Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

A New Species Of Giant Ape? 398

Posted by timothy from the afleckus-trismegistus dept.
jd writes "The New Scientist, The Age (an Australian newspaper), Daily Telegraph (a British newspaper), BBC, and the Discovery Channel are talking excitedly about a strange primate, found in the Congo. Locals say it is notorious for killing fully-grown adult lions. Optimists hope that it is a new species, maybe related to the gorilla. Pessimists claim it's an overgrown chimpanzee. In either case, primates aren't discovered every day, making this a rare find indeed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A New Species Of Giant Ape? More

A New Species Of Giant Ape?

Comments Filter:

  • Pfft (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:23AM (#10491635)
    I've already discovered a couple of those in my local pub.

  • In other news . . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:24AM (#10491642)
    . . . Peter Jackson began production on his remake of king Kong in the Congo last week . . .

  • It's also reknowned for its fearsome battle cry (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:24AM (#10491643) Homepage
    "Developers, developers, developers!"
  • Up way to late and I read that as found giant gorillas killing adults...
    I think I've read congo a few to many times.

  • Didn't we discuss this last year? (Score:5, Informative)

    by joeykiller ( 119489 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:26AM (#10491653) Journal
    Wasn't this story reported -- and discussed here -- in august last year as well?

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08 /1 0/0014206&tid=134&tid=14

    (Of course, I didn't RTFA)

  • Zinj (Score:5, Funny)

    by interactive_civilian ( 205158 ) <mamoru@gmaiOOOl.com minus threevowels> on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:27AM (#10491658) Homepage Journal
    Hrmm...is the new species a grey gorilla that carries two stone paddles which it uses to crush its victims skulls? Is it perhaps located near a lost city, named Zinj, that is famous for its boron coated diamonds which have rather useful electrical properties?

    If the answers to these questions are yes, then we need to get a gorilla that understands sign language ASAP.

    Do I read to much?* At least I never saw the movie.

    *well, not TFA, apparently. ;-)

    • and IMHO, with the exception of the coloration and the stone paddles, these "new" primates seem to resemble the grey gorillas in Michael Crichton's (sp?) Congo quite well. From the BBC article:
      They stand up to two metres tall, the size of gorillas, and like gorillas, they nest on the ground, not in trees.

      ~snip~

      She describes her encounter with them: "Four suddenly came rushing out of the bush towards me," she told New Scientist.

      "If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."

      That is not so different from the behavior of the gorillas in Congo...

      I wonder why they stopped attacking when they saw her...

      • from the Telegraph :
        "We could hear them in the trees, about 20 feet away," she said. "My tracker made a sound of an injured duiker [antelope] and four came rushing through the brush towards me.

        "If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."

        Seems like they figured an easy meal saw it wasnt what they
        • If that isn't a sign of intelligence I don't know what is :)

      • Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:57AM (#10491785)
        I wonder why they stopped attacking when they saw her...

        Gorilla-panzee 1: OMG- did you see that thing!?!

        Gorilla-panzee 2: yeah! what the hell was it?

        Gorilla-panzee 1: I dunno, but it didn't have a snout and had like almost no fur except for its head.

        Gorilla-panzee 2: yeah, I swear I was gonna barf if I had to look at it longer

        Gorilla-panzee 1: you don't think it was a human do you? like from those stories we heard as kids?

        Gorilla-panzee 2: don't be stupid, humans are made up just like the Yeti and Bigfoot are.

      • and IMHO, with the exception of the coloration and the stone paddles, these "new" primates seem to resemble the grey gorillas in Michael Crichton's (sp?) Congo quite well

        Hardly surprising - his book was inspired by the same tales that brought researchers to the same area, looking for the same creatures.

      • Re:whoa...actually went back and RTFA... (Score:5, Informative)

        by lee7guy ( 659916 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:34AM (#10491983)
        Well, the BBC article removed the quote from it's context.

        From Daily Telegraph:


        "We could hear them in the trees, about 20 feet away," she said. "My tracker made a sound of an injured duiker [antelope] and four came rushing through the brush towards me.

        "If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."

        The apes thought they were going after a wounded antelope, when they realized they had been tricked, they ran away.

        Guess BBC found it more "dramatic" out of context.

  • Incredible but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by N Monkey ( 313423 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:27AM (#10491660)
    Wonderful discovery but, now that we've found them, one wonders how long it'll be before we somehow manage to wipe the species out :(

    • Re:Incredible but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by metlin ( 258108 ) * on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:35AM (#10491708) Journal
      Worse, how many species out there are being wiped out that we know/knew nothing about?

