Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Announcements Science

New Mammal Species Found in Borneo 363

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the hiding-under-a-rock dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Mammal Species Found in Borneo More

New Mammal Species Found in Borneo

Comments Filter:

  • But (Score:5, Funny)

    by LardBrattish ( 703549 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @03:26AM (#14191936) Homepage
    What does it taste like?

    • Re:But (Score:5, Funny)

      by tpgp ( 48001 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @03:31AM (#14191949) Homepage
      If it's a carnivore as the article speculates, then almost certainly not very good.

      Poodles for instance taste horrible

      • Re:But (Score:5, Interesting)

        by core plexus ( 599119 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:13AM (#14192084) Homepage
        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 [suvalleynews.com]). 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.

        • Re:But (Score:5, Funny)

          by cerberusss ( 660701 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:31AM (#14192134) Journal
          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?

          • 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?

            Here are some pics and info of the ground squirrel. [google.com]

            Much meatier and tastier than the local tree squirrels. Besides, there weren't any trees there. Thus, they live in the ground, rather than in trees. Hence the name ground squirrels.

            They were eating the brains and guts of their denmates.

        • Re:But (Score:3, Informative)

          by trollable ( 928694 )
          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.

          • Re:But (Score:5, Interesting)

            by turtledawn ( 149719 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:51AM (#14192183)
            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?

            • Re:But (Score:3, Informative)

              by core plexus ( 599119 )
              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. Als

            • Orcas (killer whales) are actually dolphins.
            • 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.

              You probably can find a vegetarian too if you are looking hard for it.
              "A bear is a large mammal of the order Carnivora" (Wikipedia)

              that depends upon the species of whale

              Translation mistake. I meant baleen whales

              Dogs on the other hand will eat just about anything

              "The dog is a canine mammal of the Order Carnivora" (Wikipedia)

              Tyranosaurus probably tasted at least

              • Re:But (Score:3, Informative)

                by trollable ( 928694 )
                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 or
            • They prefer meat but don't require it in the way that cats do.

              Tell that to my cat! He loves black olives, field mushrooms, broccoli, potatoes and many other vegetarian things.
              I have a friend who has a cat who is really crazy about feferoni. I you give her some ham and some feferoni she will eat the feferoni then only eat the ham if she is hungry...
          • As it seems some fish [iafrica.com] like meat, too.
          • Whales don't eat plancton, they eat small crustaceans (krill).

            Some of them (toothed whales) eat fishes and other sea mammals as well IIRC.
          • Tyranosaurus are carnivorus too, never eat one of them.

            Present tense? And here I was thinking they had gone extinct ... :-)

          • Not quite (Score:4, Informative)

            by jd ( 1658 ) <imipakNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @12:08PM (#14194385) Homepage Journal
            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.

        • Ah ha, but did you ever see THIS [tribe.net] on your menu

          (I took this photo at an "exotic meat" restaurant in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam)
        • One day, I noticed some ground squirrels eating the remains (uncooked) of some of my previous ground squirrel kills.
          Sounds like you need to do a better job of grinding them up next time. ;o)
    • "Wild Man From Borneo"
      by Kinky Friedman

      I'm the star of Captain Midnight's traveling show
      came to this circus many moons ago
      my mother's in your story books
      she loved a jungle king
      left me standing here alone
      inside the center ring

      in a bamboo cage I crossed the raging sea
      like a page torn direct from history
      a hairy scary legendary screaming souvenir
      don't you come too close to me
      don't you come too near

      (chorus)

      I'm the wild man from Borneo
      the wild man from Borneo
      you come to see
      what you want to see
      you come to see but

  • NEW WINTER FASHION (Score:5, Funny)

    by blueadept1 ( 844312 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @03:29AM (#14191948)
    I just HAVE to have a coat with this critter's fur as trim.

  • New "species" of "mammal"? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nurhussein ( 864532 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @03:32AM (#14191957) Homepage
    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).

    • Re:New "species" of "mammal"? (Score:4, Informative)

      by presidentbeef ( 779674 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @03:35AM (#14191970) Homepage Journal
      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...

    • Re:New "species" of "mammal"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Eightyford ( 893696 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @03:50AM (#14192014) Homepage
      I have a question: Aren't class, order, genus, and family entirely arbitrary? Shouldn't we now classify living things entirely with genetics?

      • Re:New "species" of "mammal"? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:00AM (#14192047)
        > 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.

        • Re:New "species" of "mammal"? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by mrRay720 ( 874710 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:19AM (#14192101)
          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?
          • 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 rever
            • I think that is Carlin's greatest bit. In a somewhat related note, mass extinction has repeatedly been shown to actually increase the amount of species in the long run.

              Big volcano or comet => lizards inherit the earth. Big volcano or comet => mammals and birds inherit the earth. Etc.

            • we won't leave much of a trace.

