5 ms·

New Species of Orangutan Is Rarest Great Ape

118 points by nature24 9y ago

robbrown451 9y ago
It isn't "newly discovered." Even the article title doesn't say that. It is a new species, as in "newly recategorized as a separate species." Big difference, and the title on HN is essentially clickbait.
- dang 9y ago
  Ok, changed back.
pavement 9y ago
It makes sense that there might be a lack of awareness for a subgroup that maintains a low profile. Inspection of the skeleton for specific details, and genetic tests prove that while interbreeding is possible, this other group was separated by geography for generations. That's not something that would be immediately obvious by unaided observation. Their vocalization is different, but a detail like that would be quickly challenged, if put forward as proof on its own. It's interesting that these subtleties permit the identification of a distinct species. I would have thought deeper, more obvious difference would be required, but I guess this level of taxonomy is mostly just for the sake of utility, when examining specimens.
- nordsieck 9y ago
  > I would have thought deeper, more obvious difference would be required What you are witnessing is a small skirmish between the Lumpers and the Splitters [1]. The really interesting thing to me, is that basically everyone in Academia is a Splitter these days except when talking about humans, where everyone suddenly converts to Lumpers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters
  - traject_ 9y ago
    Is that really true? From what I've seen from paleoanthropology, the lumpers versus splitters war still rages fiercely - see Homo neanderthalensis or H. sapiens neanderthalensis.
    - seszett 9y ago
      The person you are responding to is probably talking about modern humans. Where groups separated by geography and with a different language have definitely existed. Though I would argue that at least in the modern times, communication and transport mean that no identified group of humans is actually totally isolated anymore from the other humans, which makes it more difficult to argue that they can be different species on this ground.
  - Someone 9y ago
    That’s because being a Splitter brings more status, citations, and a better career. Academia doesn’t value negative results (‘we spent years and tons of money on this, but it looks like there’s only one species’ or ‘we found another few homo erectus bone fragments’) as high as positive ones (‘a new species of great ape’ or ‘the first evidence for a missing link’) There likely also is bias in what appears in the press. That will affect a layman’s perception of the distribution between Lumpers and Splitters. (For human languages, governments often push towards splitting. “A language is a dialect with an army”)
    - taejo 9y ago
      > (For human languages, governments often push towards splitting. “A language is a dialect with an army”) Goes both ways. Nationalists often push towards lumping language varieties spoken inside the country (e.g. calling Low German "German" and not a variety of Dutch); sometimes they also split with the variety spoken in another country (calling Dutch "Dutch" and not a variety of German). Note: I don't mean to imply anything about the current governments of Germany or the Netherlands, but more about the time around the formation of Dutch and German national identities.
  - 9y ago

118 points by nature24 9y ago

It isn't "newly discovered." Even the article title doesn't say that. It is a new species, as in "newly recategorized as a separate species." Big difference, and the title on HN is essentially clickbait.

dang 9y ago
Ok, changed back.

pavement 9y ago

It makes sense that there might be a lack of awareness for a subgroup that maintains a low profile. Inspection of the skeleton for specific details, and genetic tests prove that while interbreeding is possible, this other group was separated by geography for generations. That's not something that would be immediately obvious by unaided observation. Their vocalization is different, but a detail like that would be quickly challenged, if put forward as proof on its own. It's interesting that these subtleties permit the identification of a distinct species. I would have thought deeper, more obvious difference would be required, but I guess this level of taxonomy is mostly just for the sake of utility, when examining specimens.

nordsieck 9y ago
> I would have thought deeper, more obvious difference would be required What you are witnessing is a small skirmish between the Lumpers and the Splitters [1]. The really interesting thing to me, is that basically everyone in Academia is a Splitter these days except when talking about humans, where everyone suddenly converts to Lumpers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters
- traject_ 9y ago
  Is that really true? From what I've seen from paleoanthropology, the lumpers versus splitters war still rages fiercely - see Homo neanderthalensis or H. sapiens neanderthalensis.
  - seszett 9y ago
    The person you are responding to is probably talking about modern humans. Where groups separated by geography and with a different language have definitely existed. Though I would argue that at least in the modern times, communication and transport mean that no identified group of humans is actually totally isolated anymore from the other humans, which makes it more difficult to argue that they can be different species on this ground.
- Someone 9y ago
  That’s because being a Splitter brings more status, citations, and a better career. Academia doesn’t value negative results (‘we spent years and tons of money on this, but it looks like there’s only one species’ or ‘we found another few homo erectus bone fragments’) as high as positive ones (‘a new species of great ape’ or ‘the first evidence for a missing link’) There likely also is bias in what appears in the press. That will affect a layman’s perception of the distribution between Lumpers and Splitters. (For human languages, governments often push towards splitting. “A language is a dialect with an army”)
  - taejo 9y ago
    > (For human languages, governments often push towards splitting. “A language is a dialect with an army”) Goes both ways. Nationalists often push towards lumping language varieties spoken inside the country (e.g. calling Low German "German" and not a variety of Dutch); sometimes they also split with the variety spoken in another country (calling Dutch "Dutch" and not a variety of German). Note: I don't mean to imply anything about the current governments of Germany or the Netherlands, but more about the time around the formation of Dutch and German national identities.
- 9y ago