Yeti Bears Up Under Scrutiny

Rambo Tribble writes "Bryan Sykes of Oxford University has discovered that hairs, ostensibly from the Yeti creature of the Himalayas, were '... genetically identical to polar bear.' What the professor is suggesting is that a rare hybrid of brown and polar bear may be the actual, elusive creature of legend."

Comments

How hard can it be?

[guytoronto]

How hard can it be to really capture one on film? There are reports almost daily of bears wandering into populated areas looking for food. If this mythical creature actually exists, it should be dead easy to get legitimate proof via baited trap and motion-sensing camera.

For gawd sakes, the Ewoks managed to capture Chewbacca. Are we really that incapable?

Re:How hard can it be?

[rally2xs]

What's hard about it is that its in the Hymalyas, and from the sound of things, people that see it in the clear would say, "Oh, that's a bear" and people that have it come out of a snowstorm and try to eat them think its the abominable snowman...

Re:How hard can it be?

[Anne_Nonymous]

We tried that, but the UFOs kept stealing the cameras.

Re:How hard can it be?

[Cajun Hell]

What are you talking about? There's tons of photographs and other physical evidence, confirming the existence of bears. Some bears have been captured, too. At this point, I'd say people claiming bears to be mythical, are he ones who are making extraordinary statements which need backing up.

Re:How hard can it be?

[SJHillman]

I think Mitch Hedberg summed it up best:

"I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he's fuzzy, get out of here."

Re:How hard can it be?

[Geoffrey.landis]

Except the face of a bear and a "man" aren't remotely alike.

Well, yes, except that I don't think that there are good views of the face in Yeti sightings, and certainly no photographs of the yeti's face. Since most sightings seem to be in bad conditions, by people nearly snow-blind, often with somewhat ice-fogged goggles, and not to mention the fact that eyeballs can change focus at low pressure, it's not implausible. Keep in mind that manatees were reported as mermaids in the 1500s-- manatees look nothing like mermaids. Unless mermaids are a lot uglier than the legend says.

So, the hypothesis would be that, during the glacial maximum of one of the previous ice-ages, polar bears (or, proto-polar-bears) expanded their territory southward, and when the ice retreated, a small colony got cut off and colonized the high-altitude niche. Not impossible. A question of "what do they eat?" is going to be relevant here, but the Himalayas are not completely devoid of prey.

More evidence is needed that the animal even exists (if it doesn't actually exist, it doesn't need explanation), but it's not a hypothesis that can be rejected out of hand.

Re:Yeti Bears Up Under Scrutiny

[cold fjord]

I want to know if it is smarter than the average bear.

Errr... wat?

[Slartibartfast]

If it's "genetically identical" to a polar bear, well... doesn't that mean it's a polar bear?

Re:Errr... wat?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's "genetically identical" to a polar bear, well... doesn't that mean it's a polar bear?

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.

So it is a polar bear, just not a modern polar bear.

Re:Errr... wat?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it means that the vendor selling the "Authentic Yeti Hair" is really selling polar bear hair.

Re:Errr... wat?

[Will.Woodhull]

I'm blowing off some mod points to post this. Oh well. This is arguably more important than saying something is +1 Funny.

Homology is a term related to convergent evolution. It means that appearance of structures in different species is similar, even though the genetic history-- the evolution-- is very different. The genetics are different. This study found that the genetics between a candidate yeti and an ancient polar bear were identical. By its very definition, homoplasy is not an applicable term.

Stripping this post of connective verbiage that can be inferred, the take-away from this is that

1. While adding fancy new words to your vocabulary is commendable,

2. It is also necessary to actually learn what the new word means before using it.

Re:Errr... wat?

[tompaulco]

Maybe the yeti was wearing a polar bear pelt.

Re:Errr... wat?

[Richy_T]

Maybe it is a bipolar bear.

Hmmmm ....

[gstoddart]

What the professor is suggesting is that a rare hybrid of brown and polar bear may be the actual, elusive creature of legend

Why does this sound like he's made up another undocumented creature as his explanation?

This sounds like he either tested a sample which was from a hoax, or he's just making shit up.

I'm going with "researcher tests hoax, comes up with own unfounded explanation to get publicity". Because there's no more evidence for the existence of this creature in the Himalayas than the yeti.

Re:Hmmmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Pizzly Bear

Re:Hmmmm ....

[SJHillman]

Polar/brown bear hybrids are rare... not undocumented

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly–polar_bear_hybrid

Re:Hmmmm ....

[SJHillman]

apparently Slashdot hates hyphens in links

It's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly–polar_bear_hybrid

Re:Hmmmm ....

[SJHillman]

He compared the DNA sample to an ancient polar bear from about the time the species were separating. So it seems to be more of a classification stretch (saying the ancient species is the same as the modern polar bear) than a case of putting a creature in a location far from where it currently is. Furthermore, the hair sample is from a bear shot 40 years ago, which predates the ubiquity of cameras (they were common, just not *everywhere* like today) and a species more closely related to the polar bear could have easily become extinct since then.

From the article:
"He said that while they did not mean that "ancient polar bears are wandering around the Himalayas", there could be a sub-species of brown bear in the High Himalayas descended from an ancestor of the polar bear."

So to loop back around... no, it really doesn't sound like he's falling for a hoax or making up one creature to explain another. His bear-hybrid theory is highly plausible based on what we know about the evolution of polar bears, the existence of bears in that region, and the ability of polar bears and brown bears to make lil'uns.

Other explanation

[sl4shd0rk]

The yeti was snacking on a polar bear (or Himalayan Goral FTFA..) while out for a walk.

Obligitory xkcd

[Wormholio]

http://xkcd.com/1235/

Re:So is anyone shocked?

[SJHillman]

You could argue that a religion is just a legend that won't die. Or that gets resurrected a few days after it dies.

Re:So is anyone shocked?

[Anonymous Coward]

How to get modded "Insightful" on Slashdot, tip #56:

Bash religion.

Tibetan blue bears have been called "Yeti", too

[WilliamBaughman]

I guess this isn't entirely surprising considering that "Yeti" fur has been identified as coming from the Tibertan blue bear as well. It is very interesting how closely and recently related the brown bear is to the polar bear, though, and to these mountain dwelling species as well. I did not know that. The Tibetan Blue Bear has only been rarely sighted since it was documented in the 1850s. It's not out of the question that there are other, non-classified bear relatives in the high mountains.

The Tibetan sand fox and other fox species contribute to the Yeti legend as well. They occasionally make human-like cries. Snow leopards do to. I've heard a snow leopard cry at a the Central Park Zoo; it sounded like a child shrieking only much louder and more piercing. If you heard one of these animal species during a blizzard, especially combined with certain related optical phenomena (or actually seeing a sub-species/relative of brown bear), you could get the strong impression that there was another person out there. Or something like a person but definitely not. You certainly wouldn't find a person after it had been snowing, the animal having moved on, burrowed, or appearing only as an animal.

My view's - not my employer's. I wonder when Microsoft will take a stance on the Yeti question...

Re:Junk science

[unitron]

Everybody knows that when you cross a brown bear and a polar bear you get a chupacabra.

If you cross either one you'll be incredibly fortunate if all you get are severe lacerations.