out there. There is zero scientific evidence for this, not even a hint that they exist, with the youngest remains dated at about 10,000 years ago. LMF suggests that the “unknown” portion of the two DNA results could represent dire wolf, vindicating Sanderson’s hybrid idea. However, we do have DNA from extinct dire wolfs and it shows they diverged from other wolf lines nearly 6 million years ago. The animals in question are not part dire wolf. The real conclusion, no matter if you believe or not, is that these animals are weird looking coyotes. Wolf-like canids readily hybridize. The DNA mix appears to not be unusual as it is common for southern coyotes to have red wolf DNA, but, here, the gaps are exploited as “mysterious” for dramatic effect (and as misinformation).

Barbieri and Mewshaw casually decide, on the basis of dubious reports and DNA conjecture, that both animals belong to a new species that they call “Lykos sphinx” – and inappropriate and nonsensical name. Zoological names must be based on specimens, and be published, not a hot take from a TV show. This is undoubtedly the stupidest part of the show, even outdoing the gross sibling jibes (which are sort of realistic and funny) and gratuitous sexist reference about Brittany asking to talk to other witnesses.

I’m not buying much of the “evidence” in this presentation. The premise of a blood sucking, green eyed, ravenous beast is supported. Coyotes, and many other things, kill livestock and there are several explanations for why a body remained uneaten. I’m not even convinced by the bite marks on the dead pig shown. Too many questions remain unanswered and the anecdotes are also unconvincing. LMF appears to be another in a very long parade of samey pseudoscience paranormal shows. The scientifical cast appears to want to use the gimmick that Sanderson was prescient in thinking about cryptids decades ago. I feel this is reaching, and it doesn’t land well. I will watch a few more episodes to see.

Real mystery animal out there?

I don’t want to end on that note – there is something interesting to me going on with animals like the one Phyllis Canion found and I would like to know more from actual experts. The Cuero specimen has some unique characteristics, and I wonder if more than one animal like this has been documented. In a way, these pseudo-chupacabra animals are cryptids in that the legend is growing and outpacing the ability of scientific information to reach the public.

Sometimes called “Texas blue dogs” for their hairless, blue-skinned appearance, some show hairlessness beyond typical patterns of sarcoptic mange, and have unusual jaws, eye color, leg length, etc. I cannot find that there was ever a published article on these specimens, if they fall within the range of morphology for coyotes, and if this ties into the claims about these hybrid animals as a population or an anomaly. It would make an actual good show to hear more about this and see what’s real and what has been exaggerated.

For more info on the history of the chupacabra, check out Benjamin Radford’s Tracking the Chupacabra (2011)

More: Episode 2, ABSM and the origin of the files and Episode 3, Pennsylvania Thunderbird

#chupacabra #coyote #cryptid #Cryptozoology #direWolf #DNA #IvanSanderson #LostMonsterFiles #MonsterQuest #paranormalTV #PhyllisCanion #ReviewOfLostMonsterFiles #science #sciencey #Scientifical #TexasBlueDogs #TVShow

https://sharonahill.com/?p=8791

Lost Monster Files – Carolina Chupacabra review

The Discovery Channel’s new series “Lost Monster Files” (LMF) is promoted as a cryptozoology program that uses a team of experts that consult the archives of “founder of cryptozoology”, Ivan T. Sanderson, in their investigations of modern claims of unclassified animals. The first episode, titled Carolina Chupacabra, aired on 9 October 2024. Here is my review about the content and conclusions.

Not a promising start

There is not a lot of reliable background information on this show on the web. There was a press release and that’s about it. The episodes listed in various places are jumbled and they are not yet airing on the usual streaming services (that is, it’s not on Discovery +). Here is the official blurb for the first episode:

In the premiere episode, the group investigates a series of strange livestock mutilations in the Smoky Mountains that locals fear could be tied to the infamous Chupacabra, which has terrorized the Southwest for decades. Using journals and evidence from Sanderson’s archive, the team investigates a rash of deadly encounters in North Carolina to try and document this killer canine…and the possibility that the creature could be migrating east.

Interestingly, I also found this alternate wording on another TV listing site that was more or less the same except for this part:

…the team attempts to uncover the identity of this killer canine and whether or not it could be part of a secret government testing program.

Right from the start, with the intro (“A horrifying, blood-sucking beast is terrorizing Appalachia…”), and the hint of conspiracy mongering from what might have been an earlier draft blurb, we’re in outlandish BS paranormal territory. The episode ends up NOT going there, at least, but I can’t help wonder if that was an editing decision. Before we get to the content, let’s check out the show’s “experts.”

A Team of “Experts”

From the press release:

The team includes field scientist and tech expert Charlie Mewshaw, cryptozoologist Brittany Barbieri, predator experts and wildlife trackers Troy Lillie and Justin Igualada, and former CIA officer and FBI agent Tracy Walder. Following evidence and theories buried away for decades and chasing up-to-the-minute encounters, they aim to bring fact to fiction by documenting one of these legendary creatures for the first time.

