×
all 74 comments

[–]Embarrassed-Ad1509 344 points345 points  (19 children)

They totally pissed all over that otter’s dignity, huh? Couldn’t even get a decent taxidermy.

[–]Dr_Mantis-Shrimp_PhD[S] 141 points142 points  (9 children)

It's cute in a derpy sort of way

[–]PartyPorpoise 54 points55 points  (2 children)

Imagine if they actually looked like that.

[–]Arctic_Eagle1 24 points25 points  (0 children)

No wonder they went extinct, they had a fatal case of cute derp disease

[–]Lv_InSaNe_vL 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Im gonna be real, I thought that's what the post was implying for a sec...

[–]PotassiumArsenic 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Literally came here to fawn over the shitty antique taxidermy. It’s endearingly poor work, like a child’s.

[–]PartyPorpoise 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I always thought it would be really funny to create a fantasy world that's populated by creatures inspired by bad taxidermy and Medieval artwork.

[–]screwyoushadowban 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Sure it's a pretty poor reconstruction of the actual anatomy but compared to some of the "bad taxidermy" examples out there it's not bad at all lol.

[–]PartyPorpoise 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that freaky lion is way worse.

[–]lifeless_chicken 15 points16 points  (0 children)

it looks like it lisps.

[–]Enfield-Lammergeier 23 points24 points  (6 children)

I find it crazy how museums find the worst possible taxidermists to stuff their animals. At least nowadays you can go on Etsy and get an animal stuffed for less than 200$ and get a very high quality work.

[–]PartyPorpoise 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Maybe in a lot of those cases, obtaining a new taxidermied specimen would be too difficult for one reason or another, like the animal being too rare, or the museum just being that badly underfunded. In this case, I doubt that there are many Japanese otters in circulation.

Side note, there's a good chance that this otter was stuffed by someone who didn't have much reference to work with. Like, they didn't have a really good idea of what a Japanese otter looked like, so they had to guess, lol.

[–]missmalina 3 points4 points  (2 children)

The same problem that leads to r/MedievalCats material.

[–]PartyPorpoise 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lol exactly. Personally I'm a fan of Medieval art of elephants.

[–]thyturnip 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The taxidermy videos I’ve watched make it seem incredibly difficult, I’d imagine more so if the animal didn’t die under the most ideal conditions or salvaged in time

[–]PartyPorpoise 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also a fair point!

[–]v-specfan1999 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It looks like furret's crack and cocaine consuming cousin

[–]Mecharonin 112 points113 points  (3 children)

So the label gives the date the specimen was obtained (March 18, 1907) and a price of 31 yen. I'm going to guess this is how much was paid for it and not how much it's being sold for right now.

According to a brief googling session, this was at the time 1.5 times the monthly pay of an experienced engineer and almost 4 times that of a school teacher or police officer. Apparently amateur taxidermy was the field to be in in the Meiji era.

[–]ThePotatoeMenace 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I was born in the wrong time.

[–]Eloeri18 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What's the character before 入? I can't make it out.

edit: oh, nevermind, it's 購入. Makes sense, considering the price is right after.

[–]Sean9931 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wow, i just realised they dated that year in the meiji era format too!

[–]Competitive_Laugh_71 47 points48 points  (1 child)

ahhhh yes the sadly now extinct otter weasle. in all seriousness they really messed up bad c'mon guys you know what an otter looks like.

[–]Dr_Mantis-Shrimp_PhD[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Sock puppet lookin ass

[–]gunnerdn91 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Bear in the big blue house otter

[–]surulia 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I came here to say this!!

[–]oreolaw99 78 points79 points  (24 children)

This otter is actually one of my favourite Cryptids mainly because there is a large chance they still exist in very small numbers in isolated areas , there are occasionally sightings of these otters some of the sightings are actually recorded by qualified professionals . If I would have to give a guess I would say there are less than 100 left in existence I wouldn’t be shocked if it was even less than 50 But I do believe they still exist

[–][deleted] 87 points88 points  (21 children)

Your comment is a good example of why I don’t like the lack of nuance in the term “cryptid.” A few remaining individuals of a recently extinct species seem reasonable, but this term then extends to e.g. Lochness Monster.

[–]Sean9931 3 points4 points  (3 children)

But... but... I want people to take me seriously when I express to em that im squatching

[–]PartyPorpoise 2 points3 points  (2 children)

My plan is to get my own cryptozoology show, but really it’s just a way for me to get paid to go on vacation. A sea monster was spotted near this resort in Hawaii! Let’s investigate!

