To illustrate potential misuses of ecological niche modeling (ENM), J. D. Lozier (University of Illinois) and colleagues have just published an analysis of bigfoot distribution in the Pacific Northwest. Their beef is that ENM is really being overused in the literature these days, and that folks are applying this analysis to datasets in which the taxonomic identify of some records is suspect, thereby calling the conclusions into question. To make their point, they decided to conduct an ENM exercise using spatially explicit locations reported for the most taxonomically suspect thing they could think of - bigfoot records from the BFRO!

The upshot? Well of course it worked beautifully, and they present some maps of likely bigfoot distribution in the paper. But, they also indicate unusually high niche overlap with black bear (for which they also constructed an ENM as a point of comparison for the bigfoot model). They conclude the following:

1) You can make a really nice ENM without having the slightest idea what it is you're modeling, so please use ENM with caution.

2) The overlap observed between bear and bigfoot models is very unlikely for two different species, so a lot of the records in the BFRO database represent bears misidentified as bigfoots.

Despite conclusion #2, this isn't really a bigfoot debunking paper. It's a cautionary tale for biogeographers on a new and sexy analysis. Enjoy!

~Saskeptic

Lozier, J. D., P. Aniello, and M. J. Hickerson. 2009. Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modeling. Journal of Biogeography 36: 1623–1627.

Click to view attachment

<edited because I am prepositionally challenged>

Thanks!

Also worth considering:
Some folks (me included) would fully expect bear and BF to overlap niches in this type of analysis.

You're a couple months late the dance Saskeptic my friend...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=26961

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=27002

-A

Story of my life, man.