In the intro, we also are told that all of these people are “experts”. Obviously, we are meant to find them credible and experienced in investigating mystery animal claims. Mewshaw says he has several degrees,

• Barbieri is listed as a “cryptozoologist”, and the others are touted for their experience and knowledge. My idea of experts must be different than the producers as none are zoologists or biologists. Barbieri, is known as a paranormal researcher who has interest in UFOlogy. She has given herself the title of cryptozoologist like many others in that field. But her IMDB bio states Actress, Writer and Producer.
• Charlie Mewshaw is an author, podcaster, and artist (and now “program host”) who cites his “natural resource science” background. It’s unclear what that means but it that is not “biology” or “zoology”.
• Troy Lillie is Brittany’s brother. His job, according to Facebook, is Co-Owner of Crocstar clothing and produces crocodile-related conservation media content.
• Justin Igualada is a wildlife handler and alligator wrestler.
• I don’t doubt that CIA/FBI person Tracy Walder was what she said but it doesn’t actually have any value to a show about mysterious animals unless they are going to focus on eyewitness accounts (which seems like the way it’s going to go) or government secrets (which also might be the direction they are headed).

So, from my point of view, this is a team of people who call themselves experts but they haven’t done much, if any, scientific research, published papers, and undergone peer review for their work. Discovery producers can call them “experts” and won’t get in trouble for it. I’ll drop in here a reminder that Sanderson himself had a degree in Zoology. Calling oneself an “expert” is usual for paranormal content, so this flummery is almost expected.

If I’m wrong about any of these assertions, feel free to let me know. The reason I’m irked by this use of “expert” in a presumably zoological show is because, if you are going to do animal investigations regarding interpretation, conclusions, etc., that is framed as scientific, you had better have some legit cred and know how science actually works. None of these people have that, though it will not be obvious to the casual viewer. This is a Monster Quest-style show where people are pretending to do science and look very serious-minded, but their conclusions mean little because the results are contrived without peer review and critique. Scientific discoveries aren’t legitimized via TV show.

Oh dear, I’ve shown all my cards already. But it’s no surprise that I deeply despise this ‘I play a scientist/researcher on TV’ gambit. It is how many nonfiction mystery docu-shows are formatted, which is, unfortunately, promoting misinformation to the audience. My choice would have actual scientists talking about this stuff, but, I’d bet they are busy creating actual knowledge.

At least LMF does not appear to be manufactured fiction like previous Discovery Network shows. And, it is possible that the content could be informative. Plus, we all know that Monster Quest was useful in getting people interested in animals. Some of those people undoubtedly realized that the MQ content was not altogether reliable; that it was solely entertainment, not scholarship.

Episode 1: A tale of two chupacabras

I’ll hit the few points that stuck out to me in this episode.

Sanderson is emphasized as “the” founder of cryptozoology.

I’m going to assume that the people reading this have some background in the history of cryptozoology. The program uses Ivan T. Sanderson’s ideas as a foundation, and maybe nothing more than a plot device. I’m a bit concerned about that. Sanderson was problematic but I enjoy his writing without taking it too seriously. The narration tells us Sanderson was “the” founder of cryptozoology. The press release says “a” founder of cryptozoology, which is more correct. There is no mention of Bernard Heuvelmans (“father of cryptozoology”) so far, but they do head to Minnesota…

Where is the archive from?

The archive of recordings, papers, binders, casts and animal remains are said to have been “lost” for 50 years and that this team got access to it in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I don’t know the background for this. Sanderson’s paper are known to be in the archives of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. I do not know the difference between the collections. Could this content be some of the material taken from his Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained (SITU) headquarters in New Jersey? It was known that after his death people made off with stuff from the headquarters. The origin story of the archives is not addressed in the first episode.

Hybrid canids and the chupacabra

For this episode, the link to Sanderson, who wrote back in the 1950s and 60s, is that he considered that hybrid wolf-like canids could account for mystery animals in the US. This is the show’s jumping off point to discuss livestock deaths by mystery canids in both North Carolina and Texas. Brittany, Troy and Justin visit farmers in Appalachian North Carolina who report seeing a large canid and experiencing livestock deaths. Notably, the creature is said to be bigger than a coyote with some reporting “glowing green eyes”.

Meanwhile, Charlie and Tracy pay a visit to Phyllis Canion, owner of the iconic “chupacabra” that was killed and taxidermied in Cuero, Texas. Canion’s DNA test showed that the strange animal was a coyote with a mix of Mexican red wolf. However, it is notable that the “wolf” portion could have been introduced generations ago, according to information from UC Davis. In LMF, however, the DNA result is said to include a “unknown” portion as well. Much is made of this “mystery” as I will circle back to in a bit.

In North Carolina, a stake out by the crew with a live goat as bait resulted in a brief glimpse on infrared video of a canid shape racing through the area. Almost unbelievably, the animal ran into a pole they placed in the ground to act as a hair trap, dislodging it. It left not hair, but skin. The skin sample was sent for DNA testing and the result was said to be exactly the same as Canion’s result, leading to the team to conclude that it’s the same species of animal.

