Slashdot Mirror


New Mammal Species Found in Borneo

lemonysam writes "The BBC is reporting that a new mammal species has been discovered in Borneo by a conservation group trying to document the local species, as part an effort to prevent the destruction of their habitat by logging and agriculture. The species, which has not been identified by local experts or the indigenous population, is roughly the size of a domestic cat and is believed to be carnivorous."

64 of 363 comments (clear)

  1. But by LardBrattish · · Score: 4, Funny

    What does it taste like?

    --
    What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
    1. Re:But by tpgp · · Score: 4, Funny

      If it's a carnivore as the article speculates, then almost certainly not very good.

      Poodles for instance taste horrible

      --
      My pics.
    2. Re:But by core+plexus · · Score: 4, Interesting
      If it's a carnivore as the article speculates, then almost certainly not very good.

      I disagree. I've eated bear more than once, and it was pretty good. I've also eaten whale, seal, and walrus (But I never had Walrus Penis served to me in a restaurant). They have a strong fishy taste, but I'm OK with that. Not sure if they qualify as a carnivore, however. If so, then I could include some of the bug-eating birds and bug-eating bugs I've eaten.

      I like to try different things. I once was stranded in the Bush (Alaska), and had a diet of ground squirrels. One day, I noticed some ground squirrels eating the remains (uncooked) of some of my previous ground squirrel kills. I ate a lot of them that month.

    3. Re:But by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Funny
      I noticed some ground squirrels eating the remains

      What I don't understand is how those ground squirrels could eat after you grounded them. Did you ground them so course that they came out in one piece after the grounding?

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    4. Re:But by trollable · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bear is not carnivorus, it is omnivorus like pig and human. Whale is not carnivorus, it eats plancton. Dogs are canivorus. Many fish are also eating other fish, I don't know if they qualify. Tyranosaurus are carnivorus too, never eat one of them.

    5. Re:But by turtledawn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      i know, i know, responding to someone openly going by the name trollable. My biologist's background won't let me leave this be, though.

      If the grandparent was living in the bush in Alaska and ate his bear there, it may well have been living entirely off of salmon runs, in which case it would have been carnivorous when he ate it. As for whales, that depends upon the species of whale; the baleen whales eat krill, which is composed of small shrimp-like creatures while orcas- killer whales? you've heard of them -are most certainly carnivorous. Dogs on the other hand will eat just about anything if they have to- rabbit droppings (good source of fiber, those) come to mind. They prefer meat but don't require it in the way that cats do. Tyranosaurus probably tasted at least a little bit like chicken, and quite possibly modern factory farm chicken at that... Do you know what your food's been eating?

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    6. Re:But by core+plexus · · Score: 2, Informative
      If the grandparent was living in the bush in Alaska and ate his bear there, it may well have been living entirely off of salmon runs, in which case it would have been carnivorous when he ate it.

      I did indeed eat bears in the Bush in Alaska, and still do. Besides eating salmon, they also eat carrion, baby moose, ground squirrels (they spend a day digging for them), whale carcasses, etc. They only eat grass when there's nothing else to eat, or their too old, and they only eat berries before going to bed. Also, in the fall the baby Moose and Caribou are too fast and smart to catch.

    7. Re:But by trollable · · Score: 2, Informative

      But even if bears are classified in the carnivora order,
      "Bears live in a variety of habitats from the tropics to the Arctic and from forests to snowfields. They are mainly omnivorous." (Wikipedia)

      About dogs: "Presently, there is academic discussion as to whether domestic dogs are omnivores or carnivores. The classification in the Order Carnivora does not necessarily mean that a dog's diet must be restricted to meat. Unlike an obligate carnivore, such as a cat, a dog is not dependent on meat protein in order to fulfill its dietary requirements." (Wikipedia)

    8. Re:But by quigonn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And dolphins are actually Odontoceti (toothed _whales_). QED.

      --
      A monkey is doing the real work for me.
    9. Re:But by JerkBoB · · Score: 4, Funny

      They were eating the brains and guts of their denmates.