      There is so much on this rock that is yet unknown and unexplored, while we continue to destroy the planet recklessly.

      I wonder how many such species would be out there in the jungles of Amazon - we spend so much money on war and destruction, if only we'd spend it on preserving some of our planet's natural heritage we'd be helping ourselves and generations to come.

      Ah, that won't come to pass as long as greedy fools continue to rule us.

      • Re:Incredible but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Troed ( 102527 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:03AM (#10491813) Homepage Journal
        Species going extinct is a part of the _natural_ evolution of this planet - and has always been long before man. Man is also part of this planet's natural evolution, which makes Man's actions _natural_.

        It's _unnatural_ to keep species alive when they should've gone extinct due to _natural_ causes (changing climate etc).

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Incredible but.... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by metlin ( 258108 ) *
          It's _unnatural_ to keep species alive when they should've gone extinct due to _natural_ causes (changing climate etc).

          Agreed. But when you cut down thousands of acres of forest a day and forcefully kill the plant, please do not tell me that it is unnatural.

          It is unnatural to interfere with the way Nature works, the argument that Man's actions are natural does not simply hold true because our actions are sentient and conscious, and is deviant from nature's course of mere survival - we do not just try to

          • Re:Incredible but.... (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Troed ( 102527 )
            Umm no - we definitely "try to survive".

            All actions cause harm, to someone. Being sentient means we have a choice, other animals don't. It doesn't change the fact that whatever Man does is still natural, although I agree we shouldn't lay waste when it's not necessary.

            Claiming that we should try to save each and every species going extinct is however very unnatural.

            • Re:Incredible but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by metlin ( 258108 ) * on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:29AM (#10491958) Journal
              Umm no - we definitely "try to survive".

              I'm sure that brand new McDonald toy manufactured out of a toy factory that polluted the environment is absolutely essential to your survival. Man, you'd die without it, wouldn't it? Guess what? There *are* several species that *do* die because of it.

              Claiming that we should try to save each and every species going extinct is however very unnatural.

              Mmmm, nowhere in my post did I mention that.

              However, blatantly causing the extinction of so many species is preventable, and steps should be taken to prevent that, that's all.

          • Agreed. But when you cut down thousands of acres of forest a day and forcefully kill the plant, please do not tell me that it is unnatural.

            To each team of loggers, they are only cutting down a few hundred trees in the rain forest each week. And since other people want to buy the logs, this is a good way for them to make money in order to feed and cloth their families. No president is going to be able to say "stop feeding your families" to these guys and remain popular.
        • By your argumentation, nothing we do can be called unnatural. That makes the distinction between natural and unnatural useless.

          I'd like to argue that our sense of morality separates us from nature. When our actions disturb the natural order, that is unnatural. The natural order is for those great apes to live in a forest somewhere in Afrika. If they are killed by a disease or predator, that's natural and I can accept it. But wiping them out to satisfy our never-ending hunger for more land and more resourc

          • Re:Incredible but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by madstork2000 ( 143169 ) * on Monday October 11, 2004 @11:13AM (#10493300) Homepage
            I disagree with your comment: I'd like to argue that our sense of morality separates us from nature.

            Our morality may set us apart, but morality is subjective, and ultimately arbitrary. And thus irrelevent in overall scheme of the universe.

            In the end the earth will be a barren wasteland one-way or another. Nature WILL ultimately destroy the planet.

            So thinking along the natural vs. unnatural argument is moot. If we believed that strictly if there are people around when the sun expands or a giant astroid hits should those people try to stop Nature if they have the technology to?

            I bet if in the several billion years down the road people are around, and have the technology to add nuclear feul to a star, or move a planets orbit or whatever other unimaginable technology to save the day they would try and do it to save whats left of the "homeland".

            Or nature could decide to do us in sooner, with a giant asteroid. Its pretty hypocritical in my opinion to plan to save the planet from the astroid, while at teh same time to condemning people from using land if it is needed.

            If the rain forest is going to be oblierated anyway why bother? It boils down to darwin and survival of the fittest.

            Plants and animals develop ways to defend themselves against us. Some do it very successfully (i.e. pesticide resistent bugs, drugs that are ineffective because the bateria / virus has evolved). In otherwords nature, DOES NOT CARE ABOUT US, one way or the other.
            In a sense we are at war with nature, and will always be at war because there will ALWAYS be natural threats that could wipe out our species.


            But lets get back to the morility issue. Why is it morally wrong to wipe out unknown species or even unimportant known ones; while at the same time it is fine to wipe out a disease like small pox?