Blood-sucking beast

The history of the cryptid called a “chupacabra” is socially complex and rather confusing. If you know, you know. Throughout the episode, the cast states that it would be awesome to finally get proof of whatever the “chupacabra” is. However, not only is Canion’s animal referred to as a “chupacabra” (so we already know that, in this four-legged chupa-form, it’s a coyote), but the legend of other sightings are assumed to be factual, as if this is all one-in-the-same “new” species of animal that “drains the blood” of livestock. At no point is there ever mention of the fact that canids do not and cannot “suck” blood. Dead animals don’t bleed because blood quickly coagulates. If the carcass is “mutilated” by scavengers after it is deceased, there will not be blood everywhere. The cast appears to be egregiously ignorant of how biology works. Or the whole vampire angle is emphasized for creepy effect.

Ridiculous conclusion

A trendy idea by non-scientists in the fantastical cryptid scene is that dire wolves are still living out there. There is zero scientific evidence for this, not even a hint that they exist, with the youngest remains dated at about 10,000 years ago. LMF suggests that the “unknown” portion of the two DNA results could represent dire wolf, vindicating Sanderson’s hybrid idea. However, we do have DNA from extinct dire wolfs and it shows they diverged from other wolf lines nearly 6 million years ago. The animals in question are not part dire wolf. The real conclusion, no matter if you believe or not, is that these animals are weird looking coyotes. Wolf-like canids readily hybridize. The DNA mix appears to not be unusual as it is common for southern coyotes to have red wolf DNA, but, here, the gaps are exploited as “mysterious” for dramatic effect (and as misinformation).

Barbieri and Mewshaw casually decide, on the basis of dubious reports and DNA conjecture, that both animals belong to a new species that they call “Lykos sphinx” – and inappropriate and nonsensical name. Zoological names must be based on specimens, and be published, not a hot take from a TV show. This is undoubtedly the stupidest part of the show, even outdoing the gross sibling jibes (which are sort of realistic and funny) and gratuitous sexist reference about Brittany asking to talk to other witnesses.

I’m not buying much of the “evidence” in this presentation. The premise of a blood sucking, green eyed, ravenous beast is supported. Coyotes, and many other things, kill livestock and there are several explanations for why a body remained uneaten. I’m not even convinced by the bite marks on the dead pig shown. Too many questions remain unanswered and the anecdotes are also unconvincing. LMF appears to be another in a very long parade of samey pseudoscience paranormal shows. The scientifical cast appears to want to use the gimmick that Sanderson was prescient in thinking about cryptids decades ago. I feel this is reaching, and it doesn’t land well. I will watch a few more episodes to see.

Real mystery animal out there?

I don’t want to end on that note – there is something interesting to me going on with animals like the one Phyllis Canion found and I would like to know more from actual experts. The Cuero specimen has some unique characteristics, and I wonder if more than one animal like this has been documented. In a way, these pseudo-chupacabra animals are cryptids in that the legend is growing and outpacing the ability of scientific information to reach the public.

Sometimes called “Texas blue dogs” for their hairless, blue-skinned appearance, some show hairlessness beyond typical patterns of sarcoptic mange, and have unusual jaws, eye color, leg length, etc. I cannot find that there was ever a published article on these specimens, if they fall within the range of morphology for coyotes, and if this ties into the claims about these hybrid animals as a population or an anomaly. It would make an actual good show to hear more about this and see what’s real and what has been exaggerated.

For more info on the history of the chupacabra, check out Benjamin Radford’s Tracking the Chupacabra (2011)

More: Episode 2, ABSM and the origin of the files and Episode 3, Pennsylvania Thunderbird

#chupacabra #coyote #cryptid #Cryptozoology #direWolf #DNA #IvanSanderson #LostMonsterFiles #MonsterQuest #paranormalTV #PhyllisCanion #ReviewOfLostMonsterFiles #science #sciencey #Scientifical #TexasBlueDogs #TVShow

https://sharonahill.com/?p=8791

Lost Monster Files – Carolina Chupacabra review

The Discovery Channel’s new series “Lost Monster Files” (LMF) is promoted as a cryptozoology program that uses a team of experts that consult the archives of “founder of cryptozoology”, Ivan T. Sanderson, in their investigations of modern claims of unclassified animals. The first episode, titled Carolina Chupacabra, aired on 9 October 2024. Here is my review about the content and conclusions.

Not a promising start

There is not a lot of reliable background information on this show on the web. There was a press release and that’s about it. The episodes listed in various places are jumbled and they are not yet airing on the usual streaming services (that is, it’s not on Discovery +). Here is the official blurb for the first episode:

In the premiere episode, the group investigates a series of strange livestock mutilations in the Smoky Mountains that locals fear could be tied to the infamous Chupacabra, which has terrorized the Southwest for decades. Using journals and evidence from Sanderson’s archive, the team investigates a rash of deadly encounters in North Carolina to try and document this killer canine…and the possibility that the creature could be migrating east.

Interestingly, I also found this alternate wording on another TV listing site that was more or less the same except for this part:

…the team attempts to uncover the identity of this killer canine and whether or not it could be part of a secret government testing program.

