New Great Ape Found

New Great Ape found in Sumatra. Which is also the supposed home of the Orang Pandek a different crypto great ape. If a new great ape can be found today, what's this mean for other great apes possibly hidden somewhere else out there? A great ape isn't some small critter, and is... well a great ape... you know the same thing some think Bigfoot or others could be some variant of.

Shall we assume after having found this one it will be the last one confirmed. I mean once upon a time gorilla's were cryptozoological in nature. What's this mean for cryptozoology? I mean really this is fascinating to me. IF we can discover of all things a great ape that's remained hidden all this time today, then it suddenly makes some of the other rumored critters more plausible than they were before. We've pretty much just knocked off at least one check constantly claimed against such beings.

Is there a link to this find? I'd be very curious to read about it.

Nevermind, I see the link now.

a reply to: Puppylove

Thank you for this post, I needed a break from the other stuff.

Of note is that they estimate that the population is only 800 and still it survives. This will give great hope to the big footers who believe him to be a flesh and blood creature. 800 BF's could easily remain hidden in the vast wildernesses in many parts of the US and Canada.

a reply to: Dizrael
Never mind you found it.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Exactly. Not just Bigfoot either. There are many crypto creatures rumored to exist in the deep jungles and woods out there. Who knows how many could be rare undiscovered flesh and blood creatures? I mean we keep finding new species all the time. Yes I'm aware that most such discoveries are small creatures, but occasionally even today as just proven, larger new species are discovered.

It's a sub species of orangutan. They had to do DNA testing to even confirm it. If you looked at it, you'd say, "Oh, an orangutan!" It's kind of like giraffes. There are three species of giraffe. Who knew? DNA has allowed us to 'split hairs' and that's what this amounts to. Nothing really all that different.

a reply to: schuyler

They're always going to check DNA to confirm to make sure the differences are real differences and not just some kind of birth defect. They discussed a few morphological differences between this species and other orangutans. So is not JUST an orangutan with only a genetic difference.

They didn't even believe there were such creatures living there, or had proof of such, so even if it were just an ordinary orangutan, which it is not, that such a large creature remained an unconfirmed rumor hidden away all this time is still significant towards the possible discovery of other cryptids.

Heck if they found a living pure blooded Neanderthal alive today hidden within Mogolia, would you just say, "It's just a subspecies of human" and shrug it off as well?

a reply to: schuyler

Yes, but it was in a location that the locals knew about it for "centuries" and yet the scientists couldn't find any. So you have population of a great ape that has never been scientifically proven before. It may not be earth shaking but it shows there's more out there to be discovered.

Yeah, it is "just" an orangutang. It's not that different. It's like saying the Denisovans were a different species than Neanderthal which were both different from Homo sapiens. Yet any of us not immediately from Africa have a goodly percentage of that DNA in us. In other words, there was considerable inter-breeding, yet the definition of a "species" used to be that inter-breeding was what made the difference in calling one species different than another. But it turns out this definition is kind of "slipping" as DNA allows us to make more precise measurements. In their zeal to declare a new species scientists have been willing to let the definition be more vague. After all, new species make careers. That's why I maintain that 'splitting hairs' allows new species to be created out of very small differences. It's more a matter of definition than any meaningful difference. And the reason this bugs me is the sensationalism behind it. "Oh, my God! A new species has been discovered! Where have we been all these years? We have been so wrong!" Well, nonsense. We didn't have DNA to play around with before. Now we do. There are bound to be some changes. But reading the headlines you'd think they'd found Bigfoot. If they do, call me. Otherwise, I'm not all that impressed.

a reply to: schuyler

There were no apes there to find according to scientists. As I said even IF it was/is nothing new as a species it's still a great ape living there in a place they are not supposed to be in numbers large enough to remain a viable species, albeit one at risk.

It's not so much the being a new species that's the big find it's a whole effing great ape living as a species in a place for years unverifiable by science despite the locals insisting they've seen them.

a reply to: Puppylove

Nice find.