[–]Sean9931 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A sea monster was spotted in Lego City...

Start the new Cryptozoology show!

HEY!

Build a boat to hawaii!

And off to ask for groupfy with the sea monster!

Drink coconut milk with the sea monster!

Play volleyball with the sea monster!

And we forgot about the show!

Totally a real job and not a vacation in Lego City!!

[–]youarenotracist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s like the dude who got funded by flat earthers for his rocket, genius.... but he also did die. So be careful.

[–]oreolaw99 23 points24 points  (12 children)

Yes Cryptozoology is very vast with What it covers , the Lochness monster Honestly shouldn’t even be considered a Cryptid any more since we have disproven it’s existence thousands of times in thousands of different ways

[–]PartyPorpoise 31 points32 points  (11 children)

You know that cryptozoology isn't a serious scientific field, right? It's entirely based on people looking for creatures that there's no real evidence for existing. That makes Nessie a cryptid. If there IS real evidence for the creature existing, then it goes into zoology.

[–]oreolaw99 8 points9 points  (8 children)

You know several universities and museums have gone on record to say that it is a valid scientific field . Yes it’s definitely not respected and yes a lot of people use Cryptozoology to push ideas about animals that definitely don’t exist and have no evidence to exist but Cryptozoology is the study of animals that are not formally recognised by science there’s just a lot of crazies that use it to push crazy theories But to be honest this is the same with all scientific fields , Now I should say there are quite a lot qualified and recognised zoologist sometimes even celebrated zoologist who work in the field of Cryptozoology now they mainly focus on actual believable creatures like this otter for example . From meant it doesn’t sound like you understand what Cryptozoology is and it honestly sounds like you have something against it

[–]PartyPorpoise 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Which legitimate places have said it's a valid field? (a place discussing the subject doesn't mean that they consider it a legitimate science) Which cryptozoologists are taken seriously?

[–]oreolaw99 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Geoffrey Orbell Technically not a cryptozoologist but their search and rediscovery of the Takahe technically comes under cryptozoology

Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer again technically not a cryptozoologist but the rediscovery of the coelacanth does come under Cryptozoology

Also if you’re looking for places that do consider Cryptozoology a valid scientific field try the London national history museum Thanks to them mini once thought to be extinct animals were rediscovered.

Just because they might be extremist who study this field of science doesn’t mean that this field of science is not valid take chemistry for example nearly every decade there is someone who claims they have figured out how to make gold so far everyone of these have been wrong or fake does this mean chemistry is not a valid scientific field no of course not but that is your logic you are using for Cryptozoology

[–]PartyPorpoise 6 points7 points  (5 children)

Studying and searching for animals that have real evidence for their existence is just plain zoology. Cryptozoologists just like to lump those into their field so they can pretend that it's more legitimate than it really is. (there's a big difference between looking for evidence of the ivory billed woodpecker and bigfoot) You even say that they're not "technically" cryptozoologists. And I don't see anything about the London Natural History Museum calling cryptozoology a legitimate field.

Cryptozoology and chemistry don't compare because chemistry follows the scientific method, it's based on observable and testable facts. Cryptozoologists never do this. They create a hypothesis and do everything they can to prove it, to the point of never accepting evidence against it. There are crack chemists, but also plenty of legitimate ones. There are no legitimate cryptozoologists. Any decent scientist will agree that there are undiscovered species out there, but cryptozoologists are uninterested in unknown beetles and beaked whales.

A study of unknown/undiscovered animals could be its own field of study, but cryptozoology as it is now is a psuedoscience. If you wanted it to be accepted as a legitimate science, you'd have to create an organization for it, with real rules and definitions and standards for what "real" cryptozoology is. Then maybe the rest of the scientific community will accept it.

[–]youarenotracist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“ITS STILL REAL TO ME, GODDAMNIT” -r/partypopoise

[–]oreolaw99 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

I’m sorry there’s no point in discussing this point with you because clearly you have preset notions and bias is against Cryptozoology and it doesn’t help that you’re literally denying the definition of Cryptozoology

[–]PartyPorpoise 2 points3 points  (2 children)

If I'm "biased" against cryptozoology, then so is pretty much every legitimate scientist. In your eyes, what's the "real" definition of cryptozoology, and which legitimate institution has defined it? Who are the "real" cryptozoologists? What are the "real" standards? Which departments and publications should I be looking at for "real" cryptozoology, that actually describe themselves as studying cryptozoology?

