Guest Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 ... Wouldn't Sasquatch be a possibility? I think most of you would have "scoffed" at those claims 2 months before the discovery. You're the same people who would never have found the mountain gorilla or the panda. "Researchers in Africa have discovered a huge population of 'unusually large' chimps who feast on leopards and giant snails in what is being described as the continent's 'last untouched wilderness'. The previously unknown 'mega-culture' was found in the heart of the Bili-Uele forest in the Democratic Republic of Congo by researchers, who trekked thousands of miles dodging armed police and militia to get there. And they were stunned to see the chimps eating leopard and huge African snails, whose shells they pound open on rocks." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554620/Researchers-discover-10-000-community-chimpanzees-war-torn-Africa-eating-LEOPARDS.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keninsc Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 That is interesting, but being in the Congo might help to explain why they have been discovered. That's one of the most dangerous areas in the world to be in...all you have to do is read the article. Pouchers are only part of that story. However, these are simply chimps, they may be larger, due to their diet, but they're still chimps. Predatory behavior, territorial boundary patrolling and hunting of other species.............. ....as well as other primates; is not new within the species. Not to try and sound Lile I'm belittling the discovery, but once you've seen one monkey, you've pretty much seen them all. I would add that Bigfoots I think are a real possibility, just because this discovery doesn't have the "wow" factor, it doesn't change the possibility that they might exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotta Know Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 ^It's so hard to impress some people these days. Heh. Definitely a "wow" factor for me. I agree that there are probably similarities to other chimps (not "monkeys"), but their size and isolation likely hold real secrets that only a new species can. Fascinating find, I think. And yes, definitely an indicator that our big friend may also soon be "discovered." Thanks for for sharing, Swedish Primate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 It should be also noted that this and almost every other primate discovery was made by fully funded researchers and scientists who spent long periods of time in these areas with top notch equipment. In Sasquatchery we have a small select group of people who take the subject as serious, and only have a very limited { self funded } amount of money and time to put into research efforts. For most Bigfootery is a hobby and not a serious pursuit, they would much rather have a dirt bike, go on five star vacation or have a awesome cellphone and plan every time a new phone comes out. It is no mystery as to why we have not found Bigfoot yet. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Agreed Nathan. The discovery is amazing but as you say is not unsurprising given that the expedition was fully funded and involved kosher scientists. If only we had that effort employed in NA rather than a few dedicated serious bods and loads of oddballs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Agreed Nathan. The discovery is amazing but as you say is not unsurprising given that the expedition was fully funded and involved kosher scientists. If only we had that effort employed in NA rather than a few dedicated serious bods and loads of oddballs. I still don't think that even with that team and the fact that all parts of the US are much much easier to access than that jungle madness they had to go through that they would be able to prove that the bigfoot exist. Sure they might get rocks thrown at them and harassed by unseen giant things (assuming the bigfoot don't just leave the area altogether) but they would have no clue what was doing it all, just chalk it all up as "weird stuff" and call the mission a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 They decided to go into this area 15 years ago. They found lots of chimps. They knew they were there, however: In the 30 years following the initiation by primatologists of the first long-term chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) field studies in the early 1960s, research sites were heavily biased towards the far eastern and western edges of chimpanzees’ distribution. In the past 15 years, a number of additional sites have been established, many closer to the center of the species’ range. In 2004 they started surveying the area. In 2014 you get the article talking about the results. http://dare.uva.nl/document/191726 So basically, when they decided to go count them, they were able to count them. They knew they were there, but had no ability to go count them and assess the population and threats. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Are the chimps considered a new species or a subspecies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 ^It's so hard to impress some people these days. Heh. Definitely a "wow" factor for me. I agree that there are probably similarities to other chimps (not "monkeys"), but their size and isolation likely hold real secrets that only a new species can. Fascinating find, I think. And yes, definitely an indicator that our big friend may also soon be "discovered." Thanks for for sharing, Swedish Primate. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Are the chimps considered a new species or a subspecies? Neither. They are Eastern Chimps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotta Know Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 How so? Fair enough question; just wishful thinking on my part. Shouldn't have phrased it in the absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keninsc Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 There's nothing really special about them or unique other than they were found in an area they weren't known to be in before and they hunt more. Personally, I fail to see what's so noteworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Well, I think it is noteworthy b/c it illustrates the difficulty in finding and cataloging a primate that one knows is already there in great numbers. It took 10 years for them to complete their task. That is will funding, full time support, and the fact they KNEW the animals were in there. Kind of puts in perspective the amount of time and effort it will take to prove BF's existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 It didn't take this long to prove their existence; it took them this long to conduct a full study. You can't compare the one to the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Well, other than, since BF is not proven yet, we are still decades out from understanding the most basic of information about the creatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts