YETI nother explanation?

British scientist 'solves' mystery of Himalayan yetis - BBC News

quote:

---

Research by a British scientist has concluded that the legendary Himalayan yeti may in fact be a sub-species of brown bear.

​

DNA tests on hair samples carried out by Oxford University genetics professor Bryan Sykes found that they matched those from an ancient polar bear.

​

He subjected the hairs to the most advanced tests available.

​

He says the most likely explanation for the myth is that the animal is a hybrid of polar bears and brown bears.

​

Prof Sykes told the BBC that there may be a real biological animal behind the yeti myth.

​

Suspected yeti footprints - such as these in Nepal - are regularly photographed

​

Prof Sykes conducted the DNA tests on hairs from two unidentified animals, one from Ladakh - in northern India on the west of the Himalayas - and the other from Bhutan, 1,285km (800 miles) further east.

​

The results were then compared with the genomes of other animals that are stored on a database of all published DNA sequences.

​

Prof Sykes found that he had a 100% match with a sample from an ancient polar bear jawbone found in Svalbard, Norway, that dates back to between 40,000 and 120,000 years ago - a time when the polar bear and closely related brown bear were separating as different species.

​

The species are closely related and are known to interbreed where their territories overlap.

---

Interesting ...Bears do tend to be solitary, and brown bears will frequently avoid humans (why carrying a noisemaker like a can with stones in that rattles as you walk when backpacking can keep them away).Enjoy

Thread copied here from the YETI nother explanation? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

There have been several debates over the merits of various approaches to concepts where objective evidence has not been found:

1. close-minded skepticism (or narrow minded skepticism): disbelief in the concept, belief that the concept is false, the prudent or practical approach is to ignore it,
2. open-minded skepticism: agnostic, the concept may be true and it may be false, the prudent or practical approach is to wait for further information,
3. open-minded acceptance: belief in the concept, belief that the concept is at least partly true, the prudent and practical approach is to search out new information.

Obviously, imho, the first approach would not have either found the fur sample nor tested it.Enjoy

Were the samples found by yeti hunters? Was there some reason that a disbeliever in Yetis would not have tested samples from an unknown animal?Finally, does anyone think the animal is a yeti?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Immaterial to the question of whether the disbeliever would have looked\hunted for yeti or tested the evidence. The would likely have claimed that the hairs came from some other animal, such as the Himalayan Goral.From the article:

quote:

---

In 2008 scientists in the US examined hairs given to the BBC which some had claimed were from a yeti.

​

The scientists concluded that in fact the hairs - obtained from the north-east Indian state of Meghalaya - belonged to a species of Himalayan goat known as a Himalayan Goral.

---

Why would a disbeliever think the new evidence would be any different? Again, the article states:

quote:

---

Research by a British scientist has concluded that the legendary Himalayan yeti may in fact be a sub-species of brown bear.

​

He says the most likely explanation for the myth is that the animal is a hybrid of polar bears and brown bears.

​

Prof Sykes told the BBC that there may be a real biological animal behind the yeti myth.

---

I'd say that is a yes, wouldn't you?Enjoy.

Well, the test indicated that the animal was a bear which means it is not a Yeti. Yet the test was still conducted.A yeti is supposedly some kind of ape. Just being highly and rationally skeptical that there is some kind of snow ape living in the Himalayas does not make unreasonable to wonder just what kind of animal some sample does come from. If the sample was not found by someone hunting for yeti, that suggests that a belief in yeti's is not relevant to the finding of the sample. Further, there are plenty of reasons to test the fur of an unknown animal without wondering if it is a yeti. ISo yeah. The question is relevant.

RAZD counter points: Well, wouldn't that mean a redefinition of the commonly-held description of Yeti? If it's just a bear, well - nothing to see here.Zoologists specializing in large mammals would be very interested, true. But the numerous cottage industries built around the myth of the Yeti would be out of business. THERE IS MONEY INVOLVED HERE.(What's worse than an Abominable Snowman?)
(Two Abominable Snowmen!)

