New Rodent Species Found

IZ Reloaded writes "A new species of rodent has been discovered by World Conservation Society researcher Dr. Robert Timmins. He found this creature in a hunter's market in Central Laos. The creature known as Kha-Nyou to the locals is so unique it represents an entire new family of wildlife. Kha-Nyou diverged from other rodents millions of years ago."

Comments

Oh..

[kevcol]

I thought this was another exposé on a spammer.

Re:Oh..

[dodobh]

Lawyer for the new species on line 3

David Letterman

[snookerdoodle]

'Already made it to David Letterman. He's surprised NYC hasn't already imported about 12,000 (IIRC) of them...

Mark

Evolved?

[falzer]

Nonsense! They were designed that way. I'm sure there is some mention of these animals somewhere in The Bible.

Re:Evolved?

[coma_bug]

"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'."

David Attenborough

Re:Evolved?

[jayloden]

Psssssssst....just because you believe in Creation doesn't mean you can't believe in microevolution and evolution within species, especially since we've actually been able to witness it in observation of existing species. But I guess it's more fun to laugh at anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint, isn't it.

Re:Evolved?

[Oligonicella]

Well yeah, it does. Microevolution inevitably leads to macroevolution and therefore species splits. This too, we have observed and documented. Crationists just refuse to acknowledge. That's what is fun to laugh at.

Re:Evolved?

[shiloh.sharps]

Next time please talk about something you understand. Here it is in a nutshell. God's original creation was perfect. Sin entered through Adam and Eve's disobediance. God then cursed all creation as punishment.(Genesis 3:14-24) Things like disease and your worm are a direct result of that curse.

Re:Evolved?

[RichardX]

Now remember, my child, Everything would've been hunky-dory, except I told you to stay away from the cookie jar and you didn't, so now I have to punish and torture you every day for the rest of your life.

Man, what a great and loving parent.

Incidentally, on the subject of Genesis, which of the two contradictory creation stories would be the correct one?

Re:Evolved?

[lawpoop]

What macroevolution have we *observed*? We have deduced it from evidence, but what new species did we observe?

Re:Evolved?

[Guido von Guido]

Take a look here and here.

Nothing dramatic, but we haven't been keeping track for that long.

Re:Evolved?

[shiloh.sharps]

Contradictory? Please explain in detail so that I can answer properly. Perhaps this study will help: http://209.10.202.163/graphical/literature/when/wh en_contents.html

Re:Evolved?

[CokeFiend]

Question is, do you even understand? It doesn't appear that way. While I wont discount faith in any way, I will say that the world stemming from two people is physically impossible. Not to mention that the bible itself says that incest is BAD. Which the family of Adam and eve would have had to participate in regularly to propagate the human species.

The truth is in evolution it is the only theory that makes sense, although I wont deny that there was no "help" in the process.

The bible was written 100-200 years after the death of Jesus, from third party accounts. And has since gone through hundreds of revision by different sects hoping to gain more control through its teachings. What we see now is nothing of the true teachings of Jesus, whom I do believe was a real man. Faith should not make you ignorant to reality as it seems to do with so many people. How can you be content believing in something that just simply doesn't make sense? Faith should help you understand the truth and appreciate the perfect complexities therein. It should expand your mind, not close you off to reality. If your content believing in fairy tails, than that's fine, that's how you chose to manifest your faith. Personally I chose to manifest my faith in the higher power in events that have been proven to be true, such as the process of evolution.

I don't know how else to say this, maybe I'm not articulating my thoughts in the most effective manner but I think anybody here will see the point in my statements.

Back to the subject at hand, I dont think we have even come close to the discovery of every living mamal. In fact I doubt we are even close.

Re:Evolved?

[dbilbey]

This is still only evidence for speciation (microevolution). No observations of macroevolution have ever been made. You also lack evidence in your general statement that microevolution inevitably leads to macroevolution; this is just not true. I don't care how many times fruitflies or flowers speciate, they will never become a fish or a camel because they do not have the genetic information available to do so.

Re:Evolved?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The totally nonexistent distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a classic example of the way religious believers are constantly forced to "move the goalposts" by scientific evidence. The game goes something like this:

Religion: God created every living thing in its current form in six days.

Science: Actually, the Earth is a whole lot older than any literal reading of the Book of Genesis can account for, and here's the proof.

Religion: Um ... okay ... so the "days" were really, really long. But He still created everything in the form it has today. That's what we meant to say all along.

Science: Actually, populations of living things change all the time, and here's the proof.

Religion: Um ... okay ... so change can occur within species. But species themselves do not change, and they are the "kinds" referred to in the Bible. That's what we meant to say all along.

Science: Actually, new species do arise from existing species, and here's the proof.

Religion: Um ... okay ... so some species can evolve into others, but only within taxonomic families. Families are the "kinds" referred to in the Bible, and are eternal. Except for humans, of course, which are different from all other animals. That's what we meant to say all along.

Science: Actually, humans aren't all that different from other animals, and here's the proof.

Religion: Um ... okay ... (etc.)

Re:Evolved?

[RichardX]

Contradictory? Please explain in detail so that I can answer properly

Sure, it's pretty straightforward.
In genesis chapter 1 the animals were created, then man and woman were created simultaneously.

