Comments on: New Asian Species

By: Ranatemporaria

Ranatemporaria — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:28:10 +0000

I totally agree, to find a new species of anything, myself would be a personal highlight of my life! However that’s speaking as an Ecologist/Freshwater biologist. For the many out there with but a fleeting biological interest there is certainly a quite ulterior and sinister motive in finding Bigfoot for example! Please don’t get me wrong, I fully understand the value and get particularly excited when any species are found, especially frogs and fish!

Youcantry…, thanks for the mudskipper link! I have kept skippers in vivariums at home for a while now, and have worked on various projects to breed them in captivity with varying success!

By: Toirtis

Toirtis — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:48:52 +0000

As far as the anurian expert going into the Congo and claiming a new species….that species is not accepted or described based soley on a single herpetologist’s account/description, although should he bring out with him photos, measurements, etc (and usually at least one specimen), that is another matter.

I am both a herpetologist and occasional amateur cryptozoologist, and although I would love to be believed on a new species based on a personal eyewitness, I would never expect anything more than mild interest from my colleages without some real evidence and data.

By: youcantryreachingme

youcantryreachingme — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:35:46 +0000

Thanks Ranatemporaria for the fish link. If you want to check out some not-so-new but oh-so-funky fish out of water, try themudskipper.org

The homepage scrolls through some fantastic photos, but it uses Flash Player. If you don’t have that, then click on the “Sitemap” button and spend 5 minutes checking out the links and photos.

Oh, and PS - I replied to your fish/frog comment a little out of context; sorry.

By: youcantryreachingme

youcantryreachingme — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:27:30 +0000

Yeah. Wallabies are a dime a dozen, but someone had to do the unrewarding task of researching them.

Of all things they found a compound in their milk which is 100 times more effective than penicillin.

Who was the bloke who discovered penicillin in the first place? Oh, I can’t remember - he’s not that famous. I mean, he studied completely uninspiring bacteria! Nothing as fancy as even a fish!

And I doubt anyone’s made a fortune out of that penicillin stuff either…

Sorry, couldn’t help myself

By: MattBille

MattBille — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:23:30 +0000

The “little or no reward” comment is accurate in terms of money and media attention. However, small species often make large contributions to science, filling in gaps in taxonomic relationships or demonstrating hitherto unknown features or behavior. The coelacanth would not have made nearly as much of a media splash had it been 30 cm long, but it would have been just as important, scientifically.

Matt Bille

By: Craig Woolheater

Craig Woolheater — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:55:39 +0000

Tell that to all of the herpetologists and ichthyologists out there…

By: Ranatemporaria

Ranatemporaria — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:15:13 +0000

There is little or no reward apart from self satisfaction in finding frogs and fish. There is both fame fortune and or at worst world wide notoriety in simply making a solid claim to have witnessed or sighted let alone found a cryptid.

By: Ranatemporaria

Ranatemporaria — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:04:31 +0000

- Reluctantly I feel the myth and hype around many cryptids doesn’t help. Obviously many creatures have been described by science without dead specimens. Granted many may be very accessible to study observe or collect whilst alive, but I think much of it comes down to simple credibility. If an anuran expert goes into the Congo and claims to have found a new frog no questions are asked because little is known or considered by the lay person about the likely hood of a discovery like this. To find a hominid or a living dinosaur in a lake would face issues of a) The centuries old debate of is there isn’t their evidence that has many small minds already convinced one way or another. And b) the person who discovered it immediately discredited as a crack pot, and non-scientific for even looking in the first place! The unfortunate answer therefore is either to present a genuine body, or grasp some genuine scientific specifically ecological, biological weight and credibility to the cause. This may mean taking a hard-line stance on blurry pictures and suspect videos.

By: Jeremy_Wells

Jeremy_Wells — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:25:55 +0000

Hmmmm, looking back at the Camiguin posting, and reflecting on the “too shoot/not to shoot” discussions that we have had, it seems that, even despite island residents being familiar with the bird from the PET trade (which means some collectors must have known of it) without the skins of specimens collected in the 1960s physical observations would have been dismissed.
As noted previously, I’m an avid hunter, but normally come down on the side of those opposed to killing cryptids to prove their existence. (”Don’t kill it if you ain’t gonna eat it,” as my Dad always said.)
However, the Camiguin case raises some serious questions about this.

Maybe more important than the question, “Is it OK to shoot an unknown animal?” is the question, “Why is science so reluctant to accept evidence?”

By: Ranatemporaria

Ranatemporaria — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:58:20 +0000

Channallabes apus, another interesting catfish that hunts terrestrial insects! Not sure how new the species is to science is mind, but a new and major discovery, in terms of evolution.

Toirtis, At least this nomenclature has some meaning unlike the countless coleoptera and Orchid bearing the name of those who “discovered” it! Imagine, Bigfoot or Homo Smithian!