New Great Ape Discovered?

DrLudicrous writes "CNN is running a story about sightings of an ape in central Africa that doesn't seem to fit the description of known apes. Pictures of the animal are rare, but it seems slightly taller than most gorillas, with a flatter face. One woman even reported seeing it walk upright on two legs. It has been hypothesized that the ape might be a new species, a subspecies, or perhaps a hybrid between two other species."

Comments

It's probably a subspecies of giant chimp

[grug0]

At least that's what the National Geographic and the NPR articles conclude. It's easier to swallow than the idea of a chimp and a gorilla getting it on.

Re:It's probably a subspecies of giant chimp

[rde]

It's easier to swallow than the idea of a chimp and a gorilla getting it on.
Especially when you consider that gorillas are so poorly endowed when compared to their chimp cousins. To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson, that'd have to be one charming mother-fuckin' ape.

For Darwin's sake, people. Evolution is a continuum; species don't magically transform from one to another. However long ago chimps and gorillas genetic company, it was a sufficiently short time ago (cosmically speaking) that there could well be variants around; especially when you consider how inaccessable areas like the Congo are for interlopers. They could cheerfully wander, undisturbed, for hundreds of millennia.

One of the reasons that Creationists still hold such pernicious sway is that they can point at news reports (and even the odd paleontologist) who make sweeping statements that a few minutes' thought would tell you is silly. I can't say for certain that a chimp/gorilla hybrid is impossible, but it's certainly unlikely, especially given the alternatives.

Re:It's probably a subspecies of giant chimp

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd point out that evolution is definitely not a continuum. Reproduction and mutation are discrete events.

On a larger scale, fossil records show the appearance of new species happening very quickly. This is a favorite argument of creationists who argue that inter-species evolution is just another dogma.

It's true that it is difficult to find evidence of a smooth, approximately continuous evolution from one species to another. Some modern theories advance a punctuated equilibrium where environmental changes suddenly impose substantially new selection rules. Dramatic events like climate change lead to quick changes in a few generations.

We may or may not be witnessing this sort of evolution. But to support an evolutionary theory with the fossil evidence you need to reject the notion that major evolution has occured through approximately-continuous progressions rather than major discrete jumps.

I'm not an expert in this material and can't provide references (and don't care to dig them up). I'm sure a google on punctuated equilibrium would be a good starting point.

Re:It's probably a subspecies of giant chimp

[MuParadigm]

I'm with the parent poster on this. Mitochondrial DNA points to a chimp lineage. There's also a fairly clear photograph of a cadaver accompanying the Nat'l Geogrphic article, and it just looks like a giant chimp.

Nesting is a common cultural attribute of both chimps and gorillas, and even though gorillas nest on the ground instead of in trees, I don't think it's much of an evolutionary jump for a giant chimp to decide it's too big to sleep in the trees also. And the fecal data indicates a diet more typical of chimps.

Howling during the full moon is an interesting trait, though. I wonder if they're just irritated by the nighttime brightness or if it represents a primitive religious instinct. Of course, sightings are rare so the observed howling behavior might be anomalous rather than typical.

Anyhow, if it is just a giant chimp, it'll be interesting to see how its behavior coincides with and differs from the other chimp species and humans.

Re:It's probably a subspecies of giant chimp

[rde]

Actually, I'm a punctuated equilibrium kind of guy myself; however, I don't think that negates my argument that evolution is a process of small, incremental changes.

Remember, when you're talking about deep time, you're talking about events that occur over inconceivably huge timeframes. You used the word 'suddenly', but in geological terms, 'suddenly' can mean hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Radical change can come about in these brief periods, but that change is only one of timeframe and (usually) catastrophe; the mechanism of evolution doesn't change. Beasties still undergo evolution one random mutation at a time. There may be one critical mutation that changes our morphing buddy, but that once change is standing on the shoulders of many, many dwarves.

With regard to the distinction between reproduction and mutation, I'm not sure what you mean. In order for mutations to be passed on, obviously the mutated creature must reproduce. Any offspring can, of course, inherit two sets of mutations and thus be quite different for either parent - and more so from grandparents - but those changes are still incremental in that it's improbable in the extreme for any one creature to mutate to such a degree that it's still a) potent and b) alive. I'm sure massive mutations do happen, and given the length of time life's been around, it's possible that some of the recipients were the better for it. But I can't imagine that that number is sufficiently high to be statistically relevent.

For more on the interpretation of time in such matters, you can do far worse than to read In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee. Punctuated Equilibrium as a theory was brought to the world by Niles Elderedge and Stephen Jay Gould; check out Elderedge's Time Frames for more.

Some more

[suteri]

This guy seems to be the main researcher with these apes. Check this article.

http://karlammann.com/bondo.html

Re:How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mercy. Please read the damn article, these things are still alive! Eyewitness accounts, pictures, etc. They are still fucking alive, the locals call them "Lion Eaters". Ok?

Re:What is amazing is..

[leandrod]

> or it's that missing link anthropologists have been searching for

This would be more like evolutionary biologists than anthropologists; the later are concerned with man as man, not as an animal.

Anyway, tall order. It is not a specie that will fill the gap. There would need to be a big number of fossiles and (or) living species discovered to fill the multiple gaps in evolutionary evidence, and not only near man but all over the classification of animals and vegetables.

Re:Ape Poo

[scrub76]

There are a few reasons why mitochondrial DNA is preferable to genomic DNA for this sort of speciation study:

1) Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is easier to work with. While a cell will have two copies of genomic DNA (one each inherited from the mother and father), the same cell will have hundreds to thousands of copies of mtDNA. This makes it easier to extract PCR-amplifyable DNA from a small number of cells.