              If the KT event shows up in the fossil record after 65M years, our mass extinctions will too. If anything, ours will look more sudden and extreme.

              Also, we have nearly drained many large oilfields. Most of the oil came from the Carboniferous, which ended 299M years ago. It's not going to replenish quickly

              If there is an intelligence on this planet to equal ours in the next 500M years, their geologists and paleontologists will notice something odd happened around now. I wond

            • Re:New "species" of "mammal"? (Score:4, Funny)

              by deander2 ( 26173 ) * <public@[ ]ed.org ['ker' in gap]> on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @10:15AM (#14193423) Homepage
              > 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. ;)
          • Is there a numbering system used to classify different things, similar to that used in a library? And if so, how does one possibly know how many unassigned numbers to put in-between any one particular species of thing to allow for the discovery of many other undiscovered new things in-between said things.

            I'm assuming there are more unassigned numbers placed between cats in a jungle and other four legged things in the same jungle, than there are unassigned numbers between me and a monkey! (one would hope

          • Re:New "species" of "mammal"? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by pclminion ( 145572 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @12:42PM (#14194725)
            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.

      • Talk about a can of worms you just opened (Score:5, Informative)

        by Flying pig ( 925874 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:29AM (#14192285)
        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.

    • > 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).

      It's possible that it's a representative of some previously unknown branch higher than species. If indeed it's a member of Carnivora [wikipedia.org], but not a "cat-like" or "dog-like" carnivore, then it would represent a previously unknown sub-order.

    • Looks a lot like a Fossa (Score:5, Informative)

      by madaxe42 ( 690151 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:38AM (#14192145) Homepage
      It really looks like a Fossa - usually native to Madagascar. Wikipedia Fossa [wikipedia.org].

      It's a member of the Viverridae family, which is fairly poorly known, due to their being a) nocturnal b) rare and c) furtive.
      • More pictures and videos here [arkive.org]

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

    • 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).

      Oh, please, someone, do RTFA. They've photographed this creature twice, both times with automatic cameras triggered by infra red. No-one has (as far as we know) ever seen one. There is no cine or video footage. It looks a bit like a lemur but is more likely a viverrid. But no-one knows yet. So no, no-one can ident

  • Whats left? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Da3vid ( 926771 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @03:33AM (#14191960)
    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.

    • Re:Whats left? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @03:48AM (#14192009)
      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.

    • for a species to "recently evolve" you're talking about tens of thousands of years

    • Re:Whats left? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tedgie ( 906974 )
      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

    • Re:Whats left? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Darkman, Walkin Dude ( 707389 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:29AM (#14192128) Homepage

      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.


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

    Take that northern spotted owl.

  • New Species? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrApples ( 739309 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @03:46AM (#14192003) Homepage
    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..."

  • Continuous creationism (Score:5, Funny)

    by Julian Morrison ( 5575 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @03:50AM (#14192017)
    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.

  • Pokemon (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anne Thwacks ( 531696 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:03AM (#14192058)
    Its a Pokemon!

  • Messed up logic (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:18AM (#14192098)
    "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.
  • CowboyNeal what are you doing in Borneo? I'd say quite a good match with the photo...

  • Brontosaurus (Score:5, Funny)

    by macaddct1984 ( 898639 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @04:29AM (#14192125)
    Was it just me, or did the image of the new mammal first look like a tiny brontosaurus?

  • Obligatory Futurama reference (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:00AM (#14192216)
    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!

  • More importantly (Score:3, Funny)

    by Timberwolf0122 ( 872207 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:02AM (#14192224) Journal
    does it run (Fe)Linux?

    I'll get my hat....

  • What shall we call it ...? (Score:4, Funny)

    by neiljt ( 238527 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:02AM (#14192227)
    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.

  • Rodents Of Unusual Size?... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mendy ( 468439 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:07AM (#14192236)
    ...I don't think they exist.

  • Decided... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by earthstar ( 748263 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:34AM (#14192300) Journal
    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.

  • DINO! (Score:2, Funny)

    by ZeroExistenZ ( 721849 )

    For a second I saw a dinosaur in that, until I discovered the eyes and tried to see the "Not a lemur" thing. (ofcourse Dinosaurs aren't lemurs!)

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

  • New species (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tux2slack ( 847353 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @07:31AM (#14192592)
    I find new species all the time in my fridge :> One of them ate my domestic cat.
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabras [wikipedia.org]

    Wrong continent, but I suppose it could have migrated. The Wiki picture is only one of many... others in the Google Image search look much like the recent pictures of the "new" animal.
  • you may become severely burned

    "One of the photos clearly shows the length of the tail and how muscley it is; civets use their tails to balance in trees, so this new animal may spend chunks of its time up trees too."

    It also sends chunks to the ground.

  • "believed to be carnivorous" (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jivecat ( 836356 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @09:03AM (#14192942) Homepage
    Oh sure -- you eat one conservationist, and they tag you a carnivore.


Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close