      Were they also shambling around and moaning "BRRRRRAAAAAAAIIIIIIINNNNNNNSSSSSS..." in little, high-pitched voices?

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
  2. NEW WINTER FASHION by blueadept1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just HAVE to have a coat with this critter's fur as trim.

  3. New "species" of "mammal"? by nurhussein · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It should be a species of a particular genus, no? Mammals are an entire class of organisms, where if the species is new we should at least be able to identify the genus (and order, and family).

    1. Re:New "species" of "mammal"? by presidentbeef · · Score: 4, Informative

      The article mentions:

      "It's more likely to be a viverrid - that's the family which includes the mongoose and civets - which is a very poorly known group," Dr Isaac said.

      That being said, they only have two photographs of it so far, so it's hard to tell what it is...

      --
      Everything I need to know about copyrights I learned from Slashdot.
    2. Re:New "species" of "mammal"? by Eightyford · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a question: Aren't class, order, genus, and family entirely arbitrary? Shouldn't we now classify living things entirely with genetics?

    3. Re:New "species" of "mammal"? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Informative

      > I have a question: Aren't class, order, genus, and family entirely arbitrary? Shouldn't we now classify living things entirely with genetics?

      Not entirely arbitrary. What's somewhat arbitrary is how high in the tree of life the branches that get those labels are. Unfortunately it's a big messy tree that wasn't designed for the convenience of classification.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:New "species" of "mammal"? by mrRay720 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it's a big messy tree that wasn't designed for the convenience of classification

      In fact, it wasn't designed at all! I'm sure you didn't really mean that, but let's not go giving the nutjobs ammo, eh.

      That asside, it's incidents like this that just help show how little we still understand about our own world, yet we're still merrily destroying enormous parts of it. How many wonders will now never be known because of our actions this past century? How many will cease to exist in the coming one?

    5. Re:New "species" of "mammal"? by StoatBringer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Obviously a very, very small Bigfoot.

      --
      Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
    6. Re:New "species" of "mammal"? by Schemat1c · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That asside, it's incidents like this that just help show how little we still understand about our own world, yet we're still merrily destroying enormous parts of it. How many wonders will now never be known because of our actions this past century? How many will cease to exist in the coming one?

      I think the words of George Carlin can answer that best.

      "This planet has put up with much worse than us. It's been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, pole reversals, planetary floods, worldwide fires, tidal waves, wind and water erosion, ice ages and hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets, asteroids, and meteors. You think a few plastic bags and aluminum cans are going to make a difference?

      The planet isn't going anywhere, folks, we are! We're going away. Pack your shit - we won't leave much of a trace. Thank God for that. Nothing left. Maybe just a little Styrofoam. The planet will be here, and we'll be gone. Another failed mutation; another closed-end biological mistake.

      The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. And it will heal itself, because that what it does; it's a self-correcting system. The air and water and earth will recover and be renewed. And if plastic isn't really degradable, most likely the planet will incorporate it into a new paradigm: The Earth Plus Plastic.

      The Earth doesn't have a particular prejudice against plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. Perhaps she sees it as one of her many children. It could be the reason the Earth allowed us to be spawned here in the first place. She wanted plastic, but didn't know how to get it!

      Philosophers say, "Why are we here?" The planet says, "Plastic, asshole!""

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    7. Re:New "species" of "mammal"? by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      NY city will be unburied and it will be easily preserved.

      New York is on the coast. It'll only take a few tsunami to shift it, and over millions of years there'll be plenty of those.

      Perhaps, 60 million years or so from now, one would find traces of the megacities if one looked carefully in the right place. I suspect our deep earthworks might be longer-lasting; I can't see much that's likely to shift the Channel Tunnel, for instance.

      And if the next intelligent race arises when we're as long gone as the last dinosaurs, I'll tell them one place they can look where they'll surely find some of our relics. And a message. 'Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon, July 1969. We came in peace for all mankind. Signed, Richard Nixon.'

