A New Species Of Giant Ape?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Sunday October 10, 2004 @11:22PM from the afleckus-trismegistus dept.

jd writes "The New Scientist, The Age (an Australian newspaper), Daily Telegraph (a British newspaper), BBC, and the Discovery Channel are talking excitedly about a strange primate, found in the Congo. Locals say it is notorious for killing fully-grown adult lions. Optimists hope that it is a new species, maybe related to the gorilla. Pessimists claim it's an overgrown chimpanzee. In either case, primates aren't discovered every day, making this a rare find indeed."

28 of 398 comments (clear)

Pfft by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-10 23:23 · Score: 5, Funny

I've already discovered a couple of those in my local pub.
In other news . . . by PeeAitchPee · 2004-10-10 23:24 · Score: 5, Funny

. . . Peter Jackson began production on his remake of king Kong in the Congo last week . . .
It's also reknowned for its fearsome battle cry by Rogerborg · 2004-10-10 23:24 · Score: 5, Funny

"Developers, developers, developers!"

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
1. Re:It's also reknowned for its fearsome battle cry by tpgp · 2004-10-11 02:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Developers, developers, developers!"
  
  if you don't know what he's talking about
  
  --
  My pics.
Didn't we discuss this last year? by joeykiller · 2004-10-10 23:26 · Score: 5, Informative

Wasn't this story reported -- and discussed here -- in august last year as well?

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08 /1 0/0014206&tid=134&tid=14

(Of course, I didn't RTFA)
1. Re:Didn't we discuss this last year? by metlin · 2004-10-10 23:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yes, but while the previous article seemed uncertain of the discovery, these seem fairly conclusive.
  
  Plus, they have taken pictures of them while earlier on they were mostly speculative. Not to mention first hand physiological details.
  
  Not really a repeat - more of a follow up, IMHO.
Zinj by interactive_civilian · 2004-10-10 23:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Hrmm...is the new species a grey gorilla that carries two stone paddles which it uses to crush its victims skulls? Is it perhaps located near a lost city, named Zinj, that is famous for its boron coated diamonds which have rather useful electrical properties?
If the answers to these questions are yes, then we need to get a gorilla that understands sign language ASAP.
Do I read to much?* At least I never saw the movie.
*well, not TFA, apparently. ;-)

--
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Incredible but.... by N+Monkey · 2004-10-10 23:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wonderful discovery but, now that we've found them, one wonders how long it'll be before we somehow manage to wipe the species out :(
1. Re:Incredible but.... by metlin · 2004-10-10 23:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Worse, how many species out there are being wiped out that we know/knew nothing about?
  
  There is so much on this rock that is yet unknown and unexplored, while we continue to destroy the planet recklessly.
  
  I wonder how many such species would be out there in the jungles of Amazon - we spend so much money on war and destruction, if only we'd spend it on preserving some of our planet's natural heritage we'd be helping ourselves and generations to come.
  
  Ah, that won't come to pass as long as greedy fools continue to rule us.
2. Re:Incredible but.... by Troed · 2004-10-11 00:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Species going extinct is a part of the _natural_ evolution of this planet - and has always been long before man. Man is also part of this planet's natural evolution, which makes Man's actions _natural_.
  
  It's _unnatural_ to keep species alive when they should've gone extinct due to _natural_ causes (changing climate etc).
  
  --
  it's in my head
3. Re:Incredible but.... by krunk7 · 2004-10-11 02:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You do realize that we are in the middle of one of the largest mass extinctions in the history of our world? Rivalled only by that of the Permian?
  I mean really, how much of a cop out is it to blow it off as "man is part of nature, so this is natural"? You mine as well tack on ". . .so I'm going to get mine." on the end of it.
  Even given that this is a natural event, there is one other HUGE difference. The others were absolutely, without a doubt, unequivacally unpreventable. Whereas the current is just as extremely preventable. Furthermore, a meteor cannot "decide" to stop wiping life from the face of the earth, be WE CAN.
  Ok, let me spell it out for you: We have a choice This directly means that: We are responsible.
  If we were to use your reasoning, every:
  Every man is part of nature, therefore what he does is part of the natural state. Man is not responsible for the natural state. Consequently, no man is responsible for his actions destructive or otherwise.
  Now go ahead and back pedal. "That's not what I'm saying. . .Of course, we're responsible, but. . ." blah blah blah.
  *SMACK* Bad, faulty logic, bad!!
4. Re:Incredible but.... by madstork2000 · 2004-10-11 03:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I disagree with your comment: I'd like to argue that our sense of morality separates us from nature.
  Our morality may set us apart, but morality is subjective, and ultimately arbitrary. And thus irrelevent in overall scheme of the universe.
  In the end the earth will be a barren wasteland one-way or another. Nature WILL ultimately destroy the planet.
  So thinking along the natural vs. unnatural argument is moot. If we believed that strictly if there are people around when the sun expands or a giant astroid hits should those people try to stop Nature if they have the technology to?
  I bet if in the several billion years down the road people are around, and have the technology to add nuclear feul to a star, or move a planets orbit or whatever other unimaginable technology to save the day they would try and do it to save whats left of the "homeland".
  Or nature could decide to do us in sooner, with a giant asteroid. Its pretty hypocritical in my opinion to plan to save the planet from the astroid, while at teh same time to condemning people from using land if it is needed.
  If the rain forest is going to be oblierated anyway why bother? It boils down to darwin and survival of the fittest.
  Plants and animals develop ways to defend themselves against us. Some do it very successfully (i.e. pesticide resistent bugs, drugs that are ineffective because the bateria / virus has evolved). In otherwords nature, DOES NOT CARE ABOUT US, one way or the other.
  In a sense we are at war with nature, and will always be at war because there will ALWAYS be natural threats that could wipe out our species.
  