            Life is life, it does not matter the scale. We'll be pretty darn excited if we confirm a true Martian virus, wouldn't we? It would definately be "morally" wrong to kill our hypothetical Martian virus wouldn't it? Unless of course, it is a threat to us. then we'd all have Mars disinfectant spray sitting around.


            It boils down to we will always look out for the best interest of our species. We may try to sugar coat it with morals and ethics, but the fact remians we are at the top of the food chain, and will try ot stay there.


            If tearing down rain forest and killing ofother species is in the best interest of people then do it.


            I personally DO NOT think it is; because, unlike most other species, we have the capacity to learn and expand our knowledge. We depend on knowledge to survive. Destroying things we do not fully understand is counter-productive.


            Our intelligence also confuses us; because it makes us think we have extra "responsibilities" because of arbitrary morals, and ethics.


            WRONG! Our morals and ethics are important because they help us function as a society (sometimes), but they may end up to be our downfall, since those same morals and ethics have diversified to the point where we have large populations of people with opposed morals and ethics, trying to condemn the other side.


            In some ways I think morals and ethics is Nature using our intelligence against us.


            So what we need to do is NOT worry about every little species out there, and should start focusing on preserving and prolonging our own species.

            Is the environment important to people? Yes, so we need to take care of it. Is worrying about global warming important? Yes, so we need to keep an eye on it? Is a new species of primates important to us? Yes, they have value to our species.

            So to complete the argument, humans number one survival skill is our intelligence. In order for us to survive we ne

          • Re:Incredible but.... (Score:3, Interesting)

            by revery ( 456516 ) *
            By your argumentation, nothing we do can be called unnatural. That makes the distinction between natural and unnatural useless.

            Well then, please tell me, by your argument, who or what is the arbiter of that distinction?

            I'd like to argue that our sense of morality separates us from nature.

            Heh. Do you mind defining morality? And just out of curiosity, how does something that supposedly arose
            from natural development (such as our "morality") become separated from from nature?

            --
            People want to know. People
        • It's _unnatural_ to keep species alive when they should've gone extinct due to _natural_ causes (changing climate etc).

          First you say our actions are natural, now you say their unnatural. Make up your mind, you damn flip flopper.

      • Re:Incredible but.... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Take the matter into your own hands. You can start by killing yourself. Oh..., you want to be here too but complain about the resources people need to live. You want to be here and live comfortably but do not like the idea that others are? Do you drive a car and live in a wood house? Where did those materials come from? You feel no one else should live off of the land but you should? You have a microwave in your house? What are you not using a solar concentrator to heat your food. You take a bath e
      • There is so much on this rock that is yet unknown and unexplored, while we continue to destroy the planet recklessly.

        (I'm killing my karma, but I don't post to /. just so I can moderate or whatever karma gives you, so I don't mind)

        It's amazing how that no matter how many people continually debunk junk science, it is still accepted as fact that we are destroying our planet. Our effects are minimal compared to what other bodies, such as the sun, the moon, and the earth itself, are doing to the planet. Even

    • Monkey Business (Score:3, Insightful)

      by superyooser ( 100462 )
      Any time an animal is about to become extinct, the environmentalists should convince the restaurant industry that the animal tastes good. That way, the evil corporations would be "tricked" into funding breeding programs. They would have a vested business interest in ensuring the species' survival. Are chickens or cows going to be extinct any time soon? I, for one, am looking forward to a McChimp Deluxe or Gorilla Whopper. Long live the primates. Now pass the A1 sauce.

  • Are They Sure... (Score:5, Funny)

    by CowboyBob500 ( 580695 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:28AM (#10491665) Homepage
    ...that it wasn't just George Bush [bushisms.com] on vacation?

    Bob

  • How to scare king kong (Score:5, Funny)

    by walmass ( 67905 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:29AM (#10491669)
    They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared.
    An ape capable of killing lions ran away after a peek--that must have been one ugly face!

    • Humans are very very scary... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:27AM (#10491940) Homepage Journal
      > An ape capable of killing lions ran away after a peek--that must have been one ugly face!

      Most apes are curious creatures , the ones which are more intelligent are more cautious observers than curious imitators.

      A strange creature that walks on two feet, carries a metal paddle that kills , and kills adult elephants is a creature to be afraid of (oh, I'm talking about the average african explorer).

      Truthfully speaking , any sufficently intelligent species which closely observes humans in actions have everything to be afraid of them . Lions are comparitively innocous compared to a human . Even tigers turn tail and run from humans looking at them [aol.com] (or relatively good facsimilies of a face).

      It takes brains, learning and experience to figure that out .

