What mitochondrial DNA results have been reported in alleged Bigfoot hair studies?
Executive summary
Two systematic mitochondrial-DNA (mtDNA) surveys of alleged Bigfoot/yeti hairs dominate the literature: Bryan Sykes’ Oxford–Lausanne team sequenced the 12S mitochondrial rRNA from 30 hairs and identified all as known species (bears, horses, dogs, cows, raccoon, deer, porcupine, and one human) [1] [2]. Competing high-profile claims—most notably Melba Ketchum’s report—found human mtDNA in some samples but asserted novel nuclear DNA; that study was widely criticized and its mtDNA result has been interpreted by skeptics as contamination [3] [4].
1. The clean, systematic mitochondrial survey that found only known animals
In 2014 the Oxford–Lausanne “Collateral Hominid Project” published the first systematic mitochondrial 12S rRNA survey of hair samples attributed to anomalous primates: of 37 processed hairs 30 yielded mtDNA sequences and every sequenced sample matched known species in GenBank—ten bear samples, four horse, four wolf/dog, one human, and the remainder cows, raccoon, deer and porcupine—after rigorous decontamination and amplification of the mitochondrial 12S fragment [1] [2] [5].
2. Why mitochondria (12S rRNA) are used and what that limits
Researchers used mitochondrial 12S rRNA because mtDNA is abundant in degraded hair and often sufficient for species identification; Sykes’ team amplified a segment corresponding to human mtDNA positions 1093–1196 and compared sequences to GenBank to identify species [1] [2]. That method identifies maternal lineages and species matches but cannot prove the existence of a novel species if only short mtDNA fragments are recovered; multilocus nuclear data would be required for claims of new hominins [1] [6].
3. The Ketchum claim: human mtDNA plus “novel” nuclear DNA
In contrast, Melba Ketchum’s widely publicized 2013 claim reported mtDNA that was “unambiguously human” while asserting that nuclear DNA contained novel structure—leading her team to conclude a human-hominin hybrid [3] [7]. That result drew immediate skepticism: critics noted contamination risks, non-standard methods, and lack of acceptance by mainstream forensic/genetic labs [3] [4] [8].
4. Contamination and interpretive pitfalls shown in reporting
Multiple outlets and experts urged caution because mtDNA identical to modern human can simply reflect handling contamination by submitters or others; Live Science, NBC and other coverage emphasized that “human” mtDNA results are most parsimoniously explained by contamination unless rigorous chain-of-custody and independent replication are provided [3] [5] [8]. The Center for Inquiry and skeptics highlighted that “unknown” mtDNA does not equal Bigfoot and that degraded or contaminated samples commonly give ambiguous or misleading results [4].
5. Corrections, confirmations and later interpretations
The Oxford–Lausanne paper later issued corrections and clarifications, and follow-ups have reinforced the point that many alleged Bigfoot hairs are identifiable as ordinary mammals—some high‑profile individual cases (e.g., a tuft identified as bison) underscore routine misidentification [6] [9]. Popular summaries and subsequent reporting repeatedly cite Sykes’ finding that properly cleaned mtDNA sequences map to known species [5] [10].
6. Competing narratives and hidden agendas
Two competing narratives exist in the record: one scientific, peer‑reviewed effort led by Bryan Sykes that used standard mtDNA barcoding and found only known animals [1] [2], and one more sensational claim from a private lab that reported human mtDNA plus novel nuclear sequences and was amplified by Bigfoot enthusiasts and press releases but criticized by mainstream geneticists for methodology and likely contamination [3] [7]. Advocacy, commercial interests in cryptozoology, and the publicity value of “proof” create incentives that can bias sample collection and reporting [4] [7].
7. Bottom line for readers
Available sources show that vetted mitochondrial analyses of alleged Bigfoot hair overwhelmingly return matches to ordinary species (bears, horses, dogs, livestock, raccoon, deer, porcupine, and occasionally human), as in the Oxford–Lausanne 12S mtDNA study [1] [2]. Claims of human mtDNA coupled with novel nuclear DNA—most notably Ketchum’s—exist in the record but are disputed and criticized as likely contaminated or methodologically flawed by mainstream scientists and skeptical organizations [3] [4] [8].
Limitations: available sources do not mention comprehensive, independently replicated nuclear-genome analyses that confirm a novel North American hominin; mtDNA alone cannot establish hybrid species without corroborating nuclear genomic data [1] [4] [6].