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."

13 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.
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)
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 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!
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.
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