New primate accepted by PHOTO EVIDENCE ONLY, month old story with new significance Options

[Apeman]

A bunch of people posted this story last month but as far as I can tell no one noted reading the original paper and pointed out that the whole case is based SOLELY on photographic evidence. I just read it myself looking to see if there was such a case for a different thread and am frankly quite astonished. I thought about just updating one of the original threads from last month but personally feel this is a significant enough issue to merit it's own thread.

So, for future reference, any time someone claims that new species need a type specimen, or even a shred of physical evidence, like a single hair, you can tell them that they are 100% wrong and here is the reference, from just last month, and published in arguably THE most prestigious scientific journal in the world, Science.

This post has been edited by Apeman: Jun 11 2005, 06:03 AM

Attached File(s)

 HighlandMangabey.pdf ( 255.84k ) Number of downloads: 539

 

[AnotherPullTab]

Specific passage from the linked article:

During interviews in January 2003 in villages around Mount Rungwe, we heard rumors about a shy and atypical monkey known as Kipunji (kip-oon-jee). The local Wanyakyusa have a strong oral tradition based on both real and mythical forest animals, and validation of these rumors was protracted. We first observed an unusual primate during biodiversity surveys on Mount Rungwe in May 2003, but because of the terrain, thick secondary forest, and the animal’s cryptic nature, sightings were infrequent and poor. It was not until December 2003, during work in the contiguous Livingstone Forest, that the monkey was clearly observed and recognized as a new species of mangabey.

Well, isnt that interesting... I wonder what would happen if you were to contact their sponsor and ask them to explain the "proof by sighting" entry into the biology books.

[ecwool]

Very interesting passage from the article:

The number of individuals in each of the two populations in undoubtedly very small; no live individual should be collected at this time to serve as the holotype.

holotype = the single specimen designated by an author as the type of a species or lesser taxon at the time of establishing the group.

[socaldave]

Unless I am reading this thread wrong, the scientific community seems to have a double standard?

[KidWolf]

This does set a unique precedant. Of course there aren't enough good distinct photos of sasquatches to qualify there...yet I remember as a child my grandfather telling me that sasquatch WAS listed in the Forest Service manuals along with all the other animals (circa 1950's).

[belleoftheball]

Unless I am reading this thread wrong, the scientific community seems to have a double standard?

I think you're reading it.....

[Former_Northwest...]

Unless I am reading this thread wrong, the scientific community seems to have a double standard?

I don't agree it's a double standard.

This finding is of a new species of monkey, in a region where there are lots of other know monkeys that look pretty much like it.

An analogy would be if sasquatch had been well known for 100 years and someone finds a new similar species on a camera.

It's not such a huge leap to go from one monkey to another. But to go from no North American Ape to North American Ape simply takes more proof. Do you agree?

[socaldave]

You've got a point!

[rockinkt]

Unless I am reading this thread wrong, the scientific community seems to have a double standard?

I don't agree it's a double standard.

This finding is of a new species of monkey, in a region where there are lots of other know monkeys that look pretty much like it.

An analogy would be if sasquatch had been well known for 100 years and someone finds a new similar species on a camera.

It's not such a huge leap to go from one monkey to another. But to go from no North American Ape to North American Ape simply takes more proof. Do you agree?

[Apeman]

Of course it is a double standard. This is in fact a texbook definition/case of applying a double standard:

"A rule or principle applied more strictly to some people than to others (or oneself)"

But this shouldn't surprise anyone. Double standards are applied all the time in everyday life and certainly the sciences are no exception. A so-called double standard is clearly warranted here in defining new species of primates, as others have eloquently pointed out.

My point wasn't that the bigfoot community is being treated unfairly (though that may be true). It was simply that we can use this case to refute the common claim that whole, live or dead, type specimens (holotypes) are absolutely required to recognize new species. Does that mean the scientific community should accept the existence of sasquatch based on all the evidence? No, of course not. But it's a decent spoke in the wheel of refuting the pro-kill or skeptic stance that we absolutely need a dead body because "that is how science works." That's all I wanted to get across.

AM

This post has been edited by Apeman: Jun 12 2005, 07:12 AM

[Saskeptic]

Good sleuthing, Apeman. I saw the highlight of the Highland Mangabey report, but didn't read the whole paper. So I stand corrected on my 'physical evidence needed for a holotype' comment. I agree there would be a much higher standard needed to catalogue something like sasquatch than another type of something that is known, like a mangabey, but I shouldn't have been so dogmatic - belies my training as a scientist!

It'll be interesting to follow the mangabey story and see how the mammalogical community accepts it. The idea here is that, with just photos and no other physical evidence, will different camps among the taxonomists disagree over the validity of species status for the Highland Mangabey? Some may consider it "only" a subspecies of a previously described mangabey without more detailed information. This same sort of question arises for the handful of new bird species described annually, most of which are immediately declared too rare to warrant collecting a specimen. They are photographed, recorded, and mist-netted and banded, if possible. But that doesn't mean that all ornithologists acccept each one as a "valid" species.

