Customer Reviews

A Dictionary of Cryptozoology

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This compendium of cryptids (mysterious, rare and unknown animals and creatures) is exhaustive in its treatment of the subject of cryptozoology. Its pages are packed with creatures you've heard of and hundreds more that will probably be new to you. As a tool for those interested in cryptozoology, this is perfect. However, its total lack of pictures or format creativity is obvious, that's why I'm rating the book right down the middle. All in all though, well worth it if you're interested in this topic.

A good place for an initial overview, of just how many unknown creatures are yet to be classified by science. I've been reading about cryptid sightings for much of my 50 years, and had probably never heard of half this book has to offer. There are so many wonders left to discover, right in our very own backyard. I hope we're not too late for many of them. As the other reviewer noted though, the one major drawback is its total lack of illustrations. Hopefully, we'll see an enlarged revision in the near future.

Strictly speaking this book is not cryptozoology nor is it a true dictionary. Rather it is an alphabetical list of of creatures real and imagined without context or illustrations. There is a notable lack of cross referencing which seems to assume a level of knowledge some readers might not possess. A "Huse-Bjorn" is defined as "a were-bear in Norwegian legend", but there is no entry for "were-bear". There are numerous references to BHM but no entry for BHM an omission that may perplex some readers if they miss the brief entry on page 6 that lists the Abbreviations in text.

The entries concerning better known "cryptids" and mythological creatures are for the most part well researched and reasonably complete with some glaring exceptions. For the lesser known, however, the information can be frustratingly scanty as in this example of a typical entry "Rhone Monster- Monsters were seen in this long French River in 1954-5 and one was seen at its mouth in 1964."

The writing never rises above the average and there is no pronunciation guide, in short, while it may contain the name of every conceivable legendary and mythical creature it feels unfinished as in a first draft. One wishes Coghlan had spent more time and done a second.

This is a very good tool; it is a dictionary for a very enigmatic field.

No, it doesn't have pictures. But duh, people don't exactly know what cryptids look like. If they did, they wouldn't be cryptids.

Duh.

It's a good tool and I highly recommend it.