  But lets get back to the morility issue. Why is it morally wrong to wipe out unknown species or even unimportant known ones; while at the same time it is fine to wipe out a disease like small pox?
  
  Life is life, it does not matter the scale. We'll be pretty darn excited if we confirm a true Martian virus, wouldn't we? It would definately be "morally" wrong to kill our hypothetical Martian virus wouldn't it? Unless of course, it is a threat to us. then we'd all have Mars disinfectant spray sitting around.
  
  It boils down to we will always look out for the best interest of our species. We may try to sugar coat it with morals and ethics, but the fact remians we are at the top of the food chain, and will try ot stay there.
  
  If tearing down rain forest and killing ofother species is in the best interest of people then do it.
  
  I personally DO NOT think it is; because, unlike most other species, we have the capacity to learn and expand our knowledge. We depend on knowledge to survive. Destroying things we do not fully understand is counter-productive.
  
  Our intelligence also confuses us; because it makes us think we have extra "responsibilities" because of arbitrary morals, and ethics.
  
  WRONG! Our morals and ethics are important because they help us function as a society (sometimes), but they may end up to be our downfall, since those same morals and ethics have diversified to the point where we have large populations of people with opposed morals and ethics, trying to condemn the other side.
  
  In some ways I think morals and ethics is Nature using our intelligence against us.
  
  So what we need to do is NOT worry about every little species out there, and should start focusing on preserving and prolonging our own species.
  
  Is the environment important to people? Yes, so we need to take care of it. Is worrying about global warming important? Yes, so we need to keep an eye on it? Is a new species of primates important to us? Yes, they have value to our species.
  
  So to complete the argument, humans number one survival skill is our intelligence. In order for us to survive we ne
Are They Sure... by CowboyBob500 · 2004-10-10 23:28 · Score: 5, Funny

...that it wasn't just George Bush on vacation?

Bob

--
Listen to my latest album here
How to scare king kong by walmass · 2004-10-10 23:29 · Score: 5, Funny

They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared.
An ape capable of killing lions ran away after a peek--that must have been one ugly face!
whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by interactive_civilian · 2004-10-10 23:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

and IMHO, with the exception of the coloration and the stone paddles, these "new" primates seem to resemble the grey gorillas in Michael Crichton's (sp?) Congo quite well. From the BBC article:
They stand up to two metres tall, the size of gorillas, and like gorillas, they nest on the ground, not in trees.
~snip~
She describes her encounter with them: "Four suddenly came rushing out of the bush towards me," she told New Scientist.
"If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."

That is not so different from the behavior of the gorillas in Congo...
I wonder why they stopped attacking when they saw her...

--
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
1. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-10 23:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I wonder why they stopped attacking when they saw her...
  
  Gorilla-panzee 1: OMG- did you see that thing!?!
  
  Gorilla-panzee 2: yeah! what the hell was it?
  
  Gorilla-panzee 1: I dunno, but it didn't have a snout and had like almost no fur except for its head.
  
  Gorilla-panzee 2: yeah, I swear I was gonna barf if I had to look at it longer
  
  Gorilla-panzee 1: you don't think it was a human do you? like from those stories we heard as kids?
  
  Gorilla-panzee 2: don't be stupid, humans are made up just like the Yeti and Bigfoot are.
2. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by lee7guy · 2004-10-11 00:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Well, the BBC article removed the quote from it's context.
  
  From Daily Telegraph:
  
  "We could hear them in the trees, about 20 feet away," she said. "My tracker made a sound of an injured duiker [antelope] and four came rushing through the brush towards me.
  
  "If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."
  
  The apes thought they were going after a wounded antelope, when they realized they had been tricked, they ran away.
  
  Guess BBC found it more "dramatic" out of context.
  
  --
  Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
3. Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... by John+Fulmer · 2004-10-11 08:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Hardly surprising - his book was inspired by the same tales that brought researchers to the same area, looking for the same creatures.
  