In genesis chapter 2 Adam was created first, then the animals, then Eve was made from Adam's rib

But y'know what? That page you just linked to (in which, incidentally, all I see is a whole pile of circular reasoning) claims that everything in the bible is literally true and accurate, which makes the Genesis problem pale in comparison to.. let's see.. explaining how:
Stars can fall from the sky to be stamped on (Daniel 8:10)

The earth, far from rotating on it's axis and around the sun, is infact set on pillars or foundations and immobile (Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, Job 26:11, Job 38:4-6, Psalms 75:3, Jeremiah 31:37, Hebrews 1:10 and about a hundred other places)

How there can be a tree or mountain tall enough to be seen from anywhere in the world (hint: requires a flat Earth) (Daniel 2:35, Daniel 4:10-11, 20)

Why we even have any need for medical science at all when The Lord "healeth all diseases" (Psalms 103:2-3)

How bats can be classified as birds (they can't) (Leviticus 11:13, 19) or how exactly coneys and hares are ruminants (they aren't) (leviticus 11:5-6)

If I carry on, I'll be here all day. But believe me when I say this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Re:Evolved?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Funny, last time I had this argument, the creationists were arguing that speciation had never been observed, and that that was macroevolution; "microevolution" was what they were calling change within species. Congratulations -- you folks are evolving quickly.

Re:Evolved?

[Dimensio]

This is still only evidence for speciation (microevolution).

Funny, last I heard "speciation" was the big "macroevolution" barrier. Now it's something else -- something that you don't even define.

This is why creationists never "lose". They keep redefining terms whenever they're shown to be wrong on a front. Oh, and frequently when shown to be wrong on something, they just keep repeating the same erroneous information be it claims that certain observed things have not been observed or dishonestly quoting actual scientists out of context (or fabricating quotes entirely).

Re:Evolved?

[Dimensio]

The earth, far from rotating on it's axis and around the sun, is infact set on pillars or foundations and immobile

You got that right!

Re:Evolved?

[RichardX]

Good grief, that site really pushes apologetics and interpretation-bending to the limit.

When it says "the Earth is flat, immobile, and mounted on pillars", what it *actually* means is that "it's round, spins on it's axis in space and around the sun"

Silly me.

Oh. and when it says "Jesus died on the cross for all our sins and was resurrected 3 days later" What it actually means is "you can get great value and low low prices all year round at Wal-Mart"

Huzzah for interpretation. Whereever would we be without it? Oh yeah.. back where we started, with a bible full of nonsense.

Didn't see any mention there of how you can have a tree or mountain big enough to be visible from any point on Earth without it being flat, either.

Re:Evolved?

[HiThere]

There is (or was?) a butterfly that was one species throughout the US, because there was a constant gradient of reproduction. But the East Coast variant couldn't breed with the West Coast variant. If the middle range has been killed off (it was always the sparser of the two) then they are now two species. (Presuming, of course, that both the East Coast and West Coast variants still survive.)

Will this satisfy you for macro-evolution? Now I'll grant that as far as I know there have been no follow-up studies, so we don't know what has happened, and it's quite possible that we've killed them all off. But this is a clear mechanism which COULD produce, and MAY have produced macro-evolution.

Re:Evolved?

[Guido von Guido]

Coming up with "their own flawed studies" is a creationist tactic that has evolved since it was pointed out in one of those trials in the eighties that creationists didn't actually do any research.

The problem with attempting to do research is that it makes the goalposts harder to move. Not that they won't try!

Re:Evolved?

[nanojath]

You fucking rock and rolled that imaginary argument with an imaginary group of people. The ideas you invented for your imaginary adversaries were foolish, while your responses to the foolish arguments you invented were sane and reasonable. A for rhetoric!

Re:Evolved?

[Velocir]

You might want to actually find out what 'Religion', as you call it, actually says rather than just assuming it has no argument. Evolution theory changes every day, and none of the scientists agree on all the points, although a lot of them agree that evolution is actually pretty unbelievable. Admittedly, creationist ideas have become somewhat muddied by people trying to rationalise them in an evolutionist way. It doesn't work.

Re:Evolved?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I only wish I were "inventing" the arguments (or the people). In fact, I was summarizing them. If you feel my summary was inaccurate, please tell me how.

Re:Evolved?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I have had these exact same arguments with endless creationists (and yes, that includes ID). Those are the arguments they use, weak as they are. All I'm doing is holding the absurdity up to the light.

Re:Evolved?

[Velocir]

Some Creationists aren't well informed Creationists :P

Re:Evolved?

[nanojath]

Ah, maybe I'm totally wrong. I've never seen anyone making these specific arguments regarding some sort of pseudoscientific justification of literal Genesis interpretation. On reflection someone is probably arguing any ridiculous thing that can possibly be conceived.

Re:Evolved?

[nanojath]

On further reflection, my only worthwhile point (that I would have made if I hadn't just crankily puked on the keyboard instead, ah well, the internet) is simply that you are presenting what is, however accurate a presentation of some particular subgroup's arguments it is or isn't, just this one specific thing: viewpoints that could only be attributed to young Earth, Biblical creationism.

Attributing this argument as representative of "Religion" is just not accurate. Biblical "literalism" of the type that leads to these varieties of creationism arguments is far from universal in Judaism, Islam, or Christianity (the religions which include Genesis in their biblical scripture).

Re:Evolved?

[tabrnaker]

That's what leviticus is for. If you follow the bible you know what to avoid so you don't get worms.

The worms are punishment. Though, we all know that negative reinforcement is better than punishment. The church will get around to changing the bible soon.

Re:Evolved?

[tabrnaker]

OH, so they're real scientists now?

You don't know how bad science can be until you start reading medical journals!

Re:Evolved?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

you are presenting what is, however accurate a presentation of some particular subgroup's arguments it is or isn't, just this one specific thing: viewpoints that could only be attributed to young Earth, Biblical creationism

I deliberately included the arguments of "old Earth creationists" as well, the ones who acknowledge the age of the Earth and "microevolution," but draw a distinction between that and "macroevolution" -- which of course is what kicked off this whole subthread in the first place. "Intelligent Design" is a subset of old Earth creationism, BTW, but disguised with carefully misused scientific terminology to pretend that it's something else.