Right from the start, with the intro (“A horrifying, blood-sucking beast is terrorizing Appalachia…”), and the hint of conspiracy mongering from what might have been an earlier draft blurb, we’re in outlandish BS paranormal territory. The episode ends up NOT going there, at least, but I can’t help wonder if that was an editing decision. Before we get to the content, let’s check out the show’s “experts.”

A Team of “Experts”

From the press release:

The team includes field scientist and tech expert Charlie Mewshaw, cryptozoologist Brittany Barbieri, predator experts and wildlife trackers Troy Lillie and Justin Igualada, and former CIA officer and FBI agent Tracy Walder. Following evidence and theories buried away for decades and chasing up-to-the-minute encounters, they aim to bring fact to fiction by documenting one of these legendary creatures for the first time.

In the intro, we also are told that all of these people are “experts”. Obviously, we are meant to find them credible and experienced in investigating mystery animal claims. Mewshaw says he has several degrees,

• Barbieri is listed as a “cryptozoologist”, and the others are touted for their experience and knowledge. My idea of experts must be different than the producers as none are zoologists or biologists. Barbieri, is known as a paranormal researcher who has interest in UFOlogy. She has given herself the title of cryptozoologist like many others in that field. But her IMDB bio states Actress, Writer and Producer.
• Charlie Mewshaw is an author, podcaster, and artist (and now “program host”) who cites his “natural resource science” background. It’s unclear what that means but it that is not “biology” or “zoology”.
• Troy Lillie is Brittany’s brother. His job, according to Facebook, is Co-Owner of Crocstar clothing and produces crocodile-related conservation media content.
• Justin Igualada is a wildlife handler and alligator wrestler.
• I don’t doubt that CIA/FBI person Tracy Walder was what she said but it doesn’t actually have any value to a show about mysterious animals unless they are going to focus on eyewitness accounts (which seems like the way it’s going to go) or government secrets (which also might be the direction they are headed).

So, from my point of view, this is a team of people who call themselves experts but they haven’t done much, if any, scientific research, published papers, and undergone peer review for their work. Discovery producers can call them “experts” and won’t get in trouble for it. I’ll drop in here a reminder that Sanderson himself had a degree in Zoology. Calling oneself an “expert” is usual for paranormal content, so this flummery is almost expected.

If I’m wrong about any of these assertions, feel free to let me know. The reason I’m irked by this use of “expert” in a presumably zoological show is because, if you are going to do animal investigations regarding interpretation, conclusions, etc., that is framed as scientific, you had better have some legit cred and know how science actually works. None of these people have that, though it will not be obvious to the casual viewer. This is a Monster Quest-style show where people are pretending to do science and look very serious-minded, but their conclusions mean little because the results are contrived without peer review and critique. Scientific discoveries aren’t legitimized via TV show.

Oh dear, I’ve shown all my cards already. But it’s no surprise that I deeply despise this ‘I play a scientist/researcher on TV’ gambit. It is how many nonfiction mystery docu-shows are formatted, which is, unfortunately, promoting misinformation to the audience. My choice would have actual scientists talking about this stuff, but, I’d bet they are busy creating actual knowledge.

At least LMF does not appear to be manufactured fiction like previous Discovery Network shows. And, it is possible that the content could be informative. Plus, we all know that Monster Quest was useful in getting people interested in animals. Some of those people undoubtedly realized that the MQ content was not altogether reliable; that it was solely entertainment, not scholarship.

Episode 1: A tale of two chupacabras

I’ll hit the few points that stuck out to me in this episode.

Sanderson is emphasized as “the” founder of cryptozoology.

I’m going to assume that the people reading this have some background in the history of cryptozoology. The program uses Ivan T. Sanderson’s ideas as a foundation, and maybe nothing more than a plot device. I’m a bit concerned about that. Sanderson was problematic but I enjoy his writing without taking it too seriously. The narration tells us Sanderson was “the” founder of cryptozoology. The press release says “a” founder of cryptozoology, which is more correct. There is no mention of Bernard Heuvelmans (“father of cryptozoology”) so far, but they do head to Minnesota…

Where is the archive from?

The archive of recordings, papers, binders, casts and animal remains are said to have been “lost” for 50 years and that this team got access to it in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I don’t know the background for this. Sanderson’s paper are known to be in the archives of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. I do not know the difference between the collections. Could this content be some of the material taken from his Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained (SITU) headquarters in New Jersey? It was known that after his death people made off with stuff from the headquarters. The origin story of the archives is not addressed in the first episode.

Hybrid canids and the chupacabra

For this episode, the link to Sanderson, who wrote back in the 1950s and 60s, is that he considered that hybrid wolf-like canids could account for mystery animals in the US. This is the show’s jumping off point to discuss livestock deaths by mystery canids in both North Carolina and Texas. Brittany, Troy and Justin visit farmers in Appalachian North Carolina who report seeing a large canid and experiencing livestock deaths. Notably, the creature is said to be bigger than a coyote with some reporting “glowing green eyes”.

Meanwhile, Charlie and Tracy pay a visit to Phyllis Canion, owner of the iconic “chupacabra” that was killed and taxidermied in Cuero, Texas. Canion’s DNA test showed that the strange animal was a coyote with a mix of Mexican red wolf. However, it is notable that the “wolf” portion could have been introduced generations ago, according to information from UC Davis. In LMF, however, the DNA result is said to include a “unknown” portion as well. Much is made of this “mystery” as I will circle back to in a bit.