[Apeman]

It'll be interesting to follow the mangabey story and see how the mammalogical community accepts it.

I'll wager that a mtDNA from scat paper will be published within a year, showing how closely it is or isn't related to it's nearest cousins, the classification will stick (primatologists prefer to divide rather than lump because it makes conservation arguments stronger) and everyone will be happy.

[Apeman]

I've been meaning to update this thread after some discussion in the thread about Meldrum's new paper.

2 things:

A. An initial discussion in the journal about whether or not this was a valid naming:  Timm2005_KipunjiRefutation.pdf ( 403.05k ) Number of downloads: 59

B. The paper that followed afterwards renaming and reclassifying the monkey once some bodies (and DNA) were found and showed the monkey to be whole new genus:  Davenport2006_Kipunji2.pdf ( 255.34k ) Number of downloads: 65



Apeman

This post has been edited by Apeman: Nov 10 2007, 08:41 PM

[billgreen2005big...]

very interesting new thread about a new primate it makes you all wonder. bill hint hint..

[jasonch1112]

I don't agree it's a double standard.

This finding is of a new species of monkey, in a region where there are lots of other know monkeys that look pretty much like it.

An analogy would be if sasquatch had been well known for 100 years and someone finds a new similar species on a camera.

It's not such a huge leap to go from one monkey to another. But to go from no North American Ape to North American Ape simply takes more proof. Do you agree?

think that is a very valid point. Also look at all the referenced papers at the end. There were a lot of scientists in on this discovery.

[JohnCartwright]

I should send them a picture of my Mother-in-law.

[longtabber PE]

The counter point would be- other than having an organization giving BF a name, how would that "prove' anything? ( and what exactly would it prove?)

I think the entire idea of "naming" and recognizing BF as a species is more of a red herring than anything else.

I vaguely remember ( from the 70's I think) hearing that California ( or Washington- possibly both- memory is very fuzzy here) actually passed laws protecting "bigfoot" on the chance it did exist.

Assuming those laws were actually passed- did they help in any way?

[jimf]

Skamania county,Washington passed one making it illegal to hunt or harass Bigfoot with , I think, up to a $10k fine and/or five years in jail.

As to it having any effect , other than publicity: No. It's still a crap shoot as to how or when anyone is going to find a Bigfoot to harass or kill in the first place, so overall IMO it's a pretty silly thing to do.

Florida, a while back tried to pass a similar law, proposed by one state re. regarding protection of the Skunk Ape, but it was shot down if memory serves.


http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/ordinance.htm

This post has been edited by jimf: Nov 11 2007, 08:16 AM

[longtabber PE]

Skamania county,Washington passed one making it illegal to hunt or harass Bigfoot with , I think, up to a $10k fine and/or five years in jail.

As to it having any effect , other than publicity: No. It's still a crap shoot as to how or when anyone is going to find a Bigfoot to harass or kill in the first place, so overall IMO it's a pretty silly thing to do.

Florida, a while back tried to pass a similar law, proposed by one state re. regarding protection of the Skunk Ape, but it was shot down if memory serves.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/ordinance.htm

Thanks, I knew i remembered hearing something way way back

[Ace!]

Seems more reasonable to accept a new primate based on photo evidence only if there are other primates in the area. If you have a primate in the area and then get a picture of one similar, but different I can see accepting it much easier than saying there is an 8' tall hairy guy running around in the mountains of the PNW where we've never gotten any other evidence of any other similar primates.

[Mon0705]

Does that mean the scientific community should accept the existence of sasquatch based on all the evidence? No, of course not. But it's a decent spoke in the wheel of refuting the pro-kill or skeptic stance that we absolutely need a dead body because "that is how science works." That's all I wanted to get across.

AM

I'm glad you dug this up and had the insight to look at the data personally. Well done. I completely agree this certainly provides ammunition that we don't need a 'dead body' to prove the existence of Sasquatch. I think it is important that the existence of a new species can be accepted by the scientific community with a large collection of solid evidence that does not include a freshly martyred individual. Perhaps a naturally deceased body could come later, as in the case of these mangabeys.

However, I do agree that the existence of new primate species becomes easier with the knowledge of a similar species. Was this also similar to the way mountain gorillas were first documented, by extending the knowledge of a similar species to the newly found individuals?

[Yetifan]

Ace! wrote:

If you have a primate in the area and then get a picture of one similar, but different I can see accepting it much easier than saying there is an 8' tall hairy guy running around in the mountains of the PNW where we've never gotten any other evidence of any other similar primates.

Plus the fact that a history of hoaxing has been established in connection to possible 8' tall hairy guys.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Nov 12 2007, 09:52 AM

[jasonch1112]

The big problem with trying to use only photgraphic evidence with BF is there would be no way to classify the animal. A body would be neccessary to properly classify them. However, photographic evidence of good enough caliber could make the powers that be pass protective laws where the proper people could get a federal permit to take a specimen for scientific study while outlawing just any old person to be able to shoot one.