      That will last a while, but the meteorites will eventually powder it, and the dying Sun will consume Earth and Moon alike. Will anything of ours last longer still? Thus far, I can think of four candidates. Pioneer 10 and 11, and Voyager 1 and 2. Maybe they'll be found. Maybe someone will come across them and know we were once here, long after the Sun is a dying ember of degenerate carbon. But I doubt it. Space is a big place in which to look for a few tiny, silent, eons-dead robots.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    8. Re:New "species" of "mammal"? by deander2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      > The Earth doesn't have a particular prejudice against
      > plastic. Plastic came out of the earth.

      ah yes. i remember sitting around the fire as a wee little lad, listening to my grand-pappy tell us about his days in the ol' west virginia plastic mines. tough work, that was. ;)

    9. Re:New "species" of "mammal"? by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Funny
      Ok, see now, your just depressing me :)

      Well, let's assume someone does find Voyager and explores the records of our civilisation that it carries. They decipher the symbols. The notation. The waveform encoded in a spiral groove on a disc of gold. You know what they'll find? The last song of all human culture to survive intact and playable in the universe?

      Deep down Louisiana close to New Orleans, way back up in the woods among the evergreens, there stood a log cabin made of earth and wood where lived a country boy named Johnny B Goode, who never ever learned to read or write so well, but he could play a guitar just like ringing a bell...

      Happy now? I think it's very comforting. We may be long extinct, our world evaporated, our sun shrunken and fading, but whatever unimaginable alien intelligence finds our capsules will at least know that, for a while, we were here and we rocked.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    10. Re:New "species" of "mammal"? by jackbird · · Score: 2, Informative
      Glass is fluid and will gradually flow down in its frame until a critical point is reached and it shatters.

      Sorry, that's elementary school science bullshit. We have intact glass vessels from the Romans. A couple hundred year-old windowpane didn't flow, it was wedge-shaped to begin with and installed in the stongest possible way.

      The overall gist of your comment is pretty right on, though.

    11. Re:New "species" of "mammal"? by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      In fact, it wasn't designed at all! I'm sure you didn't really mean that, but let's not go giving the nutjobs ammo, eh.

      The taxonomic system is most certainly designed. There is no such thing as a "tree of life." It is a human construction. If you look back through biological history, you can plot the descendency of various genetic lines, and these plots look tree-like. But the only thing that exists, right now, are the "leaves" of that tree -- individual species.

      But nature itself has no need for names and systems to organize the various types of life forms. Life simply is what it is. We humans impose our abstractions on reality, not vice versa. Taxonomy is synthetic.

  4. Whats left? by Da3vid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What is even more interesting is not only is it a mammal, but it is a carnivore. This means that is relatively high on the food chain, but it has gone unnoticed thus far. This begs the next question: has it really gone unnoticed for so long, or has the species only recently evolved? We discover new insects and bactera all the time, but discovering a new mammal kind of revives that scientific ambition in all of this that there really are some things out there that haven't been found.

    1. Re:Whats left? by Da3vid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but categories like "species" are things that we have created, not nature. Sure, it is easy to draw some lines like between a bird and a fish, but at others it is not so easy. When does one species no longer count as its former kind, but a new kind? It is feasible that this animal was once classified as something else, or was closely related to something else and avoided attention that way, and it has just now been noticed it has enough characteristics that we decided to call it something new.

      If thats the case, isn't this just a headline reading, "Person decides to call something something different!" Not that I'm claiming this is the case, but it could easily be.

      -Da3vid-

    2. Re:Whats left? by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      but it has gone unnoticed thus far. This [raises] the next question: has it really gone unnoticed for so long, or has the species only recently evolved?

      TFA says that considering the long muscular tail, it may well be arboreal, not on the ground much, and is also probably nocturnal. So not that likely to bump into.

    3. Re:Whats left? by Council · · Score: 4, Funny

      However, the long and muscular tail, as well as other features of the nose and digestive system, are covered under several broad Microsoft patents. Extermination is expected to commence shortly.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    4. Re:Whats left? by tedgie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, Animals higher in the food chain exsist in lower numbers because of the low amount of energy transfered between each level of the food chain. So I can understand why this creature has yet to be found... especially in somewhere as obscure as the jungles of Borneo

    5. Re:Whats left? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      there really are some things out there that haven't been found.

