It has been a lot of hours, so I doubt very many people will see this, but I'll try. Wikipedia also has an entry on cryptozoology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

It has been a lot of hours, so I doubt very many people will see this, but I'll try. Wikipedia also has an entry on cryptozoology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology That doesn't make it any less of a made up word used by pseudo-scientists to self describe nor does it mean I should give much credence to anything a cryptozoologist says. The key difference is that I know cryptozoology is largely pseudoscience whereas I merely suspect it in the case of anthrozoology. At least the word, "cryptozoology," is a reasonable description of what they are trying to do: the study of hidden animals. Anthrozoologoy translates roughly as man animal study, a term pregnant with meaninglessness. So, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about anthrozoology: "Anthrozoology . . . is the study of interaction between living things." Hey, I have friends who work in that field. They call themselves . . . "ecologists." Or, if you want to limit it to the types of interactions in the article, "animal behaviourists." They might even say that they work on "inter-species communication." So, I apologise for being dismissive of a term I have never heard before used in a context where there are other widely used terms that would seemingly be appropriate. And to any genuine scientists out there studying human animal interactions, I genuinely apologise for my snark. It is unfortunate that my first encounter with the field of "anthrozoology" has been tainted by the inane nonsense in this article. That said, I don't think human-animal interactions have been nearly as neglected as the wikipedia article implies.