  • Overlords (Score:3, Funny)

    by balster neb ( 645686 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:29AM (#10491670)
    I for one welcome our new hitherto unknown giant congolese ape overlords

    • Re:Overlords (Score:4, Funny)

      by Jesrad ( 716567 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:55AM (#10491774) Journal
      Apart from beating a dead horse with and old cliché, your post rises the interesting point of naming this new species or subspecies.

      Hmm, looks like a mix of chimps and gorillas, but bigger... Chimpzilla ?
      • > Hmm, looks like a mix of chimps and gorillas, but bigger... Chimpzilla

        There is a documented case of a chimpanzee that walked on two legs all the time - Humanzee [wikipedia.org] .

        Was suspected to be a mixture - which raised real ethical and moral questions . But turns out to be a mutated chimp which might be an extinct subspecies ?.

  • I'll wager (Score:4, Funny)

    by Linker3000 ( 626634 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:31AM (#10491678) Journal
    He/She/it's already on the US 'Do not fly' list

  • Tarzan? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Lars T. ( 470328 )
    King of the Jungle, kills lions with bare hands?
  • ...of these Apes or do we have to fund an expedition to bring back some photographic evidence of these creatures?
  • I believe Ms Williams has stumbled across the breeding/training ground for Microsoft's army of evil monkeys. [bbspot.com]

  • Killing Lions? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by unassimilatible ( 225662 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:33AM (#10491695) Journal
    I'm sorry, but unless these apes are carrying .300 Winchester Magnums, I'm not buying that they can kill full grown lions.

    • Re:Killing Lions? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dnoyeb ( 547705 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:47AM (#10491748) Homepage Journal
      They are probably stronger than lions, and quite a bit more intelligent. Much like a man fighting a Dog. Man should win.
      • They are probably stronger than lions, and quite a bit more intelligent. Much like a man fighting a Dog. Man should win.

        Well, good luck [www.unav.es] then ;-)

      • Re:Killing Lions? (Score:4, Funny)

        by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:00AM (#10491799) Journal
        Next up on Slashdot:
        Geek Vs Dog, who will win?

        Commentator #1: Well Bob considering the fact that the geek has no weapons I'm siding with the dog.
        Commentator #2: I agree Bob, while the geek is more intelligent, I think the only thing running through that mind is how much he wished he had saved the game, if only this were a game.

        I need sleep.

    • Re:Killing Lions? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AdmV0rl0n ( 98366 )
      If a group of these came upon a lone Lion, perhaps a young male, I would not be surprised if they were able to take him down. My own perception would be that one or other side would flee.

      Incidently, you need to understand Chips as far as I can see, and Chips are far more brutal and aggresive in using troops and patrols in their area than most people understand. They will and do go hunting other groups for the kill.

      There was a recent documentary where the scientists believe human warefare is an extension o
      • Chips? You probably mean the kind made with Olestra. 'Cuz they "may cause oily discharge." That would be pretty brutal.

      • Along side this was captured on film a troop of chips that went on a patrol in the pure purpose of hunting down and killing other chips in the area.

        I believe I saw something like that about chimps that Jane Goodall [wikipedia.org] observed. I saw a documentary about a group of chimps that grew too large and some were exiled to keep the group at a certain size. The exiled chimps were then treated as a rival group encroaching the main group's territory, hunted, and killed. This, shortly after having been part of the very

    • Well now. There is no indication as to

      1. How many apes per lion we are talking about

      2. The method of attack.

      So, assuming, one lion, and 20 apes up trees dropping large stones, and following up with a branch-carrying beating, I'm not so sure.
    • I could believe it. Gorillas are hideously strong, completely out of proportion to their size. They move that 250 pounds around the trees as if they were weightless.
      • Agreed. I've seen film of an adult male ape snapping a four inch thick green bamboo trunk the way a person would snap a pencil.

        If you crossed a gorilla's strength with a chimpanzee's nasty attitude, and you'd have one bad-ass ape.

  • Funny bit (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mirko ( 198274 )
    Locals say it is notorious for killing fully-grown adult lions.

    IT's new, but already notorious... and it's been slashdotted as well.

    On a more serious basis, why don't the "new scientists" directly ask the locals about the species they know, I am sure they'd find out many things instead of just tracking these on their own.
    • Why don't you RTFuckingA(s)? They already have, and the locals divide the local apes into 'tree-beaters' and 'lion-killers'. I guess they asked a few more questions but the indigenous people mostly only care if they can eat it or it can kill them.

      J.