In North Carolina, a stake out by the crew with a live goat as bait resulted in a brief glimpse on infrared video of a canid shape racing through the area. Almost unbelievably, the animal ran into a pole they placed in the ground to act as a hair trap, dislodging it. It left not hair, but skin. The skin sample was sent for DNA testing and the result was said to be exactly the same as Canion’s result, leading to the team to conclude that it’s the same species of animal.

Blood-sucking beast

The history of the cryptid called a “chupacabra” is socially complex and rather confusing. If you know, you know. Throughout the episode, the cast states that it would be awesome to finally get proof of whatever the “chupacabra” is. However, not only is Canion’s animal referred to as a “chupacabra” (so we already know that, in this four-legged chupa-form, it’s a coyote), but the legend of other sightings are assumed to be factual, as if this is all one-in-the-same “new” species of animal that “drains the blood” of livestock. At no point is there ever mention of the fact that canids do not and cannot “suck” blood. Dead animals don’t bleed because blood quickly coagulates. If the carcass is “mutilated” by scavengers after it is deceased, there will not be blood everywhere. The cast appears to be egregiously ignorant of how biology works. Or the whole vampire angle is emphasized for creepy effect.

Ridiculous conclusion

A trendy idea by non-scientists in the fantastical cryptid scene is that dire wolves are still living out there. There is zero scientific evidence for this, not even a hint that they exist, with the youngest remains dated at about 10,000 years ago. LMF suggests that the “unknown” portion of the two DNA results could represent dire wolf, vindicating Sanderson’s hybrid idea. However, we do have DNA from extinct dire wolfs and it shows they diverged from other wolf lines nearly 6 million years ago. The animals in question are not part dire wolf. The real conclusion, no matter if you believe or not, is that these animals are weird looking coyotes. Wolf-like canids readily hybridize. The DNA mix appears to not be unusual as it is common for southern coyotes to have red wolf DNA, but, here, the gaps are exploited as “mysterious” for dramatic effect (and as misinformation).

Barbieri and Mewshaw casually decide, on the basis of dubious reports and DNA conjecture, that both animals belong to a new species that they call “Lykos sphinx” – and inappropriate and nonsensical name. Zoological names must be based on specimens, and be published, not a hot take from a TV show. This is undoubtedly the stupidest part of the show, even outdoing the gross sibling jibes (which are sort of realistic and funny) and gratuitous sexist reference about Brittany asking to talk to other witnesses.

I’m not buying much of the “evidence” in this presentation. The premise of a blood sucking, green eyed, ravenous beast is supported. Coyotes, and many other things, kill livestock and there are several explanations for why a body remained uneaten. I’m not even convinced by the bite marks on the dead pig shown. Too many questions remain unanswered and the anecdotes are also unconvincing. LMF appears to be another in a very long parade of samey pseudoscience paranormal shows. The scientifical cast appears to want to use the gimmick that Sanderson was prescient in thinking about cryptids decades ago. I feel this is reaching, and it doesn’t land well. I will watch a few more episodes to see.

Real mystery animal out there?

I don’t want to end on that note – there is something interesting to me going on with animals like the one Phyllis Canion found and I would like to know more from actual experts. The Cuero specimen has some unique characteristics, and I wonder if more than one animal like this has been documented. In a way, these pseudo-chupacabra animals are cryptids in that the legend is growing and outpacing the ability of scientific information to reach the public.

Sometimes called “Texas blue dogs” for their hairless, blue-skinned appearance, some show hairlessness beyond typical patterns of sarcoptic mange, and have unusual jaws, eye color, leg length, etc. I cannot find that there was ever a published article on these specimens, if they fall within the range of morphology for coyotes, and if this ties into the claims about these hybrid animals as a population or an anomaly. It would make an actual good show to hear more about this and see what’s real and what has been exaggerated.

For more info on the history of the chupacabra, check out Benjamin Radford’s Tracking the Chupacabra (2011)

More: Episode 2, ABSM and the origin of the files and Episode 3, Pennsylvania Thunderbird

#chupacabra #coyote #cryptid #Cryptozoology #direWolf #DNA #IvanSanderson #LostMonsterFiles #MonsterQuest #paranormalTV #PhyllisCanion #ReviewOfLostMonsterFiles #science #sciencey #Scientifical #TexasBlueDogs #TVShow

https://sharonahill.com/?p=8791

Lost Monster Files – Carolina Chupacabra review

The Discovery Channel’s new series “Lost Monster Files” (LMF) is promoted as a cryptozoology program that uses a team of experts that consult the archives of “founder of cryptozoology”, Ivan T. Sanderson, in their investigations of modern claims of unclassified animals. The first episode, titled Carolina Chupacabra, aired on 9 October 2024. Here is my review about the content and conclusions.