2) There is more variation (on a per nucleotide basis) in mtDNA than in genomic DNA, making it easier to resolve small differences between species (and possibly enabling differentiation between a new species and a hybrid).

3) I think that mtDNA is inherited only from the mother, which means that there is no recombination between paternal and maternal DNA. This makes it easier to construct a genetic history of a sample (there is less 'noise' in the data).

I thought about Cichton's book, Congo.

[gacp]

Hey! A giant ape. And in the same region. Crichton based ``Congo'' on the kakundakari, supposedly a giant ape of the Congo that people claim to have been seing for ages. Before you say no, remember that science had `proved' that gorillas did not exist, and denied the reality of the giant panda for ca. 60 years. Maybe there is something to this kakundakari. Who knows?

A loaf of bread, a twig of ants & thou...

[xigxag]

I was a bit curious as to the reason why there seems to be no speculation about this "giant ape" being a chimpanzee/human hybrid. Of course, humans have a different number of chromosomes than the other great apes, but that in itself doesn't seem to be an absolute bar to cross-breeding. The answer seems to be in this article, where it basically says that human DNA has a number of chromosomal "inversions" with respect to chimpanzee DNA, and those inversions would lead to cross-breeding sterility.

Re:Ape Poo

[tulare]

erm. I'll bite.

First of all, the kind of cells that they are looking for are most likely those sloughed off the lower GI tract, as the hydrochloric acid in the stomach will pretty much completely do a number on the DNA of any ingested animal. Knowing that, they only have to look for a particular type of cell in the poo with a microscope to start building a sample. Poor Mr. Chimpanzee, Ingested, if he exists, won't produce such pristine cells anymore - these are higher primates, after all, and as such are going to prefer to chew their food rather than swallow it whole.

As to the blood sample, perhaps you forgot to read the article which pointed out
a) The not insignificant hazards in doing so both due to the animal's large size and apparent agressiveness, and also due to the fact that people in the Congo have recently been slaughtering one another with pretty much anything at hand - it's a difficult place to do research at the moment, and
b) They are in fact in the process of habituating the apes so that such collections can become possible.

As far as sedating one, think about the challenge - these appear to be social, agressive, and very large animals. Doubtless they would take a very dim view on anyone shooting one of their relatives and then going after that relative with a sharp object, and considering the fact that they are fscking HUGE, they certainly have the means to do something about it if they have to. Best to make friends =]

Re: What is amazing is..

[Black Parrot]

> It's always seemed odd to me that we are "up here" while apes and chimps are "down there" and other mammals kind of dribble down from that. Why nothing in-between?

Right now is sort of an anomaly in the family tree. For most of "human" history there were multiple species of "humans" living concurrently, and there were formerly many more species of ape alive at the same time too.

Also, the lack of in-between-ness is exaggerated by the nonlinearity of what has been going on in our species. If you compare the material culture of modern humans to that of chimps it looks like an unbridgeable gulf, but if you instead compare our material culture of 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, and 1,000,000 years ago to the current material culture of chimps, the gap really closes up.

It appears that a small difference in cognitive ability can make a huge difference when its results are allowed to accumulate over the millenia.

> It would be cool if there was some other species that slightly filled that gap bewteen us and the animals.

True, but arguably there already is. Take away the chimps and observe how wonderfully they fill the gap between ourselves and gorillas. Take away gorillas and observe how well they fill the gap between us+chimps and the other apes.

Our corner of the family tree is an interestingly dense bush as it is, and would be even more interesting if not for the extinctions over the past few million years.

Recommended readings:

"The Culture of Chimpanzees" (PDF) Overview of culture among chimpanzees.

"Planet of the Apes" (Just a tease; see the full article in your neighborhood library.) Breadth of the ape family tree in the Miocene.

"Hominid Species" What we currently know about our sub-branch of the family tree.

Re:Not impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that was a bad picture. This one, however, is not.

Re:What is amazing is..

[Skjellifetti]

Horses and donkeys are separate species but they can still produce offspring called mules. The test is whether they can produce fertile offspring. Mules are usually sterile due to different numbers of chromosomes between donkeys and horses that kill the reproductive cells in the hybrid.

One good picture here

[m4g02]

The picture in the article sucks, you can find one that looks much better in National Geographic website.

Further Reading

[nicklott]

Also try "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond. 's very good.

I call troll! MOD PARENT DOWN!

[Daetrin]

This guy is a troll

Got any evidence to back up your claim?

I've never heard of any such studies, and a few quick google searches turn nothing up. Furthermore, a lot of the points mentioned sound very suspicious.

They've improved intelligence by nearly 40%? Measured how? We can't even come uip with a good system for measuring human intelligence, yet you expect me to believe they can assign a precise numerical figure to how much smarter these supposed apes are?

they are unable to develop more advanced behavious such as speach and the concept of friendship.

Give me a break. First of all, apes are already capable of developing the advanced behavior of speach. Or rather, the advanced behavior of language. I'm sure you've heard of apes that have been tought sign language? They're certainly not very good at it, but they are clearly communicating in a very simple way using language.

The reason they haven't developed verbal speach is because they don't have the physical ability to produce the same sounds tha humans can. Breeding apes for intelligence won't ever produce a specimen that is able to speak english or any other human lanaguge, nor would any scientist ever expect it to.

As for friendship, there are pleanty of cases of animals showing friendship for others. Both in primates and in other species. Perhaps you've heard of cats and dogs? About 60 seconds of websearching was enough to find evidence that friendship among normal priamtes has already documented and researched by anthropologists.

And last and least, take a look at this person's posting history.