Bigfoot Family Tree

Why are there multiple species and subspecies of bigfoot?

This (below) is an effort to visualize an answer to that question. This is, obviously, not based on science.

Premise: There are gaps in the story of primate evolution. Those gaps could contain undiscovered intergeneric, and interspecific primate hybrids. The gaps could contain uncatalogued families, genera, or species that each exhibit a novel combination of adaptations. So we can imagine that If the gaps contained these animals, then any, or all of them could fit the generic description of

What you’re looking at: There are reports of different types of bigfoot. Descriptions of the different types are the starting point for this project. Then — moving backwards — evolutionary lineages were invented to match modern descriptions. This is not based on actual physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology or any other natural science — however — it is inspired by two existing concepts:

1. Hybrids:  “Research suggests that hybridization sometimes ignites helpful evolutionary changes. An initial round of interbreeding — followed by hybrid offspring mating among themselves and with members of parent species — can result in animals with a far greater array of physical traits than observed in either original species. Physical variety in a population provides fuel for natural selection, the process by which individuals with genetic traits best suited to their environment tend to survive longer and produce more offspring.”[Source: Bruce Bower, Science News 2016]

2. Novel Adaptations: All primates have the same adaptive toolkit. Different adaptive tools are used to manage different circumstances. Over time, primates change as a result of the adaptive tools they use. “Novel adaptations” refers to previously unobserved collections/combinations of adaptations. Example: Bipedalism and Hooded Noses in a genus of primate other than Homo.

[Click here to get the PDF]

Bigfoot Ancestry
Bigfoot Family Tree

It is obvious, but I’ll say it anyway: This chart is not based on science. I am not a scientist and I do not take lightly the genius and efforts of actual scientists. Also… bigfoot is a real thing. It is mired in hoaxes and pseudoscience, but it is a real thing regardless. This illustration is not a contribution to the pseudo-scientific quagmire it’s just a thing I did for fun.

leave a reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s