A previously unknown bear, and one for which there still is no physical specimen, all we know is that it is bear DNA.Curiously this is sufficient to define a new species, yes? I would say no, it is supposedly a large white furred animal capable of standing and walking on two legs (footprint evidence).The "classification" as an ape is probably of western origin ... and wishful thinking?The Yeti | MythOrTruth.Com - Mythical Creatures, Beasts and Facts associated with them.

quote:

---

The Yeti, the Abominable Snowman, the Monster of the Himalayas
When it comes to mythical or paranormal creatures, the reputation of the Yeti or the Abominable Snowman is second only to ‘aliens’. The Yeti, depending on what you read and who you talk to, is a creature that looks very similar to an ape, a big bear, an orangutan, and a wild human of disproportionate size.

---

In other words one can be open-minded about what the sample may be until the evidence is tested. It does not require that someone is actively "hunting for yeti" -- all that is needed is someone finding a sample and wondering if it may be from a yeti. The question then is would a disbeliever skeptic test a sample brought to them or dismiss it. Yes, ... if you are open-minded.Enjoy.

Actually, I see it as a refinement of the definition, based on more complete information, just as we find in many other scientific discoveries. But not just a bear -- a new species of bear, perhaps one with some novel behavior patterns and possibly some archaic traits as well.Enjoy

I suppose I should simply state my point. Being open minded means simply not denying that there might be some unknown animal out there. One can be open minded in that way and still absolutely deny that there is an abominable snow man.In short being complete closed minded in the way you described in the OP, being close-minded skepticism (or narrow minded skepticism): disbelief in the concept of Yeti's to the extent where you are going to deny that anything is a Yeti, won't interfere with your classifying some unknown animal as a bear. In fact it might make such a classification more likely. The scientist need not have any idea or question about whether the animal was a yeti. All he needs to do is acknowledge that he does not know what it was. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Another aspect of this whole question involves probabilities.In some cases there is simply no data upon which to estimate probabilities, but in many cases there is something, some amount of data, to work with.As we've been discussing Yeti or Sasquatch, I'll use that as a starting point.If there were a lot of Squatches out there, a lot of people would have seen them, and some people would have found footprints, and at least one person would have drug back some bones.My major professor all through graduate school was about the only academic who studied Squatch, and I saw a lot of the evidence he had gathered and accompanied him on trips to see amateur movies, etc.If you put all of this information together you can guess at a probability that there is a large primate (other than man) wandering around the forests of the western US.None of the movies I saw, including the famous Patterson film, are conclusive. The still photographs are even less so. The footprints are curious--something made them, those that aren't obvious fakes. And the handprint from NE Washington shows dermal ridges!On the other hand, where are the bones? While carnivore bones are very hard to find in the wild, not a single bone that could be attributed to Squatch has ever been found.All-in-all I'd put the probability that there is a population of Squatches running around the western US at a very low level. We could argue about the probability -- 5%, 1%, or whatever, but for the purposes of this discussion we can bring some information to bear on the problem.Our choices are not always limited to 1) close-minded skepticism, 2) open-minded skepticism, or 3) open-minded acceptance as suggested above. Sometimes we can bring some evidence to bear and estimate or guess at probabilities.(And yes, those puns were intended!)

Once they find this new Himalayan bear you know there is only classification for the thing ... Ursus Arctos Yeti

Or Ursus Yeti if it is deemed a new species.Enjoy

My vote is to name it after the Wampa from Star Wars: The resemblance is astonishing. Perhaps Ursa Yeti Wampa as a compromise?

Getting back to this ... The question is not whether you accept the evidence for classifying "some unknown animal as a bear" but whether you will make the additional identification that it fits all the evidence that has been suggested for yetis.I am curious at the reluctance to agree -or potentially agree - with that possibility.Enjoy