4 ms·

'Likweli': A new monkey species discovered in the Congo Basin

121 points by gmays 3mo ago

fsckboy 3mo ago
I assume there are local people living in the jungle there? did the researchers ask them what they think? perhaps Likweli looks, well, like other monkeys around there, and in the pre-Darwin West people were probably not super clear about about small differences between species. I'm just curious, usually for monkeys there are some humans around who've been eating them. this paragraph mentions it but doesn't clear much up: >Residents in only eight villages reported knowledge of the species and could accurately describe it. Since people in the region typically have detailed knowledge of local flora and fauna, this supports the notion that Likweli is a cryptic species, the researchers said.
- Diogenesian 3mo ago
  Maybe you skipped over this in the beginning: The species, Colobus congoensis, is a rare and cryptic monkey largely unknown even among people living within its range. But those who are familiar with the small, black monkeys — an arboreal creature marked by distinctive orange-cream patches around their mouths and noses — call them “Likweli,” which the researchers recommend remain the species’ common name. Otherwise I am a little confused what you're asking about. Edit: also see the point that there is a very similar Colobus monkey more widely known by locals, but this is a distinct species known only to a few, and until 2018 was previously unknown even to local naturalists/explorers.
  - culi 3mo ago
    Yeah the second paragraph explicitly says the name "likweli" is the local name for it. A lot of people seem confused about what "new species of [insert terrestrial animal]" means in 2026. Maybe it's a science communication failure. It'd be more correct and less confusing if we use "scientifically described" instead of "discovered". Even 100 years ago, almost every newly described species was already known and often named by local indigenous groups. I'm reminded of how astounded modern botanists are at the "folk taxonomy" of Cahuilla people for oak species. They have a word for every modern species. An astounding feat given how notoriously difficult Quercus species are to differentiate given their profuse tendency to hybridize
    - mmooss 3mo ago
      > A lot of people seem confused about what "new species of [insert terrestrial animal]" means in 2026. Are there comments here reflecting confusion? Species is a relatively straightforward term, especially in a relatively scientifically literate community. The researchers and authors of the article discuss surveying locals about the species. > They have a word for every modern species. Every modern species of oak grows where they live? A quick search says 450 species of oak, spread across continents: https://www.internationaloaksociety.org/content/updated-global-maps-oak-quercus-spp-sections https://www.internationaloaksociety.org/content/updated-glob...
      - culi 3mo ago
        You know what I meant. Every species of oak that grows there. Mexico and southern California are the epicenter of oak diversity. They can be incredibly variable in form and features due to hybridization and heterophylly
        mmooss 3mo ago
        I don't mean to be a jerk; I didn't know what you meant: A problem with writing like that - in loose exaggeration and hyperbole - is that the reader knows the literal meaning likely isn't intended (but sometimes is!) but they don't know what you do mean, and they don't know if you actually know or are just spouting BS (which happens on the Internet!). You're exaggerating something in your head but I don't know what's in your head. Imagine a 2-d (or 3-d) diagram of possible meanings: I have one data point; the point or region for the actual meaning could be anywhere else on the diagram. It's nothing personal - I don't know you. All I have to go on is what's in the comment. From the reader's perpsective: Is there even such a group - maybe it's all an urban myth? Did such a thing actually happen? Did they identify one or two trees, or several, or actually a lot of them? Was it as you said or was, for example, some member of the group a botanist or amateur botanist who was studying these things - it fits too neatly the trope that the locals are primitive, but still outsmart the bookish, arrogant scientists. I don't know. Add that to the part about the words species and discovery, and the comment seems mostly based on tropes about experts. Again, I don't know; I have nothing else to go on. Maybe exaggeration only works if the actual factual basis is already established.
- walrus01 3mo ago
  There is more detail here: https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/new-monkey-species-congo https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/new-monkey-species-con... "The newly identified primate is not only genetically and anatomically distinct from other African colobus monkeys but is further distinguished by its vocalizations. Its deep, resonant roaring calls resemble those of related Colobus species but possess a distinct acoustic structure. Researchers also incorporated local ecological knowledge to better understand the species’ distribution and behavior, speaking with residents and hunters across villages in the Lomami National Park’s buffer zone. Only eight villages recognized the species or could accurately describe it. Local communities referred to the monkey as “Likweli” and “kasaba nkoni,” the latter meaning “the branch shaker,” and described it as elusive and rarely seen." "Between 2018 and 2022, researchers recorded 114 sightings across an estimated range of just 1,700 square kilometers – an unusually small range for colobus monkeys. C. congoensis appears naturally isolated by rivers and forest barriers and dependent on scattered upland forest patches in the Congo Basin." ----------- My understanding of the local terrain and jungle there is that 'upland forest' is not well suited for manual labor type human agriculture, so there would be few if any villages directly in its habitat. And not frequent reasons for the people who live near it to go directly into its habitat, and even when they do, it's living high up in the tree canopy and may not be directly observed.