      Oh you better believe there are things out there which haven't been found. From the recently confirmed giant squid to a thing my girlfriend in the Philippines found crawling in her house ("many legs" was the best description she could offer, and they had to get the neighbours in to corral and nail the bugger, which was as long as her arm) there are a whole lot of critturs that western science has never even heard of out there. Particularily in south east asia where a good deal of the small islands haven't even been accurately charted, never mind subjected to a full eco-survey.

      There probably aren't any dinosaur islands hiding out there, but to think that we have a comprehensive catalogue of even the land based animals on earth is just optimism at this stage.

    6. Re:Whats left? by arose · · Score: 3, Informative

      Giant squids have been confirmed for some time now, what they managed recently is photographing a live one.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    7. Re:Whats left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Okay, scary thought: how do we _know_ men can't interbreed with other great apes? It's not like it's been tried much or something?

    8. Re:Whats left? by Woldry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is an oft-stated but ill-supported definition of "species". It's more problematic in botany than in zoology -- i.e., it seems to be far easier to create hybrids across species lines when interbreeding plants (think tangelos) than when interbreeding animals. But even in zoology it's not a firm rule. For example, donkeys and horses are considered separate species, but they produce viable offspring, and sometimes (rarely) those offspring are fertile.

      At the other end of the species definition problem you have things like ring species. Are the individuals at either end of the ring different species, because they can't interbreed with individuals at the other end? Or are they the same species, because they can each interbreed with individuals from the intermediate areas?

      Granted, these are rare phenomena. But they serve to illustrate that the definition of "species" is much hazier than the "can breed" sound byte suggests.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    9. Re:Whats left? by eMartin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry about the details. His post was just an excuse to claim he has a girlfriend.

  5. New most endanged species? by joey_knisch · · Score: 2, Insightful


    I suppose they are since WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEY EXISTED!

    Take that northern spotted owl.

    1. Re:New most endanged species? by joey_knisch · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not as endanged as proper spelling on slashdot.

      Time for bed...

    2. Re:New most endanged species? by ArwynH · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean it wasn't endangered before we found it, but now that we have it's DOOMED! Right?

  6. New Species? by MrApples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems that the title is a bit misleading.

    "So far, two images are all that exist. But they were enough to convince Nick Isaac from the Institute of Zoology in London that the animal may indeed be new. "The photos look most like a lemur," he told the BBC News website. "But there certainly shouldn't be lemurs in Borneo." "

    This all sounds incredibly ethereal to me. Thus I find it odd that they say "New Species Found..."

  7. Continuous creationism by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 5, Funny

    The species only actually sprung into existence about a year ago. You can tell that, because the local people still don't remember seeing it. Soon, the locals will remember it, complete with a history and folklore. By then it may be real enough that it can exist as a zoo specimen, rather than a mere couple of blurry photos.

    Even now, its fossil ancestors are probably forming spontaneously in the rocks of Borneo.

    1. Re:Continuous creationism by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Funny
      Even now, its fossil ancestors are probably forming spontaneously in the rocks of Borneo.

      Toto, I think we're in Kansas...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  8. Re:"recently evolved" by Da3vid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Haven't you ever heard of the X-Men? Not only did this thing recently evolve, it probably has adamantium claws and super regeneration.

    -Da3vid-

  9. Re:Let me be the first to say... by gowen · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let me be the first to say: that's not actually funny. Is it even a joke?
    Why would a mammal cause France to surrender? What's the historical analogy? Is this from the Fox News version of "The Daily Show"? What gives?

    You can't create jokes by adding cliches to news stories.

    New mammal found : "It's A Trap" says Akbar -- not funny
    New mammal found : "GWB can't pronounce its name" -- not funny
    New mammal found in Indonesia : US Govt pleased since they won't have to ship it to Indonesia in order to torture it as a Terror suspect -- not funny

    Don't give up the day job.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  10. Pokemon by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Funny

    Its a Pokemon!

