Just What Is a Cryptid, Anyway?
Yesterday, I went to the second annual Squonkapalooza in Johnstown, PA. Similar to events like the Mothman Festival in Point Pleasant or the Flatwoods Monster Convention in Flatwoods, Squonkapalooza is a celebration of a regional cryptid—the squonk, in this case, which is one of my favorite critters and one I highly recommend checking out if you’re not already aware of it.
One of the things I went to at Squonkapalooza was a talk by Ronald L. Murphy, Jr. on the meaning of the squonk. During the talk he mentioned some of the animals that used to live in Pennsylvania and are now extinct, like the woodland bison and wolverine. There are others that are officially extinct in PA but are still occasionally sighted, like the mountain lion and wolf. As he said it, if you see a wolf in Pennsylvania in 2024, then you’ve seen a cryptid: a creature that shouldn’t exist in a given place, time, or understanding of reality, and whose existence has not officially been proven.
This resonated in my mind with what the panelists said at a Confluence panel on the topic of monsters and cryptids. The question came up there of what exactly makes something a cryptid, and while the panelists agreed on many points, there are also some gray areas and squiggly boundaries for the category. For instance, is a cryptid by definition naturally occurring, or does it still count if the creature was genetically engineered or created completely in a lab? What about unusual hybrids?
I don’t know that I have clear answers in my head to some of these questions, either—and I also fully believe, with a question like this, there’s no one right answer. But I thought I’d share my musings on what I see qualifying a creature for the cryptid club.
Defining traits of a cryptid
The official Merriam-Webster definition of a cryptid is “an animal that has been claimed to exist but never proven to exist.” This is similar to other official definitions like:
- A creature that is found in stories and that some people believe exists or say they have seen, but that has never been proven to exist. (Cambridge English Dictionary)
- An animal whose existence or survival to the present day is disputed or unsubstantiated; any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist. (Oxford English Dictionary)
- Animals that cryptozoologists believe may exist somewhere in the wild, but whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated by science. (Wikipedia)
While there are intriguing and subtle differences between those definitions, they all boil down to a few core points. For something to be a cryptid, there must be belief in, but no proof of, its existence. The fact that it’s referred to as “a creature” or “an animal” also, in my mind, implies corporeality. In other words, a cryptid is something that physically exists and could be theoretically touched (or trapped).
The supernatural-ness of a cryptid is also left open-ended by this definition. Some cryptids are described as having abilities, powers, or other supernatural qualities, but many don’t. They behave and look like animals; the only speculative thing about them is whether or not they exist. This is especially true of the cryptid subgroup comprised of animals sighted after they were officially said to have gone extinct, like the thylacine, Malagasy hippopotamus, Zanzibar leopard, or eastern cougar.
Intriguingly, none of the definitions I’ve seen specify that a cryptid must be non-sentient, only that it is an animal. Many prominent cryptids like the mothman and bigfoot exhibit self-awareness, intelligence, and other marks of sentience. To my mind, this would mean that the term cryptid could also be applied to creatures that originate as humans, like vampires or werewolves. There is precedence of established cryptids that come from humans, like the Jersey Devil, so this isn’t a stretch of the term, in my view (though some may disagree).
Cryptids vs. monsters
To me, these are similar terms, and there are many creatures that both words would apply to. Many cryptids even have monster right in the name—the Grafton Monster, the Boggy Creek Monster, or the Loch Ness Monster are examples that come to mind.
In my mind, there are two key differences between these terms:
Monsters can be entirely fictional. Some people might believe they exist, but that’s not a requirement for the label.
Monsters are inherently frightening, dangerous, or violent. There can be gentle monsters, but they are still typically large, scary-looking, and could cause some damage if they had a mind to. Cryptids can be monstrous, but they can also be small, cute, and/or harmless, like the squonk or the Loveland Frog.
In other words, some monsters are cryptids, and many cryptids are monsters, but other creatures are just one or the other.
Are aliens cryptids?
Most reports of encounters with alien creatures meet all of those qulifications established for cryptids above. Some people believe they exist but there is no definitive evidence. They are also, as far as we know, corporeal animals, so that’s another box checked.
Another argument in favor of “yes” is that some people theorize many well-known cryptids originated as aliens. This is one theory behind bigfoot, for example, and some cryptids like West Virginia’s Vegetable Man are alien visitors in their primary lore. Given this, it’s not a stretch in my mind to include grays or little green men in the cryptid category.
Are ghosts and spirits cryptids?
Ghosts and similar paranormal activity meet the “belief and lack of proof” qualifications of a cryptid, but they don’t check the other key box in my mind: the creature or animal part. Ghosts are typically described as non-corporeal, and are therefore not cryptids in my view of the term.
Taking the question a bit further, this would then also potentially apply to other folklore creatures, like the will o’ the wisp, which is usually described as looking like a ball of light. Where the question gets trickier is when we’re talking about creatures that can disappear, turn invisible, or shift between planes. This capability is attributed in some way to many well-loved cryptids. Even our dear squonk, for instance, is said to be able to “hide behind itself”, essentially disappearing into thin air (if it doesn’t instead cry itself into a puddle of tears).
I suppose the line could be drawn based on what percentage of their time the creature spends in a physical form in our human plane. Fairies are generally not said to be cryptids, for instance, despite passing the “belief and lack of proof” test, I think largely because they’re seen as more intangible spirits than physical beings. Many people would say beings like brownies and djinn aren’t cryptids for the same reason.
Are gods cryptids?
Some of you immediately scoffed, but hear me out. People across history have genuinely believed in the existence of their gods, but there is no proof of any deity’s existence. Now, some deities are eliminated from contention on the basis of non-corporeality—but not all. In some mythologies, the gods were described walking among humans, even interbreeding with them to create hybrids or demi-gods.
And there are other beings described in religious mythologies that could arguably be grouped under the cryptid label, too. Angels and demons, for instance, were often described as having physical forms and regularly engaging with humanity. Most importantly, there are people to this day who believe they’ve seen or interacted with an angel or demon, so even if you’re skeptical on the idea of gods being cryptids, it seems their minions should at least count.
So…what are cryptids, then?
The most accurate answer is: it depends on who you ask. It’s one of those interesting cases where the one-sentence definition you’ll get will likely be the same across the board, but how people interpret it, and which creatures they include under the label, will vary widely.
For fiction writers, I think the answer is really: cryptid means whatever you need it to in that moment. When I was writing Cryptid Bits, for instance, it served my purposes to use the broadest possible definition of the term, which to me was “any creature some people believe in but whose existence has not been proven.” I even threw some wights and revenants in there because why not?
A cryptozoologist or folklorist taking a more research-based, academic angle on the question is going to define cryptid through a more specific lens. Even so, I think you’ll find some variety between individuals—and, to me, that’s exactly the way it should be. Part of the fun of talking about cryptids is engaging in that type of debate and speculation. They are hard to define by definition, with no absolute rules to follow when it comes to their identity. This is both a key aspect of the fascination with them and what makes them so fun to play with as a fiction writer.
See similar posts:
#Mythology #Folklore #Cryptids