Loren Coleman, director of the International Cryptozoology Museumin Portland, Maine, said Sykes’s finding could be the “number one story in cryptozoology”—the study of hidden, or unverified, animals—”for the decade.”
Coleman, who also appears in the upcoming documentary, said he thinks Sykes’s findings likely explain only one of the Yeti varieties that have been reported.
“That’s one of the problems with the word ‘Yeti,’” Coleman said. “It’s an umbrella term for three different varieties. There’s the small kind, there’s a man-sized type, and then a larger one that is known as Dzu-Teh. I must assume what he’s looking at are samples from the larger-sized one that many of us in the field have speculated was a form of bear.”
The above scaled chart was created by Tyler Stone, and he is to be credited for it. He says it was “culled from other sources.”If, as Sykes’s findings suggest, the Dzu-Teh is indeed the same species of early polar bear that once roamed the Arctic, it is unlikely to have a white fur coat, as often shown in popular depictions of the Yeti, since it was one of the first polar bears to branch off from brown bears.
That, Coleman said, actually strengthens Sykes’s case that the larger Yeti is an ancient polar bear species.
“It’s one of the myths of the Abominable Snowman and Yeti that they’re white,” Coleman said.
“The native people actually describe them as brown and reddish-brown.”
The article (which requires a free registration to read it) also quotes Brian Regal, a science historian at Kean University in New Jersey; Robert Rockwell, a biologist who has studied polar bears; and Charlotte Lindqvist, a molecular biologist at State University of New York’s University at Buffalo who was involved with testing the ancient polar bear DNA.
Some skeptics have recorded upset remarks because they only found mentions of the televised documentaries and Sykes’ forthcoming book. But as this article and others have noted, Sykes, a well-known, credible geneticist, says he intends to publish his findings.
“The project is still going on,” he told NBC News, “and the idea is to publish these results in a scientific journal to bring it back into the realm of science.”
Reactions to the televised Channel 4 program vary from straightforward recountings, to some people who haven’t watched it making uninformed statements about its content.
To wit:
If you saw it, what did you think?
For more reading:
The initial details on Dr. Bryan Sykes’ DNA findings of “ancient polar bear” affinities to two so-called “Yeti hair samples” have been previously shared in “Yeti Studies To Be Shaken By Sykes Finding.” A followup is to be found in “Yetis, Polar Bears, Snowmen, Snow Bears, Dzu-Tehs, and Jumping To Abominable Conclusions.”
Way back in the 90s, PBS’ “Nova” did a show on China’s “Wildman.” There were hair samples DNA tested, and some were reported as know animals but others came back “primate: other.” Don’t know what ever happened to them or the data.
It is kind of odd that with all the “unknown” results that have been disappeared (yes, an active verb there), suddenly Sykes and Ketchum are going to prove something with the same finding.
For everyone’s reference when setting your DVR, the title (at least in my Dish Network guide) is listed as “Bigfoot: The New Evidence”.
2 hours is probably a good length for the whole series. Individually they did have that annoying habit of telling you what was coming up before and then repeating all the key information post each break.
Sykes comes across as wanting to debunk the myths but with a focus on hard evidence, whatever that might show up, ancient polar bears and all.
I think what Mark Evans is looking for is “Bigfoot”, what he finds are human stories whether it is the real ancestry of Zana and her captivity or the impact of the results of DNA assessments on the individuals who believe something different. These tell us more about ourselves than any other wild creature out there.