Have any hair samples linked to Bigfoot been traced to known animal species through mitochondrial analysis?

1. The systematic survey that changed the narrative

An international team led by Bryan Sykes at Oxford and collaborators collected 57 hair samples attributed to anomalous primates and used rigorous decontamination plus mitochondrial 12S RNA sequencing to identify the species origin; seven samples yielded no DNA and 30 produced sequences that matched GenBank entries at 100% identity, tying them to ordinary mammals rather than an unknown hominid ^[1][2].

2. What the mitochondrial results actually showed

The sequenced hairs included ten from various bears, four from horses, four from dogs or wolves, one identical to human, and others from cows, raccoons, deer and porcupine; the paper reports these exact 12S RNA matches, meaning the mitochondrial marker pointed clearly to known taxa for every successfully sequenced sample ^[2][4].

3. The Himalayan outliers — a polar bear signal, not a yeti

Two Himalayan samples (Ladakh and Bhutan) did not match contemporary species but showed closest affinity to an ancient polar bear (Ursus maritimus) lineage, prompting interest because that pattern could reflect an uncharacterized bear population or degraded data — the study itself highlighted this as the only potentially novel signal among the hairs ^[1][3].

4. Limits of mitochondrial barcodes and what they don’t prove

Mitochondrial 12S RNA is a standard species‑identification tool but has limitations: it samples only maternal lineage, is a short fragment in many studies, and cannot on its own exclude complex hybrid origins or deeply degraded/contaminated samples; commentators note that failure to find an unknown primate in these hairs does not disprove Bigfoot myths broadly, only that those particular hairs matched known species ^[5][6].

5. Conflicting claims and why some studies drew fire

Separate high‑profile claims — notably a report led by Melba Ketchum that asserted hybrid human/Sasquatch genomes — were criticized for methodology and overinterpretation; mainstream coverage and reviewers questioned sample provenance, sequencing protocols and conclusions, and watchdogs say Ketchum’s work overstated mitochondrial results and disregarded standard practice ^[7][8][9].

6. Why sample provenance matters more than headlines

Journalists and scientists repeatedly stress that many alleged “Bigfoot hairs” come from collectors who did not observe the animal, so hairs could be old, contaminated or misattributed; the Oxford‑led project minimized these issues by cleaning shafts and using established GenBank comparisons, which is why its results — matching known mammals — carry weight ^[1][6].

7. Competing interpretations and next steps

Authors of the mitochondrial survey presented the bear/polar‑bear affinity as intriguing and recommended follow‑up with fuller genomes or wider sampling; skeptics point out that a short 12S fragment (some critics counted only ~104 base pairs in the polar‑bear match) can be insufficient for strong phylogenetic claims, so both the null result (known species) and the rare ambiguous results merit deeper genomic work ^[6][3].

8. Bottom line for your question

Yes — multiple hair samples associated with Bigfoot have been traced by mitochondrial analysis to known animal species: the peer‑reviewed survey found that every successfully sequenced sample matched an extant mammal (bears, horses, dogs/wolves, cows, raccoon, deer, porcupine, one human), with only two Himalayan hairs showing a remnant polar‑bear‑like signal that needs further study ^[1][2][4].

Limitations: available sources do not mention every possible hair study since 2015; claims of unsequenced or privately held samples are not covered here ^[7][8].