  • Bushmeat (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kyhwana ( 18093 ) <kyhwana@SELL-YOUR-SOUL.kyhwana.org> on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:39AM (#10491720) Homepage
    Wonder how long till they get turned into bushmeat [bushmeat.org]

  • Looking at the ape's specs... (Score:4, Funny)

    by MadFarmAnimalz ( 460972 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:40AM (#10491724) Homepage
    I'm glad that the cliche about technology (it will be applied first in porn) does not apply to zoological discoveries too.

    *phew*

  • More information (Score:4, Informative)

    by polyp2000 ( 444682 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:42AM (#10491726) Homepage Journal
    this seems to be related and has pictures and better info - just look at the size of those footprints?

    http://karlammann.com/bondo.html

    Bigfoot ?

    Nick...

  • Yeah right... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can this realy be true? An ape which lives in the jungle known to kill lions that live on the plains - got to be a hoax....

  • skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daniel Ellard ( 799842 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:45AM (#10491740)
    From the BBC:

    If we found something interesting it would attract more investment. People would be more interested in conserving it.

    That can't help but make me skeptical -- these people have a compelling reason to hype these reports in order to encourage conservation and protection of the area.

    It would be pretty interesting if it's true, however -- my guess would be that a large animal capable of avoiding detection for so long in well-explored areas would be interestingly intelligent...

    • It would be pretty interesting if it's true, however -- my guess would be that a large animal capable of avoiding detection for so long in well-explored areas would be interestingly intelligent.../i

      I'm not surprised given the region. It's not so much that they area is impossibly dense or remote but that there's been so much turmoil in this region over the past century that it's quite inhospital to exploration.

  • Not discovered every day? (Score:3, Funny)

    by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @07:49AM (#10491756) Homepage Journal
    In either case, primates aren't discovered every day

    I discover primates every day! Why, just today, I discovered a bus full of them. They made incessant noises and smelled funny, but they were indisputably primates. However, when I tried to mimic one of their mating rituals, I was physically assaulted, a very disappointing turn of events for science.

  • International Waters (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Quick! Capture one so we can pit it against a silverback in an offshore knife fight!

  • Ape which kills fully grown lions? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:05AM (#10491822)
    Same category as the 39 foot python I think.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid _3 355000/3355089.stm

    These apes have not been 'discovered', they have simply been newly categorised. The idea that they have never been seen before is a nice idea but nonsense.

    We may not like to think it, but the world is a small place now. There are no really remote places anymore and the idea that there are big animals roaming around somewhere unseen and undiscovered is a romantic notion which might be reassuring but can't hide the simple sad truth that the number of species is diminishing daily as we trash the planet.

    I'm sorry, but your ( and my ) unrelenting consumption is killing off wildlife apace. Don't let stories like this one make you think otherwise.

  • HOW do they kill lions? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:09AM (#10491839) Journal
    Chimpanzee's do employ natural objects in order to get maggots in trees. I just want to know, how do these apes kill lions? Do they use stones? Jaws of animals? Sure they can probably use their fists, but if they used tools, well it'd certainly be something noteworthy.

  • Spinning stories? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:20AM (#10492334) Journal
    It's interesting how the Animal Planet and Telegraph stories differ to the point of contradicting each other. Animal Planet makes these animals sound docile and peaceful, and only make a single mention about killing lions :
    tales that the forests were inhabited by large ferocious apes that could kill lions.

    The BBC also only makes one mention about killing lions:
    capable of killing lions.

    There's a big difference between "capable" and "does". Elephants can kill lions too, but that doesn't make them "Lion Killers", which is how the Telegraph article refers to these chimp-apes:
    known to locals as the "lion killer"

    Locals told him about giant apes with a reputation for killing lions, New Scientist magazine reports today.

    The Telegraph portraits them as violent and aggressive:
    The creatures are far larger and more aggressive than normal chimpanzees

    they are unusually aggressive chimps

    While Animal Planet describes them quite differently:
    Unlike gorillas, which invariably charge when they see a threat, these apes turn around and silently slip away into the forest when encountered, Ammann said.

    That doesn't sound too aggressive to me, for an animal that is supposed to go around killing lions for sport. Why for sport? Because they obviously don't eat them, according to Animal Planet:
    Feces recovered from the nest sites indicated an animal with a diet rich in fruit, which is typical of chimps.

    Rather odd to have such an aggressive and competent killer that doesn't eat meat. Either reporters are putting a big spin on this, or researches are trying to pique as much interest as possible to raise funding.

    Dan East

  • And they shall name it.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shokk ( 187512 ) <ernieoporto.yahoo@com> on Monday October 11, 2004 @11:06AM (#10493241) Homepage Journal
    Kwyjibo [tvtome.com]
  • The Stevus Ballmerus.

    Damce. monkey boy, dance!

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Close