Not a promising start

There is not a lot of reliable background information on this show on the web. There was a press release and that’s about it. The episodes listed in various places are jumbled and they are not yet airing on the usual streaming services (that is, it’s not on Discovery +). Here is the official blurb for the first episode:

In the premiere episode, the group investigates a series of strange livestock mutilations in the Smoky Mountains that locals fear could be tied to the infamous Chupacabra, which has terrorized the Southwest for decades. Using journals and evidence from Sanderson’s archive, the team investigates a rash of deadly encounters in North Carolina to try and document this killer canine…and the possibility that the creature could be migrating east.

Interestingly, I also found this alternate wording on another TV listing site that was more or less the same except for this part:

…the team attempts to uncover the identity of this killer canine and whether or not it could be part of a secret government testing program.

Right from the start, with the intro (“A horrifying, blood-sucking beast is terrorizing Appalachia…”), and the hint of conspiracy mongering from what might have been an earlier draft blurb, we’re in outlandish BS paranormal territory. The episode ends up NOT going there, at least, but I can’t help wonder if that was an editing decision. Before we get to the content, let’s check out the show’s “experts.”

A Team of “Experts”

From the press release:

The team includes field scientist and tech expert Charlie Mewshaw, cryptozoologist Brittany Barbieri, predator experts and wildlife trackers Troy Lillie and Justin Igualada, and former CIA officer and FBI agent Tracy Walder. Following evidence and theories buried away for decades and chasing up-to-the-minute encounters, they aim to bring fact to fiction by documenting one of these legendary creatures for the first time.

In the intro, we also are told that all of these people are “experts”. Obviously, we are meant to find them credible and experienced in investigating mystery animal claims. Mewshaw says he has several degrees,

• Barbieri is listed as a “cryptozoologist”, and the others are touted for their experience and knowledge. My idea of experts must be different than the producers as none are zoologists or biologists. Barbieri, is known as a paranormal researcher who has interest in UFOlogy. She has given herself the title of cryptozoologist like many others in that field. But her IMDB bio states Actress, Writer and Producer.
• Charlie Mewshaw is an author, podcaster, and artist (and now “program host”) who cites his “natural resource science” background. It’s unclear what that means but it that is not “biology” or “zoology”.
• Troy Lillie is Brittany’s brother. His job, according to Facebook, is Co-Owner of Crocstar clothing and produces crocodile-related conservation media content.
• Justin Igualada is a wildlife handler and alligator wrestler.
• I don’t doubt that CIA/FBI person Tracy Walder was what she said but it doesn’t actually have any value to a show about mysterious animals unless they are going to focus on eyewitness accounts (which seems like the way it’s going to go) or government secrets (which also might be the direction they are headed).

So, from my point of view, this is a team of people who call themselves experts but they haven’t done much, if any, scientific research, published papers, and undergone peer review for their work. Discovery producers can call them “experts” and won’t get in trouble for it. I’ll drop in here a reminder that Sanderson himself had a degree in Zoology. Calling oneself an “expert” is usual for paranormal content, so this flummery is almost expected.

If I’m wrong about any of these assertions, feel free to let me know. The reason I’m irked by this use of “expert” in a presumably zoological show is because, if you are going to do animal investigations regarding interpretation, conclusions, etc., that is framed as scientific, you had better have some legit cred and know how science actually works. None of these people have that, though it will not be obvious to the casual viewer. This is a Monster Quest-style show where people are pretending to do science and look very serious-minded, but their conclusions mean little because the results are contrived without peer review and critique. Scientific discoveries aren’t legitimized via TV show.

Oh dear, I’ve shown all my cards already. But it’s no surprise that I deeply despise this ‘I play a scientist/researcher on TV’ gambit. It is how many nonfiction mystery docu-shows are formatted, which is, unfortunately, promoting misinformation to the audience. My choice would have actual scientists talking about this stuff, but, I’d bet they are busy creating actual knowledge.

At least LMF does not appear to be manufactured fiction like previous Discovery Network shows. And, it is possible that the content could be informative. Plus, we all know that Monster Quest was useful in getting people interested in animals. Some of those people undoubtedly realized that the MQ content was not altogether reliable; that it was solely entertainment, not scholarship.

Episode 1: A tale of two chupacabras

I’ll hit the few points that stuck out to me in this episode.

Sanderson is emphasized as “the” founder of cryptozoology.

I’m going to assume that the people reading this have some background in the history of cryptozoology. The program uses Ivan T. Sanderson’s ideas as a foundation, and maybe nothing more than a plot device. I’m a bit concerned about that. Sanderson was problematic but I enjoy his writing without taking it too seriously. The narration tells us Sanderson was “the” founder of cryptozoology. The press release says “a” founder of cryptozoology, which is more correct. There is no mention of Bernard Heuvelmans (“father of cryptozoology”) so far, but they do head to Minnesota…

Where is the archive from?

The archive of recordings, papers, binders, casts and animal remains are said to have been “lost” for 50 years and that this team got access to it in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I don’t know the background for this. Sanderson’s paper are known to be in the archives of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. I do not know the difference between the collections. Could this content be some of the material taken from his Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained (SITU) headquarters in New Jersey? It was known that after his death people made off with stuff from the headquarters. The origin story of the archives is not addressed in the first episode.

