Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
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...
"A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
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.
We were just running out of book cover animals.
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!
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
are they of unusual size? I didn't think they existed...Aargh!
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
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.
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
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.
"He does look a bit Oompa like, even if his Loompa is a bit off-kilter."
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:
... 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.
... 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.
... 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.
... okay ... (etc.)
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
Science: Actually, populations of living things change all the time, and here's the proof.
Religion: Um
Science: Actually, new species do arise from existing species, and here's the proof.
Religion: Um
Science: Actually, humans aren't all that different from other animals, and here's the proof.
Religion: Um
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.