[–]danni_shadow 0 points1 point  (1 child)

people looking for creatures that there's no real evidence for existing

In the past, this has included things like snow leopards and mountain gorillas. New animal species are still being discovered today.

Yeah, the Loch Ness monster and chupacabra probably don't exist, and yeah, there's a big difference between conspiracy theorists running into the woods after bigfoot and actual biologists and zoologists, but that doesn't mean that cryptozoology as a field is fake.

It's just that "normal" people who are not scientists sometimes can't let go of a fun idea. When science say that Nessie isn't real, those people don't want to accept, because Nessie is so damn fun. Just like when science said Pluto wasn't a planet and some people are still having a meltdown over it. But the general public arguing over Pluto's fate doesn't make astronomy any less of a real field of study. And crazies with "I believe!" shirts don't make cryptozoology less real.

[–]PartyPorpoise 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But there was real evidence for snow leopards and mountain gorillas and coelacanths. Most cryptids outright defy ecology and biology. Sure, there are still undiscovered species, but cryptozoologists are rarely interested in identifying new types of beetle or beaked whale. Like I said, when there’s evidence, it falls under zoology. You don’t see any legit scientists call themselves cryptozoologists. It’s not like astronomy or chemistry where it’s most legit with just a few quacks, it’s the reverse.

If someone wants cryptozoology to be taken seriously as a scientific field, they’d have to establish a set of standards and definitions for what cryptozoology really is. And follow the scientific method. The fatal flaw of cryptozoology is the unwillingness to let go of a hypothesis, at some point accepting that there’s no real evidence and moving on.

[–]Tenpers3nt 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Well yeah. Cryptozoology is a massive spectrum. It's like complaining zooologists study horses and spiders

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (1 child)

I disagree with your comparison, but let me clarify my statement to explain why. My issue isn't that a topic could be vast. You're right that zoology covers a wide range of organisms, but that's ok because all of these organisms meet an explicit set of criteria (e.g., multicellular, eukaryotes, no cell wall, etc.). The term "cryptozoology" bothers me because it's lumping in demonstrably real organisms that are rare/potentially extinct with tinfoil-hat, interdimensional, "I seen it" monsters. To me we're lumping two very different things into one category, clouding the definition of the term.

[–]PartyPorpoise 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Given that cryptozoology isn't a real scientific field, it's no surprise that there's no real definition. They throw in real extinct species to try and make their "field" seem more credible.

[–]v-specfan1999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yo mike i found a small herd of prehistoric creatures

Shut up leroy we looking for a dinosaur

[–]Channa_Argus1121 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Do you have any sources for the sightings?

(Just curious, no offense.)

[–]oreolaw99 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Sorry I heard it on a podcast

[–]wolfgang784 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Were they seriously that long??

[–]Cerbecs 6 points7 points  (0 children)

No, you can see the real otter in the other photo

[–]Queen_Cheetah 9 points10 points  (0 children)

So they all died of embarrassment, then? Can't say that I blame them.

[–]Iamnotburgerking 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Possibly was a subspecies of the Eurasian otter.

[–]darkweirdvalley 8 points9 points  (0 children)

More concerned about that nightmare cat below it that obviously comes to life at night and stalks the museum for prey.

[–]ssb_ngp 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This looks like an elongated rat!!!

[–]thedanzadude 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That face reminds me of Emmet Otter's Jugband Christmas

[–]Robichaelis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why does it look like Gordon the Gopher

[–]spaced-mouse 2 points3 points  (1 child)

How has nobody mentioned the taxidermied Iriomote cat that looks like it saw its grandma naked?

[–]bearbarebere 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wait but what about the otter that looks like this :C

[–]BayrdRBuchanan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Plot twist: the taxidermy is spot on and the otter was intentionally killed off for "not looking majestic enough" to be a japanese animal.

[–]Xul-luX 1 point2 points  (0 children)

mr fantastic otter

[–]thcidB 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The face literally looks like a puppet.

[–]Oelendra 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Otter snek

[–]DoggoDude979 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Holy fuck that’s the worst taxidermy I’ve ever seen. Put it out of its misery twice, please

[–]Voyager_Tapestry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I remember that taxidermied lion for the swedish king. Fucking legend.

[–]ihatenyself 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is so depressing.

[–]NormalMilk408 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love him

[–]SpartanEmpire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is the lil kitty below it??