Comments on: Slave Ships’ Apes

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 04:58:22 +0000

Could these skunk apes not have been some early form of human ancestor that survived into modern times? The slave traders would have probably thought them very curious. Maybe they were not captured as pets, but as additional slaves. It is true that although chimps don’t normally swim, an isolated population of them could have developed the habit if it was neccessary to survival. This is seen in other animals and even in different groups of chimps. For example, some groups of chimps will use sticks to catch ants, while another group does not, one group will use leaves to drink water and so on. Some groups eat more meat. I do not think it to be out of the question that a group that was left to its own devices for so long might develop swimming as a general survival device.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 03:46:00 +0000

That chimps in general do not swim does not mean a particular population of them could not have taken up an unusual habit. It’s happened with monkeys, if I recall correctly. (Actually, it happened with the ri, also, as dugongs behaved in previsouly unknown ways and resulted in speculation about an unknown species.)
As Loren says, the subject of slave ship pets has not really been investigated. There is a great deal of study still being done on the human slave trade, and pets are unlikely to be on any historian’s priority list.
So the possibility exists of a known or unknown primate species being transported to North America. It seems unlikely in the extreme, though, that a breeding pair were brought to the same place and turned loose or escaped at the same time. Then you have the problem that, with perhaps 200 years to multiply and adapt (shades of the Florida predators in The X-Files) all the hunters combing the South for prey ranging from deer to alligators almost never saw one, and never killed one. The lack of bones does not bother me, given the climate, but the complete lack of specimens does.

By: Shihan

Shihan — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 03:45:02 +0000

Perhaps the term “wading” should be substituted for swimming. Both gorillas and chimps are not particularily fond of water, but they will wade into it and even cross small bodies of water if needed. The more the need arose (as in S. Fla everglades) the more they would wade. Chimps and gorillas actually teach their young how to behave, therefore, a couple of generations is all that would be needed to pass on the wading skill-set.

By: Remobec

Remobec — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 01:11:47 +0000

Interesting theory. If they did come to America some 300-400 years ago, I think it would be a good bet that’d they’d be their own proper subspecies by now. (Undoubtedly others would know more about this than me.)

If the theory that Napes originated on slave ships is correct, it seems much more likely to me that they are a subspecies of known African ape than a member of an undiscovered ape species. Maybe it’s easier for chimps to survive in the swamps if they can swim. So perhaps one or two learned how. Or maybe one or two was built a little different or whatever so that it could swim. I did a quick google search for swimming chimps. Of course, the consensus agreed that they don’t swim (I’ve heard that they have a stockier build to be strong swimmers and that they don’t have enough body fat to keep afloat). The Jane Goodall site said that “In general chimpanzees do not like to swim.” Another site said “Chimpanzees avoid large bodies of water and are usually only able to swim if extremely excited.”

This implies that they are just barely able to swim. Which seems to imply that if they had to, they could stay afloat for a short time. Which says to me, in the right environment, they could adapt to become swimming chimps–a clear case of microevolution.

By: kaiju

kaiju — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:27:57 +0000

It’s an interesting idea but there are an awful lot of variables. It requires that an almost extinct great ape be transported over here and released in great enough numbers to thrive in a foreign land…not impossible but…

I’d rate it a dstant third behind the whole thing being legend or that the Napes are an indigenous species or all this is a series of mistaken identities.

While some have mentioned the difficulty of bringing a full sized creature on board I would guess that it would be more likely that they were juveniles. Consider how much money they could have gotten from exhibiting a genuine non-human hominid. The barnum crowd would have eaten it up with a spoon. Not to mention how such a creature would have been a bombshell during the great evolution debates. So if this happened it would have to have been in the early 1800s. By the mid to late 1800s it would have been too significant to be forgotten, IMHO.

By: Shihan

Shihan — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:03:58 +0000

I’m not too sure of the theory of transported apes from African slave trader ships, however, it is indeed possible, the food requirements for a great ape would be no more than that of a human slave and if a trader thought that there was money to be made with the trade of an animal that was then unknown in this country – I think that trader would bring as many back as possible.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:47:56 +0000

Human encroachment on habitat would certainly explain the apparent increase in sightings of hominids these days. The slave ship theory is an interesting one. There is also merit to the idea that they were here all along. There would be no fossil record if indeed no one has found the fossils yet. Would like to hear the results of any research done on this.

By: oldbutnotstupid

oldbutnotstupid — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:34:40 +0000

Interesting throry,but it does seem that the need for food ans other needs would preclude the possiblility of abreeding population starting this way .the time involved for transport alone, makes it highly unlikely. has it occurred to any-one that not everything comes from africa.
These creatures could be the remains of an almost extinct species which developed here.
Similar lines of creatures in widely separated areas which are not connected ,is not unknown by any means. look where deer are found as an example.they didn’t all come from one place.

By: busterggi

busterggi — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:26:37 +0000

Okay, slave ships or other ships may have brought a few chimps over at one time or another. I’ll buy that. But could they have brought enough to start a breeding population? And would there have been enough to be noticed to account for native legends?

My theory is that napes, if they exist (and I argue about it with myself and can’t decide), are decended from South American monkeys. This accounts for De Loys’ ape, SA cryptid apes & maybe some hominds. They’d have crossed to NA at the same time ground sloths and phorusrachids did. Oh, I know this means they aren’t true apes but they’d look enough like them to confuse anyone who couldn’t do dna testing on one.

By: joppa

joppa — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:45:47 +0000

I’m sorry to be so disjointed, but everytime the microwave gets used at my house, my wireless connection gets scrambled. Anyway, I agree with mememe, NAPES from African slave ships don’t seem probable. And after you eliminate the cultural “Boogers” from your cryptid reports, you are left with two or three real mysteries – large Bigfoot sightings and skunkapes which are very regional. Isolated BF reports in downtown Manhattan or Long Island or Madisonville, Tennessee make for a good story but just aren’t credible.

So, how did skunkapes get to Florida ??? Maybe they were there all along. We forget that some areas in the eastern U.S. weren’t settled until this past century, particulaly the interior of Florida and the entire Southeast didn’t see a population boom until after we invented air conditioners. Disney World was wilderness 60 years ago, the Gulf coast was desolate; in short there has been plenty of room in the South for all sorts of critters until the last generation. Now perhaps we are running into critters that have been here all along.