—————————-

When this new species of African monkey was initially reported, it was in the May 20, 2005 issue of Science Magazine. Initially, it was thought to be a new species of mangabey and was given the name “highland mangabey”. As Loren posted earlier here on Cryptomundo, it has now been classified as a new genus, not a new species of mangabey.

—————————–

Unless I missed a subsequent one, it went mangabey first, new genus second.

He is an acknowledged expert at locating breeding birds in the wild and has found more than 600 species of Australian birds. He discovered the first nests ever found for several species including the lesser sooty owl, the red boobook owl and the green-backed honeyeater. In more recent times, he has worked with the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service to locate nine nests of the near-extinct eastern bristlebird.”

… from the website.

And THAT took a body (apparently an accidental death, not a killing for science).

Still, the new species was confirmed by a photo of an adult male before the reclassification
.
It’s only one reason I’m no-kill on the sasquatch. But it’s sufficient for me.

An African mangabey species was recently confirmed with a photographic holotype. But there was a significant amount of additional info to go on; researchers had been in contact with two distinct populations and had convinced themselves, with other evidence, that a new species was what they were looking at. (The story, in fact, is elsewhere on this site.)

Photo holotypes relieve science of the need for a body. This was cited in the case of the mangabey, an animal with a small known population. But it holds hazards. The hazards are worth risking, in my view; but they are certainly there.

If, of course, fraud it be.

Re-confirmed or not, the hold on comment and refusal to share the negatives have inserted a Fishy Smell into the proceedings.

Why weren’t there more scientific voices involved? We’re talking one gummint person and a private company?

Photographic holotypes seem the wave of the future. But they need to be examined very closely and corroborated tightly with other evidence.

It’s apparently not unknown (it seems to have happened in the sasquatch field more than once) for someone who has been a legitimate player to suddenly start faking stuff. It’s hard for me to divine the motivation; I’m happy with the possibility of unknown animals and don’t need to be Caught Up In The Search. But some people who have made significant personal investment in discovery want to get credit, however they can. It seems pretty much in the mainstream of human ambition, if slightly less honest than someone who just works hard to get rich.

Science has done much for mankind, and occasionally the rest of the natural world benefits as well. But people employ science; and they’ll always be the fly in the oatmeal.

As soon as I saw his portrait I recognised him: I have the last video on his filmography list: Birdman of Paradise.

What would a man of 20 years field experience stand to lose by feigning images of a non-existant new species?

Could a man be that desparate to have a new species credited to his name? Surely there are those who could - but I’m beginning to wonder whether the real story is that the photos are genuine and the digital “blemish” is explainable by (for example) some process carried out on the file (such as saving to the lossy jpeg format)?

Gale Spring claims the photos might be doubtful; the quoted article does say he can’t make a call on it without seeing the original image.

Don’t write the discovery off just yet I say.

I’ll be keeping an eye on this one. It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s all over the Australian media tomorrow, as the premise does sound rather scandalous.

Let’s not forget the plight of the Coxen’s fig parrot either, in the middle of all this. According to signage at Australia Zoo, “it remains one of Australia’s least-known birds, with no known photographs and no formal description of its nest or eggs”

My wife thought she heard the characteristic call whilst in the Glasshouse Mountains - but who knows?