  Mmmm. And here I thought Crichton had just ripped off H. Ryder Haggard and Edgar Rice Burroughs, who both used most of the same elements as Congo. What *COULD* I have been thinking.
skeptical by Daniel+Ellard · 2004-10-10 23:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the BBC:
If we found something interesting it would attract more investment. People would be more interested in conserving it.
That can't help but make me skeptical -- these people have a compelling reason to hype these reports in order to encourage conservation and protection of the area.
It would be pretty interesting if it's true, however -- my guess would be that a large animal capable of avoiding detection for so long in well-explored areas would be interestingly intelligent...

--
Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
Re:Killing Lions? by aussie_a · 2004-10-11 00:00 · Score: 4, Funny

Next up on Slashdot:
Geek Vs Dog, who will win?

Commentator #1: Well Bob considering the fact that the geek has no weapons I'm siding with the dog.
Commentator #2: I agree Bob, while the geek is more intelligent, I think the only thing running through that mind is how much he wished he had saved the game, if only this were a game.

I need sleep.
Ape which kills fully grown lions? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 00:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Same category as the 39 foot python I think.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid _3 355000/3355089.stm

These apes have not been 'discovered', they have simply been newly categorised. The idea that they have never been seen before is a nice idea but nonsense.

We may not like to think it, but the world is a small place now. There are no really remote places anymore and the idea that there are big animals roaming around somewhere unseen and undiscovered is a romantic notion which might be reassuring but can't hide the simple sad truth that the number of species is diminishing daily as we trash the planet.

I'm sorry, but your ( and my ) unrelenting consumption is killing off wildlife apace. Don't let stories like this one make you think otherwise.
HOW do they kill lions? by aussie_a · 2004-10-11 00:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

Chimpanzee's do employ natural objects in order to get maggots in trees. I just want to know, how do these apes kill lions? Do they use stones? Jaws of animals? Sure they can probably use their fists, but if they used tools, well it'd certainly be something noteworthy.
Re:Hybrid? by R.Caley · 2004-10-11 00:15 · Score: 4, Funny

There is speculation that it might be a gorilla/chimp hybrid species. I'm hoping the chimp was the 'giver' in that scenario.
Well, it would have made the day of the gorilla (gorilless?). Chimps are better hung than Gorillas.
I find it rather worrying that I know this.

--
_O_ .|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Re:no photos? by Arker · 2004-10-11 00:21 · Score: 5, Informative

Try here.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:no photos? by efatapo · 2004-10-11 00:42 · Score: 5, Informative

http://karlammann.com/bondo.html They printed the phylogenetic tree as well as wrote up the findings. I lazily skimmed the text but the phylogenetic tree makes it look not that exciting. A new subspecies but not very diverse from other known species. Enjoy~
Re:no photos? by kryptKnight · 2004-10-11 01:18 · Score: 5, Funny

They just get larger then most chimps, which is not totally uncommon.

In fact about half of all chimps are larger than most chimps!

--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -Aldous Huxley
Spinning stories? by Dan+East · 2004-10-11 01:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's interesting how the Animal Planet and Telegraph stories differ to the point of contradicting each other. Animal Planet makes these animals sound docile and peaceful, and only make a single mention about killing lions :
tales that the forests were inhabited by large ferocious apes that could kill lions.

The BBC also only makes one mention about killing lions:
capable of killing lions.

There's a big difference between "capable" and "does". Elephants can kill lions too, but that doesn't make them "Lion Killers", which is how the Telegraph article refers to these chimp-apes:
known to locals as the "lion killer"

Locals told him about giant apes with a reputation for killing lions, New Scientist magazine reports today.

The Telegraph portraits them as violent and aggressive:
The creatures are far larger and more aggressive than normal chimpanzees

they are unusually aggressive chimps

While Animal Planet describes them quite differently:
Unlike gorillas, which invariably charge when they see a threat, these apes turn around and silently slip away into the forest when encountered, Ammann said.

That doesn't sound too aggressive to me, for an animal that is supposed to go around killing lions for sport. Why for sport? Because they obviously don't eat them, according to Animal Planet:
Feces recovered from the nest sites indicated an animal with a diet rich in fruit, which is typical of chimps.

Rather odd to have such an aggressive and competent killer that doesn't eat meat. Either reporters are putting a big spin on this, or researches are trying to pique as much interest as possible to raise funding.

Dan East

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:Is this STILL open to question? by mikeee · 2004-10-11 03:25 · Score: 4, Funny

So your plan is, you want to use a short range stun gun designed to briefly knock out a human, use it on an unknown species of ape which hunts in packs and may or may not be able to kill lions with its bare hands. And then you're going to stick your hands in it's mouth while it's 'stunned'.

Can't say I'm surprised no one has implemented your plan.