I agree that not all religions are creationist. However, I will note that all religions (that I'm aware of) do make specific, scientifically testable claims about the nature of reality -- and that when these claims are put to the test, they are inevitably shown to be false, which leads to wailing, gnashing of teeth, and the type of sophistry I talked about above.

Re:Evolved?

[VolciMaster]

Actually, microevolution DOESN'T lead to macroevolution. We haven't documented species splits. We have documented breed splits, but never speciation. But again, you're not willing to listen to any viewpoint other than your own. A shame, really, since you might be an otherwise bright person.

Re:Evolved?

[smitty_the_smith]

Science: Actually, new species do arise from existing species, and here's the proof.

I'd be interested in seeing the evidance for that.
P.S. not all religeous people are that whimpy.

Re:Evolved?

[Retric]

Not true! It has been observed in a species of sunfish.a researcher I know is doing his dissertation on speciation within the pumpkinseed sunfish. The litoral and benthic varieties in several Northern lakes are splitting off with the result that the body shape, feeding and breeding habits are changing. The 2 groups do not interbreed and when crossbred the resulting offspring are sterile.

Speciation is the process where separated populations diverge over time. THIS HAS BEEN OBSERVED.

You're basically saying you can't count from one to 10,000 even though you can count from one to 100, 100 to 200 ECT. Step one separate populations, watch breed splits occur, step the watch as breeds have an increasingly difficult time interbreeding. Once two groups of animals can't produce viable offspring there different species. (This has been seen.)

Re:Evolved?

[M. Baranczak]

The bible was written 100-200 years after the death of Jesus

I can dig the gist of what you're laying down, but the above statement is wrong. The Old Testament was written several hundred years before Jesus. The Gospels were written soon after his death. The Book of Revelations (and possibly some other stuff that I can't remember) was written around the second century AD.

Letterman already?

[mfh]

I smell a rat.

WWF

[alexandreracine]

Dr Mark Robinson, working with WWF Thailand

Really?? Hes a Wrestler?

Re:WWF

[thegamerformelyknown]

Note: Original WWF was World Wildlife Foundation.

The World Wrestling Federation was sued by them, and they are now the WWE.

No wrestling here.

Re:WWF

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I thought those incidents were stupid.

I don't know how other countries handle it (both are international organizations), but two organizations can legally share the same abbreviation in the US, it doesn't matter who was "there" first. Two organizations can have the same abbreviation trademarked too, they just can't be in the same categories, and there are hundreds of categories to choose from, and I think the design must be different, the logo designs were hardly "confusingly similar".

But both organizations do concern themselves with animals, just of a different nature.

Re:WWF

[fataugie]

The Macho Man, Randy Savage?

OHHH YEAAAAHHH!

Re:WWF

[Skevin]

Two organizations can have the same abbreviation trademarked too, they just can't be in the same categories

There's a happy medium somewhere... Haven't you ever watched Animal Face Off on the Discovery Channel?

Solomon Chang

Re:WWF

[Afrosheen]

Well, that's close. It was actually a quote from a Space Ghost episode where Space Ghosts's father showed up and talked smack to Zorak. Voiced by Randy Savage.

Clarification

[skatrek]

AFAIK "family" and "species" mean different things (the mnemonic "King Philip Cried Out For Goodness Sake" comes to mind - the order is kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species) ... they found a new species which is so different they had to make a new family/genus for it?

Re:Clarification

[abulafia]

Well, your fancy old kingdoms and phyla might be right for you, but in my family, I know they rest of them are of a different species, and sometimes I suspect a different order, as well, at least with some of them...

Some of them eat chinese "food" from strip malls, for dog's sake...

Re:Clarification

[benna]

King Philip came over from germany sunday.

Re:Clarification

[eobanb]

No, it doesn't work this way any more. For a bit more of an explanation see this table / timeline.

Re:Clarification

[krunk4ever]

(the mnemonic "King Philip Cried Out For Goodness Sake" comes to mind - the order is kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species)

that's what they taught you in school? we got to learn the real version where King Phillip Calls Out For Great Se... (you can figure the last character) ;p

Re:Clarification

[jericho4.0]

Linnean nomenclature is on it's way out. It implies black and white in a world of grey.

Re:Clarification

[jericho4.0]

Nothing says "I'm a virgin forever" than not having the balls to spell "sex".

Re:Clarification

[hooded1]

My sixth grade science teacher taught it to us as "King Philip Came Over From Germany Stoned"
She was an odd woman

Re:Clarification

[Che Guevarra]

I prefer the "Kathy Put Cookies On Floor, Good Stuff" invented by a friend of mine in junior high. I've never forgotten it.

Re:Clarification

[NegativeOneUserID]

the mnemonic "King Philip Cried Out For Goodness Sake" comes to mind I like to use "Kids, please come over for gay sex".

Re:Clarification

[krunk4ever]

haha. you're no fun.

some things unmentioned instills mystery into the reader. having stuff said out blatantly all the time is no fun. it's sorta like lingerie and women. there's just something very sexy about a woman wearing lingerie that's not the same as a fully nude woman. a fully nude woman no longer has the mysterious effect anymore for the same exact reason.

Can't... parse,,,

[frakir]

The creature known as Kha-Nyou...has been discovered by World Conservation Society researcher Dr. Robert Timmins.

And the other day my dog discovered pepperoni pizza.

Re:Can't... parse,,,

[orion88]

So did my cat. It was really cute watching him eat a slice of pizza bigger than him. But I digress...