I find it amusing that scientists talk of "discovering" these species, when the locals tend to have stated all along they were around. Good science, when it comes to cataloguing animals in any given area, ought to include asking the people who live there what's around, and setting out to find those things, instead of claiming they are myths, and mocking those who report them!

There are so many places that large animals could remain concealed, it's arrogant to claim that no large ones could possibly exist, that science doesn't already recognize! They even discovered a previously unknown whale, as I recall! So much we don't know!!

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Puppylove

Nice find.

I find it amusing that scientists talk of "discovering" these species, when the locals tend to have stated all along they were around. Good science, when it comes to cataloguing animals in any given area, ought to include asking the people who live there what's around, and setting out to find those things, instead of claiming they are myths, and mocking those who report them!

And despite your protestations, this is exactly what happened. They were first described by locals in the 1930's and they were indeed looked for. It took about 60 years but they had been described in scientific literatre by 20 years ago. The morphology is extremely similar to Oranutan from Borneo and are very subtle. It wasn't until one was killed by locals that biologists were able to extensively examine remains which prompted the genetic analysis recently published. Nobody said they were just a myth and nobody was mocked.

There are so many places that large animals could remain concealed, it's arrogant to claim that no large ones could possibly exist, that science doesn't already recognize! They even discovered a previously unknown whale, as I recall! So much we don't know!!

Sure. But at the same time, when biologists or anthropologists etc... are discussing the topic, they can only speak about known species. It's a tad irresponsible to talk about pet hypotheses when there isn't any evidence to support it because you end up with people latching on to "Dr. Such And Such says they believe that Bigfoot owns a hotel in upstate NY near the Catskills" and 36 hours later it's on ATS that some Anthropology Professor lost his tenure over admitting that Bigfoot is real and runs a half dozen converted Howard Johnson's through out the Adirondacks despite no such conversation or event ever having occurred.



For anyone interested in the actual science and not just an article,

www.nature.com...

www.cell.com...(17)31245-9

www.sciencemag.org...

Is this the ape that Joe Rogan was talking about on his podcast recently? I thought he said it was a giant chimpanzee?

I don't see it that way. New ape, same as the old ape. New giraffe, same as the old giraffe. The differences between the two are fewer than the differences within "each" species, kind of like race in humans.

a reply to: schuyler

It's not the species thing that's important. It's the great ape living for years in a place where science has looked for them and failed to find them, with the only evidence being eye witness accounts for years and years, only finally being found and discovered recently.

It's not like there were two orangutans species on this island and scientist had already confirmed one and just found out this is a subspecies of it. There were NO orangutans on the island according to scientists. These orangutans existed only as rumors from the locals despite scientists best efforts.

Yet now they are confirmed to be real after all this time.

So let's see we have a "Creature of significant size, in a place where scientists cannot confirm it, where the only evidence of it is eyewitness accounts, and this continues on for years and years..." Sound familiar? Yet now after all this time JUST RECENTLY we've finally acquired scientific proof of it.

If it happens once, it can happen again.

It seems the existence of large species can go unproven by modern science into modern times after all.

That's what's significant here in terms of cryptozoology is that one of the most common claims is that there's no way any of these large crypto creatures could go hidden for so long in modern times. This assumption is apparently wrong, a large species apparently can exist for long periods of time, with only eye witness accounts and no scientific evidence into modern times.

a reply to: Puppylove

Cool. Too bad about the hydro dam they are planning for 2022. Where is PETA when you need them!? Hopefully the protesting plans are already in the works.

I think in our lifetimes there will be a few more great apes discovered and a few other mammals that are closer to humans.

Maybe I'm just optimistic though.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Puppylove

Nice find.

I find it amusing that scientists talk of "discovering" these species, when the locals tend to have stated all along they were around. Good science, when it comes to cataloguing animals in any given area, ought to include asking the people who live there what's around, and setting out to find those things, instead of claiming they are myths, and mocking those who report them!