Hybrid canids and the chupacabra

For this episode, the link to Sanderson, who wrote back in the 1950s and 60s, is that he considered that hybrid wolf-like canids could account for mystery animals in the US. This is the show’s jumping off point to discuss livestock deaths by mystery canids in both North Carolina and Texas. Brittany, Troy and Justin visit farmers in Appalachian North Carolina who report seeing a large canid and experiencing livestock deaths. Notably, the creature is said to be bigger than a coyote with some reporting “glowing green eyes”.

Meanwhile, Charlie and Tracy pay a visit to Phyllis Canion, owner of the iconic “chupacabra” that was killed and taxidermied in Cuero, Texas. Canion’s DNA test showed that the strange animal was a coyote with a mix of Mexican red wolf. However, it is notable that the “wolf” portion could have been introduced generations ago, according to information from UC Davis. In LMF, however, the DNA result is said to include a “unknown” portion as well. Much is made of this “mystery” as I will circle back to in a bit.

In North Carolina, a stake out by the crew with a live goat as bait resulted in a brief glimpse on infrared video of a canid shape racing through the area. Almost unbelievably, the animal ran into a pole they placed in the ground to act as a hair trap, dislodging it. It left not hair, but skin. The skin sample was sent for DNA testing and the result was said to be exactly the same as Canion’s result, leading to the team to conclude that it’s the same species of animal.

Blood-sucking beast

The history of the cryptid called a “chupacabra” is socially complex and rather confusing. If you know, you know. Throughout the episode, the cast states that it would be awesome to finally get proof of whatever the “chupacabra” is. However, not only is Canion’s animal referred to as a “chupacabra” (so we already know that, in this four-legged chupa-form, it’s a coyote), but the legend of other sightings are assumed to be factual, as if this is all one-in-the-same “new” species of animal that “drains the blood” of livestock. At no point is there ever mention of the fact that canids do not and cannot “suck” blood. Dead animals don’t bleed because blood quickly coagulates. If the carcass is “mutilated” by scavengers after it is deceased, there will not be blood everywhere. The cast appears to be egregiously ignorant of how biology works. Or the whole vampire angle is emphasized for creepy effect.

Ridiculous conclusion

A trendy idea by non-scientists in the fantastical cryptid scene is that dire wolves are still living out there. There is zero scientific evidence for this, not even a hint that they exist, with the youngest remains dated at about 10,000 years ago. LMF suggests that the “unknown” portion of the two DNA results could represent dire wolf, vindicating Sanderson’s hybrid idea. However, we do have DNA from extinct dire wolfs and it shows they diverged from other wolf lines nearly 6 million years ago. The animals in question are not part dire wolf. The real conclusion, no matter if you believe or not, is that these animals are weird looking coyotes. Wolf-like canids readily hybridize. The DNA mix appears to not be unusual as it is common for southern coyotes to have red wolf DNA, but, here, the gaps are exploited as “mysterious” for dramatic effect (and as misinformation).

Barbieri and Mewshaw casually decide, on the basis of dubious reports and DNA conjecture, that both animals belong to a new species that they call “Lykos sphinx” – and inappropriate and nonsensical name. Zoological names must be based on specimens, and be published, not a hot take from a TV show. This is undoubtedly the stupidest part of the show, even outdoing the gross sibling jibes (which are sort of realistic and funny) and gratuitous sexist reference about Brittany asking to talk to other witnesses.

I’m not buying much of the “evidence” in this presentation. The premise of a blood sucking, green eyed, ravenous beast is supported. Coyotes, and many other things, kill livestock and there are several explanations for why a body remained uneaten. I’m not even convinced by the bite marks on the dead pig shown. Too many questions remain unanswered and the anecdotes are also unconvincing. LMF appears to be another in a very long parade of samey pseudoscience paranormal shows. The scientifical cast appears to want to use the gimmick that Sanderson was prescient in thinking about cryptids decades ago. I feel this is reaching, and it doesn’t land well. I will watch a few more episodes to see.

Real mystery animal out there?

I don’t want to end on that note – there is something interesting to me going on with animals like the one Phyllis Canion found and I would like to know more from actual experts. The Cuero specimen has some unique characteristics, and I wonder if more than one animal like this has been documented. In a way, these pseudo-chupacabra animals are cryptids in that the legend is growing and outpacing the ability of scientific information to reach the public.

Sometimes called “Texas blue dogs” for their hairless, blue-skinned appearance, some show hairlessness beyond typical patterns of sarcoptic mange, and have unusual jaws, eye color, leg length, etc. I cannot find that there was ever a published article on these specimens, if they fall within the range of morphology for coyotes, and if this ties into the claims about these hybrid animals as a population or an anomaly. It would make an actual good show to hear more about this and see what’s real and what has been exaggerated.

For more info on the history of the chupacabra, check out Benjamin Radford’s Tracking the Chupacabra (2011)

More: Episode 2, ABSM and the origin of the files and Episode 3, Pennsylvania Thunderbird

#chupacabra #coyote #cryptid #Cryptozoology #direWolf #DNA #IvanSanderson #LostMonsterFiles #MonsterQuest #paranormalTV #PhyllisCanion #ReviewOfLostMonsterFiles #science #sciencey #Scientifical #TexasBlueDogs #TVShow

https://sharonahill.com/?p=8791

@christopher_brown @EndlessBookshelf

Holy shit! I think I'VE seen a #chupacabra!?