-Ben

From TFA

[Albinofrenchy]

From TFA:

Found along side the slender faced rodent was four turtles, with comic head bands. Unfortunatly, the rats previous owner, a martial arts expert, was found killed next to the animals...

Re:From TFA

[Capt'n Hector]

Brilliant, sir. It DOES look like Splinter!

I don't understand...

[slapout]

known as Kha-Nyou to the locals

How could it be discovered if it's already known to someone?

Re:I don't understand...

[oscartheduck]

The same way that the American continent was discovered despite there being millions of people living there already.

Discovered doesn't mean "first discovered". It means something more like "finally discovered by a white human male with either a degree or a lot of money".

Re:I don't understand...

[poopdeville]

Obviously, in this Eurocentric world of ours, a thing is discovered if and only if it is known to Americans.

Silliness aside, we might say that this scientist discovered the Kha-Nyou independently, in much the same way that the Columbus discovered America after that Viking who's name I forget, (possibly China), and the Native Americans.

Re:I don't understand...

[Fred Ferrigno]

Silliness aside, we might say that this scientist discovered the Kha-Nyou independently ...

Well, no.. I don't think you could say even that. He found it at a market. It's obviously well known to the locals. Chances are there are even some Loatians in this country who have heard of it.

He never would have "discovered" it if they hadn't already. It's more like Columbus went to Norway, heard a story about Vinland, and decided to check it out on his way back to Spain.

Re:I don't understand...

[Harinezumi]

The discovery was the fact that these animals were a previously uncatalogued species belonging to a previously uncatalogued family, not the fact that these animals existed.

Re:I don't understand...

[Physician]

One does not have to be the first person to observe something for the term "discover" to be utilized. Was the person who "discovered" Jerry Seinfeld his mom or an executive at NBC? Definition Number One under dictionary.com for discover: 1. To notice or learn, especially by making an effort (If I get a mod point, even if it's -1, then I will count myself lucky)

Re:I don't understand...

[shm]

Well put.

Many years ago I saw the following dialog in a cartoon:

Teacher: "Who discovered the Niagara Falls?"
Little Kid: "The people who lived there."

I think the sequence ends with the little kid wearing dunce's hat.

Re:I don't understand...

[forii]

Obviously, in this Eurocentric world of ours, a thing is discovered if and only if it is known to Americans.

You fail at geography.

Re:I don't understand...

[rob_squared]

Or maybe discovery should be defined as, "disseminated for research across the world." I'm sure there are little loopholes in that phrase, but, oh well.

By the way, I "discovered" your car stero, but I had to circumvent the protection mechanisms to disseminate it.

Re:I don't understand...

[bcrowell]

Discovered doesn't mean "first discovered". It means something more like "finally discovered by a white human male with either a degree or a lot of money".
Oh, please. The point is that it's been placed into the scientific classification scheme for the first time, and now it can be related to the rest of scientific knowledge about mammals.

The planet Uranus is visible to the naked eye. I'm sure countless prehistoric people saw it at one time or another. Ancient people also classified stars and planets differently, since they knew the planets wandered around against the background of the constellations. However, they never noticed that Uranus wandered around, so although they observed it, they didn't interpret the observation in such a way as to fit Uranus into their classification scheme. For scientific purposes, Uranus was not discovered until modern times.

Re:I don't understand...

[Conanymous Award]

Here, "discover" means "described and classified scientifically" or, to put it in a simpler way, "known by science". Science is, after all, the dominant cultural system of accumulating, processing generating and archiving information, even though a local tribe somewhere already knew a certain creature.

Re:I don't understand...

[dtungsten]

I suggest you look up the definition of discover.

any news on the new human species

[Edmund Blackadder]

Anyone have any news on whether those humanoid remains discovered in malaisa were classified as a new species?

Re:any news on the new human species

[MichaelSmith]

Anyone have any news on whether those humanoid remains discovered in malaisa were classified as a new species?

You probably mean Flores Island, Indonesia. This page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3948165.stm has a bit of information about them.

Here is some information about Flores: http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0818960.html

Re:yawn

[Concerned Onlooker]

Read this on Drudge about two days ago...try to keep up next time, Slashdot.

No, no. This one is about Drudge.

No replacement for Nutria

[Sean Clifford]

Cool, I wonder how many other mammals we have running around out there waiting to be discovered? Well, maybe not waiting around to be on Leno...

Since the Kha-Nyou only have one pup at a time there's no hope they can displace Louisiana's Nutria rat problem. Interesting that the Kha-Nyou are vegetarian rats; that's certainly an oddity. Rodents tend to eat pretty much everything (Cat5 cables, cardboard, styrofoam, cafeteria food).

Nutria rats are a serious ecological problem around here (rural Louisiana). If you're bored on the weekend you can get $4 a tail.

Re:No replacement for Nutria

[kevcol]

Interesting that the Kha-Nyou are vegetarian rats; that's certainly an oddity.

I believe the fellow quoted in the article is mistaken- these rodents are vegans.

Re:No replacement for Nutria

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that the Kha-Nyou are vegetarian rats; that's certainly an oddity. Rodents tend to eat pretty much everything (Cat5 cables, cardboard, styrofoam, cafeteria food).

Wow. All this time working with computers, and I never realised that Cat5 was made out of meat. Thanks for the tip!

Re:No replacement for Nutria

[ShadowBlasko]

Because they are somewhat arboreal as well, you might do well to think of them as more squirrel like than rat like. Squirrels are mostly vegetarian, although they will certainly munch on the tasty grub or cicada here and there.

Not all rodents are omnivourus, not even most. Although I will back you up on the fact that certain rodents will eat cat5. One of our rehab squirrels had quite the taste for it. (and floppies, and just about anything that was under my desk)

Re:No replacement for Nutria

[Anonymous Coward]

$4 a tail?! What the hell am I doing in software engineering? Ratcatching here I come.

