'Bigfoot' hair samples undergo DNA analysis: Big mammals, yes. Bigfoot, no.

'Bigfoot' hair samples, studied in collaboration between Bigfoot believers and geneticists, failed to reveal new primate DNA, but scientists may have discovered a new species of bear.

Oxford University genetics professor Bryan Sykes poses with a prepared DNA sample taken from hair from a Himalayan animal. DNA testing is taking a bite out of the Bigfoot legend. After scientists analyzed more than 30 hair samples reportedly left behind by Bigfoot and Yeti, they found all of them came from more mundane animals like bears, wolves, cows, and raccoons. In 2012, researchers at Oxford University and the Lausanne Museum of Zoology issued an open call asking museums, scientists, and Bigfoot aficionados to share any samples they thought were from the mythical ape-like creatures.

A new genetic analysis has found no evidence for a cryptic humanlike primate known as Bigfoot or the Yeti.

Hair samples from creatures claimed to be Bigfoot or Sasquatch actually come from cows, horses, dogs and even a few extinct bears. But none seem to come from a completely new primate species, according to a study published today (July 1) in the journal Proceedings of The Royal Society B.

Throughout the world, stories abound of a mysterious man-beast covered in shaggy hair, who has eyes, nose and ears like a human, and who walks on two legs. Dubbed the Yeti in the Himalayas, and Bigfoot or Sasquatch in North America, the creature has been called a hybrid human, an early human — such as a Neanderthal or Denisovan — or an extinct ape, such as Gigantopithecus

Shaggy man-beast

Scientists, however, have mostly discounted cases of Bigfoot sightings, saying researchers would have identified such a large and strange creature by now if it were breeding in the wild. And some of the most well-known Bigfoot sightings have turned out to be hoaxes: In 2008, two Georgia men claimed they had photos and the body of a Bigfoot, but the genetic samples came from an opossum and the "body" turned out to be a frozen gorilla suit.

Bigfoot proponents say more research needs to be done.

"Some of the greatest criticism within the Bigfoot community was that science would never take a serious look at the phenomenon," said study co-author Rhettman Mullis, a psychologist who runs the Bigfootology.com website.

Hair samples

To remedy that problem, Bryan Sykes, a geneticist at the University of Oxford in England, teamed up with Mullis and other researchers to solicit hair samples from supposed Bigfoot sightings around the world. If the sightings were real, the thinking went, then the DNA should not match that of any known animal.

The team received 57 samples, one of which was actually a piece of fiberglass, the researchers said. After winnowing down the samples to the most likely bets, the team did a genetic analysis on 36 of the samples.

Almost all came from known animals, including cows, horses, raccoons, humans, deer, coyotes, and even a Malaysian tapir. None of the samples, however, came from a completely new primate species, the researchers said.

Extinct bear?

But two hair samples, one from Bhutan and the other from Ladakh, India, closely matched the genetic sequence of an extinct Paleolithic polar bear. One came from an animal shot over 40 years ago by an experienced hunter, who claimed the bear acted more aggressively than do typical brown bears. The other came from an area that is reputed to be the nest of a "migyhur," the Bhutanese version of a Yeti.

It's possible that the two samples are from a previously unrecognized bear species or a hybrid of existing species, the researchers said. If the newly discovered bears are widespread, they may contribute to the legend of the Yeti, especially if the hunter's report of more aggressive behavior is representative of the species as a whole, the authors wrote in the paper.

However, Mullis is not convinced that the Yeti described in countries outside the Himalayas is a bear. In the Himalayas, there are three words for different types of Yetis, one of which is a bear. But the others may be more akin to what is popularly known as Sasquatch or Bigfoot in the United States, Mullis said.

Despite the results of the new study, Mullis — who said he has had many interactions with Bigfoot or Sasquatch — said he still believes the mysterious apelike beast is out there somewhere.

"It doesn't mean the Bigfoot doesn't exist," Mullis said.

Follow Tia Ghose on Twitterand Google+. Follow Live Science @livescienceFacebook Google+. Original article on Live Science.

Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.