Hunting Monsters Paperback – January 1, 2017

As a cryptozoological reader of some 40 years and writer of 20+, and a correspondent of Dr. Naish, I looked forward to this book, and I'm hardly disappointed. Naish offers a very good skeptical analysis of the whole cryptozoology business, even if I think it could have been a little better. One point a reader will notice early on is that there is so much ground to cover that the author can only touch on many points in passing. Skipping over the Great New England Sea Serpent, a touchstone of the sea monster topic, is an example.Nash starts with whether cryptozoology is, or can be, scientific, and agrees it can be but isn't often. He begins and ends with the point cryptozoology exists in a cultural mileau and is influenced by folklore, tradition, etc. as well as modern innovations like the Internet. This isn't entirely original and he credits Dr. Charles Paxton, whose work I greatly admire, and folklorist Michel Meurger, who I've always thought overreached the subject.Naish is not closed-minded about this. He has himself put forward new species concepts over the years to explain cryptozoological sightings, including a cryptid seal and a giant orangutan, but in his blog Tetrapod Zoology and elsewhere he's uncovered or been offered new information and has generally come to conclude the "star" animals are not physically there. This book explains his reasoning well.When he offers an explanation, I'm not always entirely convinced: the "finning" seal (a seal waving one flipper in the air for cooling) for the Valhalla sighting, for example, is clever, but I can't look at the first-hand original drawing and get a seal out of it. (As you can tell, I enjoy sea serpent lore more than the rest of the subject these days.) The opposite is true of the HMS Daedalus sighting, which I think we can put to rest.The subject is vast and Naish can't help that, so the bibliography is essential: it's pretty good but could have been more extensive.Least anyone think I'm damning with faint praise,this is an excellent and important book. If it doesn't hunt down every major cryptid, it will make the veteran cryptozoology reader think hard and will give the new reader an excellent starting point grounded in good science.Shadows of Existence: Discoveries and Speculations in Zoology

In most ways this is an excellent book, and should be read by anyone with an interest in Cryptozoology. It is almost sure to offend many "true believers", because the author shreds much of the pseudo-evidence for the existence of most peoples favorite monsters. The one place where the book fails is, ironically, in the area where he (correctly) criticizes many of the people who deal with Cryptozoology. As a group they tend to be far to quick to accept "eye-witness" accounts, which are notoriously unreliable, and vague, usually easily explained by mundane things such as sounds or crumpled vegetation, as "evidence" of the existence of the creatures they are interested in. This is hardly good science, or even science at all, but is often accepted without anything solid to base it on. The author makes exactly the same mistake, in many cases dismissing cases without providing any solid evidence to back his (I suspect correct) conclusions.

So many of the bedrock encounters/images/videos in the world of cryptozoology don't quite have the strong footing many have assumed. I've always loved Naish's deep dives into famous cryptid pictures and videos, and his book does not disappoint! A detailed and skeptical look at the world of the unknown.

The author was on the Monstertalk podcast plugging this book. He was interesting and engaging so I thought I would give his book a shot.Naish comes across as a sympathetic skeptic. He clearly does not believe that any of the creatures covered in this relatively brief book have a flesh and blood existence but he does not dismiss the field of cryptozoology as a psuedoscience either. He evaluates evidence fairly and takes great pains to explain why eyewitness testimony can't establish the existence of these creatures anymore than it can establish the existence of ghosts, fairies, vampires, witches, etc. The physical evidence is always either ambiguous or turns out to be something mundane. Naish concludes that cryptozoology is ultimately more about psychology and sociology and there is precious little about zoology here. Yet he does not think this is all a waste of time and effort and that good can (and has) come of it.Only once in the book does Naish come off as unfair. He correctly points out the agenda of some creationists in encouraging, promoting, and financing African expeditions to find surviving sauropods. He is on firm ground when he says that they are mistaken that any success will somehow further the creationist cause. However, the extended rant he goes on claiming creationists are out to destroy science was over the top. He let his personal feelings get the best of him.In conclusion, the book is highly recommended. Skeptics will have view endorsed but can profit from the occasions other skeptics jumped to premature conclusions that the author points out. Believers will come away with a better understanding of the mainstream scientific position on these creatures and what does and does not constitute compelling evidence.