Re:No replacement for Nutria

[yarbo]

Ratcatching? Think bigger, ratfarming!

Re:No replacement for Nutria

[Feztaa]

Rodents tend to eat pretty much everything (Cat5 cables, cardboard, styrofoam, cafeteria food).

Whoa! I won't even eat cafeteria food!

Re:No replacement for Nutria

[DjReagan]

Well it's certainly not made out of vegetables.

Re:No replacement for Nutria

[dlZ]

"Rodents tend to eat pretty much everything (Cat5 cables, cardboard, styrofoam, cafeteria food). "

All the pet rats I've had always seem to like phone books. If I left a phone book on the floor for them to "play" with, they left everything else alone. I doubt it works for this rat problem, but I always found it amusing how they loved to make a mess of them.

Re:No replacement for Nutria

[lobsterGun]

I was just thinking that!

Re:No replacement for Nutria

[Frumious Wombat]

To the reader suggesting farming them, that's how the problem got started.

Now the Nutria are such a problem that they once paid Paul Prudhomme to come up with Nutria recipes, to encourage people to go out and eat them.

Based on my last trip to Dixie Kitchen before moving east, I don't think those recipes caught on.

Re:No replacement for Nutria

[Rude Turnip]

Hey! I just caught a yellow, 6-foot blue-tipped CAT5 of the Belkin variety! Time for lunch!

"Discovered"?

[Dachannien]

I think the "discovered" used here was in the sense of the old Han Solo line, "What an incredible new smell you've discovered!" As in, everybody stationed on board the Death Star knew the smell was there, but they had the good sense not to go rooting around through it.

Re:"Discovered"?

[vhogemann]

NOT discovered the animail, but discovered what the animal is.

He identified the animal, and classified it according to the scientific standarts. Before it was just a furball that looked like a rat, it could be a marsupial, monotremae, rodent, mustelidae, or any other. But now we know that is a rodent, and member of an entirely new family.

Re:Amazing...

[poopdeville]

Because not every would-be scientist wants to become a biologist.

No problem!

[pyrrhonist]

A little D-Con should take care of it!

What?! They want to conserve this species? Oh.

Nevermind.

The real question then, for this species:

[game kid]

Will it float?

It's not new, just new to these guys.

[loftwyr]

I'm really tired of hearing of "Newly discover species" found by some guy from the western hemisphere that have been known by other regions forever.

How about saying "Western scientists, too lazy to ask around, stumble across a species well known outside their back yard"

Re:It's not new, just new to these guys.

[kfg]

You're the sort of guy who's going to cause trouble when I discover your house, aren't you?

KFG

Re:It's not new, just new to these guys.

[dtungsten]

And I'm really tired of hearing these type of complaints from people who don't know the definition of discover, and try to use it as some sort of political argument in a (supposedly) scientific discussion, so I guess it all works out. :)

How about saying, "loftwy, too lazy to look up the definition of discover, decides to troll with irrelevant anti-western-ism."

Re:furthur proof of evolution?

[Zareste]

Yep, that's pretty solid proof.

My lamp diverged from streetlights millions of years ago.

Good News for O'Reilly

[Anonymous Coward]

We were just running out of book cover animals.

Re:Amazing...

[1u3hr]

And why are we exploring the stars if we can't even find rodent's on earth?

We're exploring the stars? Unless you mean Janet Jackson; no, we're a long, long way from doing that. And do you really think a team of astronomers would be effective at seaching through Lao markets for new rodents?

Why humans rule...

[cfalcon]

We find a new species, and WE ARE ALREADY EATING IT.

"What do you know about this rodent?"
"Very little, we don't yet know where it diverged from modern rodentia. It is, however, *excellent* over rice."

Laos ?

[tinrobot]

I thought all the rats moved to Washington.

Re:Laos ?

[tinrobot]

Not all politicians are lawyers.

Re:Laos ?

[fitten]

...and most rodents wouldn't lower themselves to associate with any of them.

Kha-Nyou translation

[Afrosheen]

This just in! Kha-Nyou is, in the local language, literally translated as 'delicious snack'. Man, what the people in that corner of the world won't eat with some peppers mixed in.

Re:Kha-Nyou translation

[Anonymous Coward]

White people here in America eat possum, squirrel, and other forms of rodent. So what's your point?

Re:Kha-Nyou translation

[Afrosheen]

My point is that it was a joke and the mods didn't get it. Surprise surprise.

My wife is Thai, so I know a little about what that part of the planet eats. I've been known to eat frog, turtle, alligator and snake on occasion, and something like this isn't too shocking.

NY Times article

[zaguar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/science/12rodent .html

The NY Times article about this.

Local farmers and hunters trapped or snared the animals, which they also referred to as rock rats, slaughtered them and took them to market

A species that no western scientist has ever seen, and the locals are trying as hard as they can to make them extinct. It seems to be a common theme in history. Is this the future of mankind on earth?

Re:NY Times article

[DLX]

Quite remarkable. While it is fairly certain that a lot of new species of rodents will emerge from DNA studies of existing rodents (for example, Norway rats (a.k.a. brown rats) have certainly several subspecies and is quite probably more then one species), discovery of any totally new mammal species is rare in modern days. And, in this case, not only is the species new but it is also in new family, which is even rarer. However, did I miss it or didn't any of the articles mention the latin name for the new rodent?

Re:NY Times article

[DLX]

My bad - NYT article had the latin name next to the image: Laonastes aenigmamus. Roughly translates to "Enigmatic Laotian"

Re:NY Times article

[Jesus_666]

A species that no western scientist has ever seen, and the locals are trying as hard as they can to make them extinct. It seems to be a common theme in history. Is this the future of mankind on earth?

Yes, we will all be trapped or snared, slaughtered and taken to market.

Wow. I can't believe it!

[loonicks]

Kha-nYou?

RTFA

[fireboy1919]

Yes. They found a new species that is so differenty they had to make a new family and genus for it.

The articles really short. It took me about 30 seconds to read.

Re:RTFA

[skatrek]

I did read the article ... it kind of uses family and species equivalently though!

Re:RTFA

[HiThere]

Well, the individual corpse is the only known representative of either the species or the family...if you exclude bone fragments found in owl pellets.

To me the article clearly claimed that it was a new family, not just a new species. See, in particular, the quote at the bottom.

Yes, New Family/Genus/Species, total odd-ball

[billstewart]

One of the articles quoted the guy saying, "we knew we had a really odd-ball rodent." Wikipedia has already been updated to identify it as Family Laonastidae, Genus/Species "Laonastes aenigmamus". The Wikipedia author identifies the suborder as "Hystricognathi"; one of the news articles suggested that Timmons thinks that Laonstes may be an early ancestor of that suborder, but that's filtered through reporter-speak.

An article predating this discovery lists 29 Families of Rodentia. The Old-World Hystricognathi include old-world porcupines, mole rats, cane rats, and Dassie rats; the New World families are a lot broader.

"Rodents of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist!

ROUS's?

[mattOzan]

are they of unusual size? I didn't think they existed...Aargh!

Who discovered?

[Hao Wu]

The animal has long whiskers, stubby legs and a tail covered in dense hair and was on sale in a hunters' market ... Known by locals as Kha-Nyou, the rodent is said to be a nocturnal vegetarian that prefers the cover of the forest ... "It was for sale on a table next to some vegetables," said Dr Timmins. "I knew immediately it was something I had never seen before."

Headline should read: "Pompous university jerk buys what working class already found."

Re:Who discovered?

[hyfe]

Headline should read: "Pompous university jerk buys what working class already found."

Kinda like someone discovering a continent where there's already living shitloads of people yeah? (and most likely was 'discovered' by vikings earlier anyways)

Either way, anti-intellectualism is bad okay? There is a difference between a small bunch of locals knowing about something and it being part of the general biological knowledge. Now, the knowledge will be part of what people study, and will be preserved.

I mean, how much of what you know and learn do you think you were the first to find out? Learning is next to always about learning from somebody (often by proxy though), and what markes out a discovery is the first person to discover the signifance of the knowledge.

Re:Who discovered?

[weeeeed]

The highlight of the "discovery" is, that they did not manage to get enough money together to pay the hunters to catch them a life rodent. I guess they spent all of their research money on asian hookers the night before.

According to NYT
"As far as he knew, Dr. Timmins said, no Western scientists have ever seen a kha-nyou alive."

Re:Who discovered?

[OneSmartFellow]

"I knew immediately it was something I had never seen before."

Must be a Stanford Grad, do you suppose he was picking his nose ?

Re:Who discovered?

[owlstead]

For another analogy, Newton could not have discovered gravity because everyone was already using it. Same for E=MC^2 of course. I find that the discovery of a continent is another thing however. One should notice that it was only a discovery for the people on the other continents, at a specific point in time.

The rodent in itself isn't much of a discovery. But the fact that it needs to be classified in such a specific way certainly is, as I presume that the locals didn't know this for a fact. They are - in all probability - blessfully ignorant of this part of science.

Re:Who discovered?

[DigiShaman]

Basically, Russians are the modern day "vikings" today. However, American Indians have thier roots from Asia at the genetic level. Durring the time when the landbridge was available, early humans crossed it from Siberia to the Americas.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=41

Re:Who discovered?

[Jesus_666]

Didn't scientists find hints that before the Siberians came there were people who closely resembled native Australians?

boing boing

[Anonymous Coward]

and as I see they even managed to write up something interesting about it. And look! A screenshot of that kha-nyou thingie...

Discovered?

[kb9vcr]

discover ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skvr)

2. a. To be the first, or the first of one's group or kind, to find, learn of, or observe.

I guess you could technically call it a discovery, it was "discovered" by a group outside of Laos, Thailand and probably the greater South East Asia region. Kind of like how Columbus "discovered" the Americas to everyone who wasn't already living there.

Re:Discovered?

[Afrosheen]

It's not a discovery for humanity, like meeting with aliens or finding another moon around Saturn, but a discovery for the scientific community at large.

I can imagine something like this would be very exciting, considering that nearly all mammals, rodents and other large creatures are already filed away. Insects, bacteria, and deep sea life are still being discovered, but something this large is very unusual.

Re:I though it was

[jim_v2000]

Forgot to post anon...oh well.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

For the Working Class

THanks

Re:They naed it Darlus McBridus

[ramblin billy]

Yeah. The one at the 'hunters market' was the last female. Fur traders are offering 10 beads, 2 pocket mirrors, and a snickers bar for the last male. Paris Hilton wants a new case for her ipod.

billy - anyone seen any baby seals?

Re:can you sink any lower?

[kfg]

It's disturbing enough that there are people out there eating rodents.

North American rodents quite commonly found on someone's dinner table include, porcupine, squirrel, woodchuck, prarie dog, marmot, and yes, beaver (he, he!)

Just because you can't find it wrapped in plastic and the Grand Union or Piggly Wiggly don't mean it ain't damn good eatin'.

I suppose you're going to get really weirded out when I mention that there are huge swaths of the US where a good cicada "hatch" is considered a bit of a tasty holiday time.

KFG

for a second....

[mangus_angus]

I thought the RIAA and MPAA had cross bred some evil little thing...

What a load of hype

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen pictures. Its just a normal mouse with a scrollwheel...

Lawyers, people!

[philovivero]

This story has been sitting here for HOURS already, and no-one's made any good lawyer joke postings rated +5 funny, yet? Come on people? Where are your priorities?!?!

It's Friday night in California! The weather's beautiful! Get in front of your terminals and start making those lawyer jokes. Slashdot was built for my entertainment, and you're not coming through.

OK, just because it's on for the last time

[Marko DeBeeste]

In best Shatner tone: KHHAAAA---------N

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's like Art...

[NotQuiteReal]

It isn't Art unless other Artistic types deem it so.

In this case, the rodent in question wasn't discovered until those who care about such things proclaim it discovered.

In other news, everything else is just as it was before, just a day older, whether you knew it or not. Carry on.

MOD PARENTS DOWN!

[johansalk]

What idiot modded your post insightful??!! that was the most idiotic thing I read today; Just because you can munch and swallow doesn't make you an expert in the scientific field of nutrition. Likewise, just because you caught a rodent and put it on sale doesn't make you an expert contributor to the scienfific classification of species.

You mean there are people north of North

[MichaelPenne]

Dakota?

You may have something there, I'd suggest you publish!

Re:paypal?

[Hao Wu]

I did not say this (I won't post anonymous) but I agree.

Re:china

[ketamine-bp]

more accurately, in china, the saying is "if its belly face downwards, its edible"

Cowabunga!

[phos-phoros]

last seen in a NYC sewer speaking philosophical phrases to three heroes in a half shell. Film at 11...

Re:Cowabunga!

[ocularDeathRay]

its so sad... people always forget Donatello.

Re:paypal?

[DLX]

"crap they saw on a local market"??? That "crap" happened to be a new species of mammal, not to mention it belonged to a new family. At modern times, perhaps 2-3 new species of mammals are discovered every year (more then that go extinct). I cannot even remember when there was a new family of mammals that was not created by systematics but by actually describing a new species. Think of it as this. A new CPU comes out much more often then a new species of mammals. See how many "sensational" press that gets.

Re:china

[kjoonlee]

I think it's more like, "We eat everything with four legs, except chairs and tables. We eat everything with wings, except airplanes and helicopters."

Re:discoveries, eh?

[oneiron]

To discover is to reveal to the modern scientific pool of thought...

There's already an answer to that...

[Dimensio]

...it's called "sin". Sin is deadly. Especially, apparently, to newborn children who presumably are the worst sinners of all.

Re:can you sink any lower?

[Reene]

I'm sure you can name the genus and species of every creature you shove into your mouth, keeping in mind the variety of rodents and insects you ingest with your fruit and vegetable products.

Unless you've actually tried rodent meat, you really have no place judging people for eating it. What would you do if a Hindu person popped in here and started berating Americans for eating beef and using cow products? At least in their case it's a religious issue.

Re:rat ...

[flynns]

Or, as might be said...

who gives a rat's ass?

obligatory word play

[dthx1138]

Kha-Nyou guess what it is?

Additional information about the Rodent

[Radiate]

TIM:
Well, that's no ordinary rabbit!
ARTHUR:
Ohh.
TIM:
That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!

Re:Additional information about the Rodent

[whitehatlurker]

Well, I'll be modded down, but rabbits aren't rodents ... they're lagomorphs.

...and everyone else in the world

[fireboy1919]

It's local. The local community hasn't gone to other parts of the world and become experts in mammal taxonomy so that they could come back and say "hey, this rodent is different from all of the others!"

If they had, they surely would have gotten credit for it. Further, I'm sure that any taxonomist from the East would have gotten the credit had they discovered it.

Further, how do you expect the scientists to "ask around?" Randomly enter countries and say "hey, do you have any species that are unlike any of the ones elsewhere in the world?" Do you really expect the locals to know this?

Give them some credit. Because the differences are so small now, the only people who have the background to classify new animals found today are taxonomists, and they are an elite group not because they're from the west, but because there aren't very many of them.

Even if most of them are from the west, that's no reason to discredit them. The scientific community is very open to all comers - anyone who's smart is welcome.

Re:...and everyone else in the world

[Highlander]

Sounds like the makings for a horrible TV show

"An elite group of taxonomists, known as The X Team"

H

"Discovered"?

[giminy]

The creature known as Kha-Nyou to the locals is so unique it represents an entire new family of wildlife.

How exactly does this guy get credit for discovering a species when the locals have obviously known about it for long enough to give it a name? Shouldn't they be given the credit for "discovering" it?

What a cutie...

[bytor4232]

This is one cute little critter. Too cute. I'm sure it will wind up in exotic pet shops soon.

A new species of rodent has been found

[Zeussy]

"A new species of rodent has been discovered by a /. Reader. He found this creature on his desk. The creature known as Human Computer Interface device to the locals is so unique it represents an entire new species of wildlife. HCID diverged from other rodents about 30 years ago."

In other news ...

[houghi]

Dr. Robert Timmins also stated that it tasted just like chicken.

Re:So what does it taste like?

[fitten]

Spotted Owl, of course.

Bah!

[Pope Raymond Lama]

It is only another rat, from the drawing. I was expecting something really different and scary.

Discovered?

[freddled]

How can something that 'the locals' have a name for be 'discovered'. In what context is this discovery? Are the locals non-human in some way or has the 'discoverer' meerely dehumanised them in order to get his/her name into the species list.

Doubt It

[ignipotentis]

"To find something so distinct in this day and age is just extraordinary. For all we know, this could be the last remaining mammal family left to be discovered," Dr Timmins said. ... I doubt it. Why do we think we know everything?