[Apeman]

Of interest- about 3 years after publication of the initial "discovery" researchers have basically counted the population (unlike the recent PR Congo gorilla census) to reveal only ~1117 critically endangered individuals.

Nat Geo popular article

Oryx journal abstract:

The Critically Endangered kipunji Rungwecebus kipunji of southern Tanzania: first census and conservation status assessment
Tim R.B. Davenporta1 c1, Daniela W. De Lucaa1, Trevor Jonesa2, Noah E. Mpungaa1, Sophy J. Machagaa1, Amani Kitegilea3 and Guy Picton Phillippsa1
a1 Wildlife Conservation Society, PO Box 1475, Mbeya, Tanzania.
a2 Environmental Sciences Research Centre, Department of Life Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge, SP1 1PT, UK.
a3 Udzungwa Ecological Monitoring Centre, Box 99, Mang'ula, Tanzania.

Abstract

We present the first assessments of the population, distribution and conservation status of the recently described kipunji Rungwecebus kipunji in forests in the Southern Highlands and Udzungwa Mountains of southern Tanzania. Surveys totalling 2,864 hours and covering 3,456 km of transects were undertaken to determine distribution and group numbers, following which 772 hours of simultaneous multi-group observations in Rungwe-Kitulo and Ndundulu forests, in the Southern Highlands and Udzungwa Mountains respectively, enabled 209 total counts to be carried out. We estimate there are c. 1,042 individuals in Rungwe-Kitulo, with 25–39 individuals per group (mean 30.65 ± SE 0.62, n = 34), and 75 individuals, with 15–25 per group (mean 18.75 ± SE 2.39, n = 4) in Ndundulu. We estimate a total kipunji population of 1,117 in 38 groups, with 15–39 per group (mean 29.39 ± SE 0.85, n = 38). The Ndundulu population may no longer be viable and the Rungwe-Kitulo population is highly fragmented, with isolated sub-populations in degraded habitat. We recorded areas of occupancy of 1,079 and 199 ha in Rungwe-Kitulo and Ndundulu, respectively, giving a total of 1,278 ha. We estimate the species’ extent of occurrence to be 1,769 ha, with 1,241 and 528 ha in Rungwe-Kitulo and Ndundulu, respectively. We believe the kipunji faces an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild and recommend the species and genus be categorized as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List.

(Received March 10 2007)
(Reviewed May 24 2007)
(Accepted June 25 2007)

Keywords: Census; Critically Endangered; distribution; primate; Rungwecebus kipunji; Tanzania

Correspondence: c1 Wildlife Conservation Society, PO Box 1475, Mbeya, Tanzania. Email tdavenport@wcs.org

[southernyahoo]

If it is true that a new species of great ape can be proven with a single picture....Then I'd say that Patterson and Gimlin proved it many times over 40 years ago and this discovery belongs to them in regards to this standard.

Of coarse, this is not to say that we couldn't get clearer visual evidence.

SY

[bipto]

Skamania county,Washington passed one making it illegal to hunt or harass Bigfoot with , I think, up to a $10k fine and/or five years in jail.

As to it having any effect , other than publicity: No.

From what residents in Skamania have told me, that statue (which is still in place and, I think, carries a higher fine now) was not put in place for publicity as much as it was meant to keep rednecks in pickups looking to make a quick million bucks out or their county. It also gave them publicity, of course.

[Shef]

Unless I am reading this thread wrong, the scientific community seems to have a double standard?

As soon as you get a clear picture of a Sasquatch... then we'll all have something to complain about.

We have the stories and sightings, but we need some GOOD photo evidence. A trail cam pic of a *Jacob variety* does not count.

[bipto]

*COUGH* PGF *COUGH*

Oh, sorry. Not that old thing again...

[Gigantofootecus]

There's no double standard here. The photo evidence originally showed an animal that couldn't possibly be a human in a suit. BF does not have that luxury. That's the rub.

[Apeman]

I'm always happy to bump this thread and today there is news about these monkeys.

In a nutshell, only the smaller of the two populations (~100 monkeys) maintains the "pure" historic genetics, the other has evidence that they've interbred with baboons.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91111123606.htm

Apeman

[Ace!]

One of the things I found interesting about the article were some of the links to other stories on the page, including:

Newly Discovered Monkey Is Threatened With Extinction; although it is about a year old it would seem to illustrate a new animal's place in the world and limited population or extinction. It could be an example of a new primate found here in the US. Three years after discovery scientists are able to determine whether it is threatened.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80728192930.htm

[Prehistoric Fish...]

So, for future reference, any time someone claims that new species need a type specimen, or even a shred of physical evidence, like a single hair, you can tell them that they are 100% wrong and here is the reference, from just last month, and published in arguably THE most prestigious scientific journal in the world, Science.

Ahh, but that's for ordinary specimens. For extraordinary specimens, only extraordinary evidence will do!

This post has been edited by Prehistoric Fisherman: Nov 15 2009, 10:56 PM