Skepticoid

Pardon my typo, but yes, a cryptid, And, I suppose this subject could fall under the auspices of cryptozoology, but my interest is not in the cryptids themselves, but in the process of identifying an unknown from a sample. I am simply trying to clarify reports that are often seen in various television shows that the "DNA" they retrieved from a "sample" is reported as "unknown," or "unidentified," and I am trying to solidify my understanding that a sample that is reported as unknown or unidentified is not evidence of a cryptid, in the case of my example, a bigfoot. I wanted to know, in layman's terms, the various reasons a result could be returned as "unknown," or "unidentified."

I don't know what types of tests would be used. I am an absolute novice in this area, and am trying to wrap my head around what appears to be a rather complex process. What types of tests would be standard?

So, if I am understanding you correctly, let us say that we find a sample of hair, with follicles fully intact, in the Pacific North West of the United States. That sample is then submitted for genetic testing for identification of species. The DNA would be extracted from the sample, and the genotypes of this sample would be compared to other known genotypes specific to that geographic region. The process would assess the genetic variation of specific chromosomal locations within the sample, and it would be compared to other known samples. Am I understanding this correctly? For the sake of curiosity, let us assume that this hair follicle sample that was submitted WAS from some new species. What would one expect as a reported result? What type of findings would be necessary to substantiate validation of a cryptoid? Again, I appreciate you taking time and educating me on this process. I have a very limited scope of knowledge relative to this field.

Thank you. I'm sorry, I should have been more specific in my question. I realize that DNA does not come from hair, but from the follicle, and I should have been more specific. Let us then assume that the hair(s) that one is submitting has an appropriate amount of follicular mass to extract DNA from it. What then, aside from degradation or contamination (if anything), could possibly result in an "unknown," or "unidentified" result. And...as I think about it, are "unknown" and "unidentified" the same thing in the result? It occurs to me that they could have two different meanings of which I am not aware, given that my background is not in genetics. Finally, what would one expect to see if for example that instead of being "unknown," or "unidentified," that the sequence is complete, yet that the species is not yet known? Thank you CharonY for your response. When you say my description does not provide enough information, what type of further information would be needed? I guess, what I am trying to ask (and perhaps rather poorly, as my background is not in genetics), is what type of information do I need in order to have the description make sense?

Please forgive me if this question has been addressed elsewhere in the forum, and if it has, if you would direct me to the thread(s), I would appreciate it. My questions are these: 1. What are the potential causes of determinant DNA tests to result in "unidentified," or "unknown?" For example, someone is on the trail of the ever evasive "Bigfoot" and comes across a hair sample. This sample is sent in for DNA analysis, and the results are returned as "unidentified," or "unknown." What are potential causes of this result? I am familiar with the possibility that the DNA extracted could be damaged, and thereby rendering the sample unidentifiable. I am also aware of the possibility of contamination of a sample. 2. Am I correct that these are two possible ways a sample could result as being "unidentified," or "unknown?" 3. Are there other reasons why a DNA result would return as "unidentified," or "unknown?" I am trying to explain that "unidentified," and "unknown" DNA results do not automatically default to a, "because we don't know and it is unidentified, it must therefore be Bigfoot," and that this type of default is the basis of an argument from ignorance/incredulity. Thank you in advance for helping me clear up my grasp on this question.