OLD NEWS

[netglen]

OLD NEWS. What's wrong with /. for allowing this to post?

Re:Actually,

[Lars T.]

God created evolution to punish creatonists.

I knew it!

[Spikeman56]

my family and i was hiking around in Arizona I think and we were on this trail that led to some ancient indian ruins.

well anyways, so we were looking around in the caves and we saw some creatures... and we were oOoOoOh! and then one moved... it looked like a mouse but it walked like a lizard, it was the weirdest thing... actually it looked a lot like the thing in this report. we called it a lizard mice. and then my dad went screaming ahh you'll get the plaugue!! so then we had to quickly get going...

haha end of story

I, for one,...

[Conanymous Award]

...welcome our new rodent overlords.

And can you imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these critters? The gnawing potential..!

Re:I, for one,...

[Borg453b]

I was waiting for that one to show.

Just last week...

[Ogman]

They found a new species just last week in New York City. The bronxus giganticus was spotted driving a subway train in uniform. Reports that it ate the human driver are so far unconfirmed, but the train was on time for the rest of the afternoon.

It looks like a rat

[Che Guevarra]

Did anyone else think that a "Totally new species" might be a little more exciting looking? This thing is a rat. Does it atleast not taste like chicken?

Re:can you sink any lower?

[DigiShaman]

You know, I do find it rather interesting that we have this craving for meat from a bovine in the west. Why is that? Is it a culture thing, or do we humans really like beef?

BTW, I love beef.

Re:Wholphin gives birth

[whitehatlurker]

They got Whale-Dolphin hybrids.

Article says this was the result of "a surprise coupling between a 14-foot, 2,000-pound false killer whale and a 6- foot, 400-pound dolphin." That sure was one surprised false killer whale!

Another A to R

[darkonc]

The CBC has a slightly more detailed article (including related links). It also mentions that they found a new species of rabbit.

Creationists are Liars

[Theatetus]

Scum.

From post 12529332:

What macroevolution have we *observed*? We have deduced it from evidence, but what new species did we observe?

An example of a new species was offered.

Now, from post 12529710:

This is still only evidence for speciation (microevolution). No observations of macroevolution have ever been made.

You are all pathetic lying scum who can't even be bothered to learn the basics of biology. Which is it? Is speciation micro or macro? Here's a thought: Why don't you define a quantity of allele shift (you do know what "allele" means, right? I sure hope so) that you consider to constitute "macroevolution". Come up with a quantity, and I'll show it to you.

I get so sick of you lying, pathetic scum.

Be a bit more fair

[HiThere]

He's saying that "we know that species can vary, but that we don't know that new species can be created". But he's trying to sound scientific, so he's creating (or adopting?) scientific sounding terms. Likely he can't easily define them, but this doesn't mean that he knows they are illegitimate (without a real definition).

The point is nearly correct. We've only observed a very few species being created, and most of those would only be known to be new species by a biologist who was tracking them. (And recently we've discovered that occasionally some groups that professional biologists had thought were on species were actually two separate species. It took gene typing to determine the difference. So the notion ISN'T obvious.)

Sorry...

[pottymouth]

Geez did I get the wrong article!! I thought this was about Bill Gates....

Re:can you sink any lower?

[Old Wolf]

They're all varieties of Palatablus Withketchupii

Re:can you sink any lower?

[Terminal Saint]

I know, eating rodents, so disgusting. But you know what's worse? I've heard there are people out there who actually eat birds, and even cows and pigs!

/sarcasm

Honestly, think about what you're going to say before you say it. If we're going to eat any kind of animal who are we to judge people for eating a slightly different kind of animal? How is eating a goat any different than eating a dog?

it's very funny how no one else noticed...

[KillShill]

kha-nyou

can also be read as

khan-you

aka con - you....

Flamebait

[dunc78]

This comment shouldn't have been modded anything other then what it is... flamebait. For as much as people on here bash "religious zealots", 99% of the religious arguments on here are not started by the "religious zealots". Its ashame there cannot be any comments that don't lead to either M$ sucks or Religion sucks.

"Guinea pig"

[Artemis3]

They have been doing that in Peru for centuries...

Re:So what does it taste like?

[SEWilco]

It must taste good enough that some brave hunter had it for sale at the market.

Re:can you sink any lower?

[tokabola]

[voice = "elmerfudd"] Mama's widdle baby luvs wabbit, wabbit, Mama's widdle baby luvs wabbit stew [/voice]

Rabbit is fairly common table fair, I've even seen it grocery stores and on restaurant menus here in the US, and Rabbits are rodents. I'd be willing to bet these "new" rodents are fairly tasty. They are vegetarians, as are most of the other animals we eat, keeping in mind that pigs would eat meat, they just aren't given any (on a farm anyway - YMMV with wild boar).

Seriously, if you marinated it in a decent Reisling with garlic, thyme, and a touch of basil these guys could be delish!

Tommy

Re:Psssst

[tabrnaker]

You must be american, i assume you believe in destruction then? :)

Re:furthur proof of evolution?

[Zareste]

You really don't know the fine art of pseudo-science, do you? Shame shame. The trick is to look at something and put together a heavily unlikely string of coincidences to lead to its existence. A lamp, for example, could come from chemicals falling together and being ignited by a lava flow and entering a crystal enclosure, leading up to the modern lamps we have now. People could come from monkeys and fish. My couch could come from sheep mutating into cushions. Add a few million years and they'll be enforcing it with the school system in no-time.

Second step is how to debunk the counter-evidence. It usually works just to say "Anything proving this wrong is a religious hallucination conspiracy hoax." And you're all set.