From school, every generation is told that history is always the same and the past is known, but only if you ask your parents at least about the history of the USSR, your knowledge will differ and even contradict each other. But what if we look deeper into myths and legends? Let's talk about mythical creatures that don't fit into the official story.
Unicorn
In 1630 Ian Johnston published his famous work "Description of the wonders of nature", in which he tried to systematize the known types of living beings. On the tenth page of the book, we can see several varieties of UNICORNS.
Or maybe the author is just a dreamer who is actively involved in the use of herbs and mushrooms? But Wikipedia says that Ian Yonston was a botanist, historian, physician. So, according to the official version, these data can be trusted. But this is not the only evidence of the existence of these creatures. In 1658 the book "History of four-legged beasts, reptiles and insects" was published. On page 551, we can also see a description of unicorns.
Promotional video:
Griffin
On page 45 of Ian Johnston's book, a griffin flaunts along with the animals we are used to. Perhaps the author resorted to using his imagination again, but what if you look at other evidence? For example coats of arms.
Griffins were depicted on the coats of arms of a large number of states in the world, but why exactly they, and not any other mythical creature?
Well, okay, the coats of arms probably copied everything from each other, but why then were griffins depicted even on coins? Dishes, decorations, frescoes, bas-reliefs have images of griffins. Maybe griffins really existed? Think about it.
Manticore
The book "History of four-legged beasts, reptiles and insects" on page 344 pleases us with a description of the manticore. And he pleases with a sweet smile, as if he copied the Cheshire cat from the manticore.
Maybe this book was written by a science fiction writer? "Konrad Gessner is a Swiss scientist-encyclopedist, one of the first who tried to systematize the information accumulated by mankind about animals and plants." - Wikipedia tells us. That is, we can also trust this author, despite the fact that some animals are considered myths? We also see the image of the manticore in the book by Ian Johnston. These scientists must be equally crazy.
Man is a monkey
On page 55 of the aforementioned book, we see drawings of a monkey with an apparent human body. Could this really be a surviving Australopithecus hominid? Again, these "monkeys" coexist with quite familiar creatures.
Most likely, the author was just having fun and did not see the difference between his fantasy and reality. Or did these creatures actually inhabit the globe? There is clearly room for thought.
Hydra
Today's favorite book "History of four-legged beasts, reptiles and insects" on page 736 continues to amaze us with mythological animals. Now we have a hydra in front of our eyes.
It is strange, of course, that the heads are so similar to those of a dog, but if you attach the wings, then a good Serpent Gorynych will come out. It is very strange that Wikipedia accepts these authors as scientists, but what they studied is considered myths.