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  11. Messed up logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The photos look most like a lemur," he told the BBC News website. "But there certainly shouldn't be lemurs in Borneo."

    Tell that to the fucking lemurs in Borneo.

  12. Brontosaurus by macaddct1984 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Was it just me, or did the image of the new mammal first look like a tiny brontosaurus?

  13. Looks a lot like a Fossa by madaxe42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It really looks like a Fossa - usually native to Madagascar. Wikipedia Fossa.

    It's a member of the Viverridae family, which is fairly poorly known, due to their being a) nocturnal b) rare and c) furtive.

    1. Re:Looks a lot like a Fossa by madaxe42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      More pictures and videos here

      As an aside, does anyone else have problems with copy/paste in firefox 1.5?

  14. Obligatory Futurama reference by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Funny

    Narrator: Bigfoot: Endangered Mystery! In the dense forests of the Pacific Northwest dwells the strange and beautiful creature known as Bigfoot, perhaps.

    Fry: That proves it!

    Narrator: Sadly, logging and human settlement today threaten what might possibly be his habitat, although if it's not, they don't. Bigfoot populations require vast amounts of land to remain elusive in. They typically dwell just behind rocks, but are also sometimes playful, bounding into thick fogs and out-of-focus areas. Remember, it's up to us. Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy unless he doesn't exist. The end!

  15. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Sique · · Score: 2, Informative

    As a matter of fact: France fought the most wars in modern history (that's since the 15th century). It fought more than Great Britain, Prussia and Austria (the other large nations in Europe with many battles) together. As far as I remember, it was more than 2000 wars with french involvement, compared with 500-700 for each of the other nations. The U.S. come not even close to a 10th of the numbers of France. And if french troups have surrendered here and there, the quote is still smaller than that of other nations (otherwise France would not be here anymore).

    Jokes about France surrendering sheet more light on uneducated jokers than on french national characteristics. If you really want a nation to make jokes about because of constant bad luck in battles, take Saxony: No major victory in battle since the second siege of Vienna. Frederick the Great of Prussia once joked: Saxony is like a sack of flour: You can beat it as often as you want, there is still something coming out (Yes, I am of saxon origin).

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  16. More importantly by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 3, Funny

    does it run (Fe)Linux?

    I'll get my hat....

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  17. What shall we call it ...? by neiljt · · Score: 4, Funny

    BBC TV reported that there was some debate over what the new beastie should be called. The leader of the team which discovered it was one Stephan Wulffraat.

    I know what my money's on.

  18. Rodents Of Unusual Size?... by Mendy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...I don't think they exist.

    1. Re:Rodents Of Unusual Size?... by madaxe42 · · Score: 2, Informative
  19. Re:Acham's Razor by Oakey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about this (true story). I live in Blackpool, a seaside town on the North West of England, the last place you'd expect to find a ring tailed lemur considering they're supposed to be confined to Madagascar (with the obvious exception of Zoo's, etc).

    A few years ago my friend came home for his dinner, on arrival his mum said "There's a monkey in the back garden". He just looked at her like she had gone insane and says "yeah, of course there is", she replies "no, really, there is. There's a monkey in the garden. I've seen it!". So he looks out and there's nothing there, looks back at his mum and just rolls his eyes at her. So he gets his dinner and tells her "I'm going to go eat this in the conservatory and watch the giraffes and the elephants in the garden". 10 minutes or so pass and he's eating his food, and he looks up to see a lemur sat on the grass looking at him through the window.

    They eventually managed to trap it in the shed and called someone from the zoo or RSPA to come and get it. They figure it was smuggled into the country and either someone had enough of it or it escaped.

    So in answer to your question, I'd say there's a healthy black market in lemurs

    --
    "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
  20. Talk about a can of worms you just opened by Flying+pig · · Score: 4, Informative
    Well, no, they aren't arbitrary, except in the pedantic sense that arbitrary means by making a judgement - as in the word "arbitration", and not in its modern sense of "just one person's opinion". They are based around the understanding of taxonomy available at the time. (And, ultimately, from the religious concept of the chain of being - it's remarkable that current Christian fundamentalism is actually regressive compared to 17th and 18th century Protestantism, and proof that society goes backwards as well as forwards.)