Chupacabra : Tales Of Blood & Ink Available September 3

#horror – #horrorcomics – #comicbooks – #Chupacabra – #MatthewMedney – @GungnirBooks – Author: Matthew Medney Hi it’s me, Alessandra, you can call me Sanny though, wait, don’t think that’s because we’re close or anything, I just don’t want to hear you butcher the rolling R in my name thats all. Anyhow I guess you’re w…

#MatthewMedney #Chupacabra #Comics #Releases #ad #horror

https://horrornerdonline.com/2024/07/chupacabra-tales-of-blood-ink-available-september-3/

Chupacabra : Tales Of Blood & Ink Available July 16

#horror – #horrorcomics – #comicbooks – #Chupacabra – #MatthewMedney – Author: Matthew Medney Hi it’s me, Alessandra, you can call me Sanny though, wait, don’t think that’s because we’re close or anything, I just don’t want to hear you butcher the rolling R in my name thats all. Anyhow I guess you’re wondering why you’re…

#MatthewMedney #Chupacabra #Comics #Releases #ad #horror

https://horrornerdonline.com/2024/06/chupacabra-tales-of-blood-ink-available-july-16/

The Chupacabra, a legendary creature in South America, is described as a reptile with fangs and greenish-gray skin. Many sightings have sparked theories, including an alien connection. However, researchers attribute it to media influence and misperceptions. DNA testing and mysterious encounters only deepen the enigma, leaving the Chupacabra an enduring mystery. #chupacabra #cryptids https://connectparanormal.net/2024/06/06/chupacabra-myth-misidentification-or-mystery/

it amazes me that nobody has written a song called "La Chupacabra" and set it to the tune of "La Cucaracha"

edit: as @Giliell has pointed out, it should be El Chupacabras. My apologies.

(I can't do it; I know I've tried.)

#chupacabra
#cryptid

'Chupacabra Gang' by Jeffrey Baker

#cryptids #monsters #illustration #art #chupacabra #CryptidArt #MonsterArt #JeffreyBaker

'Chupacabra Gang' by Jeffrey Baker

#cryptids #monsters #illustration #art #chupacabra #CryptidArt #MonsterArt #JeffreyBaker

'Chupacabra Gang' by Jeffrey Baker

#cryptids #monsters #illustration #art #chupacabra #CryptidArt #MonsterArt #JeffreyBaker

'Chupacabra Gang' by Jeffrey Baker

#cryptids #monsters #illustration #art #chupacabra #CryptidArt #MonsterArt #JeffreyBaker

'Chupacabra Gang' by Jeffrey Baker

#cryptids #monsters #illustration #art #chupacabra #CryptidArt #MonsterArt #JeffreyBaker

Literally every pic of me in any of my dating app profiles is a dog licking my face, i like to scare off the wrong people right away

So, gross, but #SorryNotSorry because also cute #puppy #pitbulls #chupacabra #inksharkArt

Buy the Special Edition Blu-ray of the SOV horror movie Chupa at Makeflix.com.

#Makeflix #TempeDigital #Chupa #TomHoover #HorrorMovies #ShotonVideo #SOVHorror #ScaryMovies #Chupacabra

Sometimes you have to take a ride. #chupacabra #oddtober #KleineKunstKlasse

The little gremlin got a surprise visit from the #Chupacabra, who was kind enough to bring him his favorite goat cheese as a present 😋

@Kitty

#Oddtober #OddBeasties #KleineKunstKlasse #LittleG

@idoubtit
🥥 #Chupacabra. Just saying. 🥥

My latest shirt design for @supernatpod - https://weirdo.network/@supernatpod/110674204747012647

#cryptid #podcast #chupacabra

Out there. Somewhere. Probably.

#Chupacabra #Folklore #MexicanCulture #Mexico #Culture #Art #Illustration

Something was #biting on Tracy’s #car… so far we’ve had #votes for a #badger, a #chupacabra and #aliencougarwolves (they are a thing! Abducted a #cow right out of our #corral!!!) Any #thoughts???

Something was #biting on Tracy’s #car… so far we’ve had #votes for a #badger, a #chupacabra and #aliencougarwolves (they are a thing! Abducted a #cow right out of our #corral!!!) Any #thoughts???

Something was #biting on Tracy’s #car… so far we’ve had #votes for a #badger, a #chupacabra and #aliencougarwolves (they are a thing! Abducted a #cow right out of our #corral!!!) Any #thoughts???

Something was #biting on Tracy’s #car… so far we’ve had #votes for a #badger, a #chupacabra and #aliencougarwolves (they are a thing! Abducted a #cow right out of our #corral!!!) Any #thoughts???

Something was #biting on Tracy’s #car… so far we’ve had #votes for a #badger, a #chupacabra and #aliencougarwolves (they are a thing! Abducted a #cow right out of our #corral!!!) Any #thoughts???