Describing briefly the "classical" versions of well-known cryptids - including Nessie, bigfoot, the yeti, the ropen, and the Queensland tiger - and assessing the evidence for the existence of any of them as flimsy at best, Naish goes on to stress that said "classical" versions are the result of cherrypicking amorphous masses of reports to fit a preconceived notion of a basically normal animal behind them. If all reports were to be taken at face value, what we think of as "bigfoot", say, would have to be a whole menagerie of different creatures, many of which patently supernatural rather than something as relatively mundane as a "classical" bigfoot. "Scientific" cryptozoologists err in assuming zoological explanations of monster encounters, much like ufologists err in seeking exobiological ones for UFO encounters; both should rather look for cultural and psychological ones. Bigfoot is more akin to millennial traditions of wild men and other legendary semi-humans than to any flesh-and-blood primate living or extinct.

A good book, albeit it could have used tighter editing; and if you're only going to read one book about why cryptozoology is a branch of anthropology rather than of zoology, I'd recommend Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science! over this one. Despite the pulpier title, it's the more "serious" work, and lays forward the argument more effectively I think. It's considerably longer, mind, so this book may be preferable if you want a quick introduction.

I have always been fascinated by cryptozoology and have read many books which either promote a belief in them or a belief completely against them. This book is refreshing as it discusses the history of many types of cryptids and the mythology behind them. The book is well researched and it is very interesting to note how the popularity of certain cryptids seem to change over time and how there seems to be a definite time when some cryptids seem to start to appear and others to disappear. Highly recommended for anyone interested in cryptozoology. ( )