    The whole area of the filing of lifeforms - taxonomy - is in a state of flux, and the best way to get a grip on it is to read the popular writings of Jay Gould, who is so sadly no longer with us. Classification with genetics is at an early stage and we still do not know how to measure genetic difference reliably - which is why there is now disagreement over how closely human beings and chimpanzees are related. We can measure very small genetic divergences in the same species, but measuring the size and significance of genetic diferences between related species is very hard.

    Disclaimer - I am not a taxonomist, just someone who is interested in the subject. Which is why I urge you to read Jay Gould. Even if you aren't really that interested in the subject, his writings should be familiar to any reasonably well informed slashdot reader.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Talk about a can of worms you just opened by metlin · · Score: 2, Funny

      to any reasonably well informed slashdot reader.

      Ah, now *that* would be proof of Intelligent Design, right there! ;)

      You are new here, aren't you, boy?

  21. Decided... by earthstar · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From TFA
    It is concerned that other as yet unknown creatures may go extinct before their existence can be documented.

    So IT IS decided that these animals will go extinct is it?Documentaion of them is the main concern?!! huh.
  22. for shame... by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 2, Funny

    no posts welcoming our new feline-marsupial hybrid red-furred overlords? for shame...

  23. New species by Tux2slack · · Score: 3, Funny

    I find new species all the time in my fridge :> One of them ate my domestic cat.

    --
    Tux2slack
  24. "believed to be carnivorous" by Jivecat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh sure -- you eat one conservationist, and they tag you a carnivore.


    --
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."--Feynman
  25. Re:Solitary Protest by flyinwhitey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right, god forbid those people actually living in Borneo be allowed to scrape out a living.

    Shut up, your "righteous indignation" fails when people will have to starve for your conscience to be soothed.

    --
    How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
  26. Re:what I want to know by mcspoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Horse pucky. Ask anyone: What does WWF mean?
    World Wrestling Federation

    Only tree huggers have a problem with that. Regardless, check the patents now and see WHO owns WWF.

    Hint: it's NOT the World Wildlife Fund anymore.

  27. A fossa-like vivverid is pretty exciting... by argent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My first thought was that Nick Isaac was smoking something good. It sure looks like a fossa to me, and it's possibly a related viverrid. That could lead to a real breakthrough in our understanding of the Malagasay viverrids. As far as I know there really aren't any close relatives of the fossa anywhere else in the world, and this could help solve the question of whether the fossa (Cryptoprocta Ferox) and the malagasay civet (confusingly categorised as Fossa Fossana) are related or not.

  28. Not quite by jd · · Score: 3, Informative
    Baeleen whales do indeed eat plankton (and sometimes krill), as they are filter-feeders. Toothed whales eat larger fish (sometimes caught in a net of air bubbles a group of whales will produce), squid and other larger sea creatures. Dolphins (which are technically in the whale family) are even known to eat porpoises (also in the whale family). Interestingly, there is actually footage of Orcas (which are dolphins) throwing porpoises through the air with their tail repeatedly to each other, before killing and eating them.


    Toothed whales cannot (as far as I know) eat plankton, so they are definitely carnivores. Krill is animal, as are zooplankton (as opposed to phytoplankton, which is plant, and bacterioplankton, which is bacterial). This means that Baeleen whales are eating both plant and animal, so are technically omnivores.


    Dogs are also omnivores - well, maybe I should say that they THINK they're omnivores. T. Rex was probably omnivore - there is evidence it ate plant material - and if they ever extract any DNA from the T. Rex organic material they've found, you may yet get the chance to eat one. Or vice versa.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Not quite by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

      My bad - the two links I was thinking of (Killer Dino Turned Vegitarian and Dinosaurs Got Munchies For Grass do not refer to T. Rex. (Mind you, they don't completely rule it out, either. "Indiscriminate eaters" is an interesting term.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)