And despite your protestations, this is exactly what happened. They were first described by locals in the 1930's and they were indeed looked for. It took about 60 years but they had been described in scientific literatre by 20 years ago. The morphology is extremely similar to Oranutan from Borneo and are very subtle. It wasn't until one was killed by locals that biologists were able to extensively examine remains which prompted the genetic analysis recently published. Nobody said they were just a myth and nobody was mocked.

Yet people did claim that orangutans themselves were myths, for quite some time. Same as the giant squid, I might add. Not real, can't exist, etc, till they found they were very real. Same for a lizard that was found to be real, as well, by a fellow that did a television show. Can't recall his nae, off-hand, slim built guy, and the lizard was down someplace like PNG or somewhere in that part of the world. Even gorillas were said to not be real, for some time. In this case, they might have been looking, but in others, they weren't interested. Oh, forgot those dwarf elephants. Lots of cases science ignored, till they were no longer able to do so.

There are so many places that large animals could remain concealed, it's arrogant to claim that no large ones could possibly exist, that science doesn't already recognize! They even discovered a previously unknown whale, as I recall! So much we don't know!!

Sure. But at the same time, when biologists or anthropologists etc... are discussing the topic, they can only speak about known species. It's a tad irresponsible to talk about pet hypotheses when there isn't any evidence to support it because you end up with people latching on to "Dr. Such And Such says they believe that Bigfoot owns a hotel in upstate NY near the Catskills" and 36 hours later it's on ATS that some Anthropology Professor lost his tenure over admitting that Bigfoot is real and runs a half dozen converted Howard Johnson's through out the Adirondacks despite no such conversation or event ever having occurred.

I wasn't aware that scientists were in the habit of stating that animals owned hotels. That's plain silly, and nothing but a deflection from the actual topic here. Nor do cryptozoology people tend to make such claims.

For anyone interested in the actual science and not just an article,

www.nature.com...

www.cell.com...(17)31245-9

www.sciencemag.org...

No link found for the middle one, and the other two are, oh, yeah, additional articles. Your point?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: schuyler

It's not the species thing that's important. It's the great ape living for years in a place where science has looked for them and failed to find them, with the only evidence being eye witness accounts for years and years, only finally being found and discovered recently.

It's not like there were two orangutans species on this island and scientist had already confirmed one and just found out this is a subspecies of it. There were NO orangutans on the island according to scientists. These orangutans existed only as rumors from the locals despite scientists best efforts.

Yet now they are confirmed to be real after all this time.

So let's see we have a "Creature of significant size, in a place where scientists cannot confirm it, where the only evidence of it is eyewitness accounts, and this continues on for years and years..." Sound familiar? Yet now after all this time JUST RECENTLY we've finally acquired scientific proof of it.

If it happens once, it can happen again.

It seems the existence of large species can go unproven by modern science into modern times after all.

That's what's significant here in terms of cryptozoology is that one of the most common claims is that there's no way any of these large crypto creatures could go hidden for so long in modern times. This assumption is apparently wrong, a large species apparently can exist for long periods of time, with only eye witness accounts and no scientific evidence into modern times.

That's what the skeptics want to ignore. They will quibble about it not really being a new species, while at he same time defending those species labels as "proof" of something else, and quibble that people were looking, while ignoring the fact that these animals were not known to be there, at all, in any variety, until now, by science.

If they can miss these, while actively searching for them, they can miss things for which they aren't searching far more easily!!

a reply to: Puppylove

It's not the species thing that's important. It's the great ape living for years in a place where science has looked for them and failed to find them, with the only evidence being eye witness accounts for years and years, only finally being found and discovered recently.

You know what this makes me think of?

Yeti!!!

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

If skeptics ruled the world then we'd live in a really boring place because nothing would ever get done or be discovered.