gregjw 3mo ago
wake up babe new monkey just dropped
pfdietz 3mo ago
The new species is an example of a "cryptic species": a species that is morphologically similar to another species but can be distinguished by DNA. Cryptic species are astoundingly common. A recent paper estimates that each known vertebrate morphological species is, on average, actually two cryptic species. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article/293/2064/20252377/479920/Cryptic-species-are-widespread-across-vertebrates https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article/293/2064/202...
- astrobe_ 3mo ago
  The "crypto" Greek root can mean "hidden" indeed [1]. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CF%85%CF%80%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CF%85%CF%80%CF%8...
rickdangerous1 3mo ago
The bigfoot folks will be talking about this for years.
Myrmornis 3mo ago
It's an allopatric population. It's one of the great embarrassments of biology. The question "is this population part of the same 'species' as this other population" is simply not defined in biology when they are allopatric. Look at your country's bird identification guide. If you're in Europe or N. America you'll find lots of "species" that are just allopatric populations accompanied by some mtDNA / sound recording data claiming they're "sufficiently" distinct. It shouldn't be controversial to say that this is nonsense. The main problem is that it is challenging for conservation biology to admit that 'species' isn't well defined in allopatry. That is indeed unfortunate. But, science can't be politics. Think about it: there's nothing about the laws of physics, chemistry, or fundamental biology that implies that all populations must be clearly assignable to distinct categories. What biology says is that sexual eukaryotic organisms exist and they breed and distribute themselves more of less connectedly over space, and, stuff happens over time. Whether or not you can interbreed in sympatry is profoundly important -- loss of interbreeding is the basis of biological diversity. And allopatry is profoundly important -- it's the main way you lose the ability to interbreed. But two allopatric populations are just that: the organisms don't interbreed because they can't; they're not in "cruising distance". You could take two groups of individuals of any population you like and ship them off to islands on the other side of the world and they won't interbreed. They were part of the same "species" before their trip so presumably they still are when they get to their new homes. But the question of "when in the future should we say that they've evolved apart enough for us to call them different 'species'" is a question about what's convenient or useful, not a question about biological concepts or mechanisms. So it's not that studying the biology of allopatric populations isn't worthwhile -- far from it -- it's just that biology has a sentimental attachment to the idea that populations can always be assigned to "species". You can consider their ancestry as organismal pedigrees, and you can consider the ancestry of different parts of their genome, you can model it mathematically, you can collect genetic data and try to make inferences about it and about how the world they evolved in gave rise to it all. Population genetics, phylogeography, biogeography, phylogenetics etc are all extremely interesting and worthwhile. But with those subjects came confused "species concepts" stretching over decades trying to explain why some or other genealogical or phylogenetic criterion was the right basis to use to define the word "species". But the correct thing to do was much simpler: just accept that there is no scientific reason for the question "are these allopatric populations the same thing or not" to have any particular meaning, let alone answer. People who have written some sense among the decades of nonsense: Jürgen Haffer and and Ernst Mayr's geographical species, and Jody Hey's in his book "Genes, categories and species".
anotherpaul 3mo ago
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0349857 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... The link to the paper
rustyhancock 3mo ago
I wish they called it confirmed and not discovered It was known about by the locals, they even gave it a name, it's call was very well known even if few had sighted it. They did important scientific work to confirm a distinct species. But they did not discover it unless you discount the local people!
- markdown 3mo ago
  Incredible that that language is still used in 2026. https://www.audubon.org/news/like-finding-unicorn-researchers-rediscover-black-naped-pheasant-pigeon-bird https://www.audubon.org/news/like-finding-unicorn-researcher... This article about finding a bird presumed to be extinct for 140yrs is a good example of the local people knowing the bird was there all along, and guiding researchers with cameras to spots where they could find them. BTW the youtube video on that page of the team in utter jubilation upon seeing the photos in their cameras never fails to make me smile.
  - BobaFloutist 3mo ago
    I mean it's used by editors in headlines, but the article itself says "has described a new Colobus monkey species," and goes on to discuss the locals (relative un)familiarity with the species.
- dash2 3mo ago
  I mean did the locals think of the two species as separate? If not then the discovery of a separate species is what’s important, not the knowledge of the physical population. Or was the population previously unknown to researchers?
fleroviumna 3mo ago
[dead]
brokegrammer 3mo ago
They look very similar to Kalisks
talktalkmake 3mo ago
OOO! Chimpanzee-that! Monkey News.
- zomglings 3mo ago
  God I miss that show.
penguin_booze 3mo ago
I can't imagine anything worse that could happen to an animal than getting discovered by humans. Dear monkey, please run, and run far!
- RetroTechie 3mo ago
  > Dear monkey, please run, and run far! Where to? Article says they're in a national park already (and even there, hunted sometimes).

121 points by gmays 3mo ago

I assume there are local people living in the jungle there? did the researchers ask them what they think? perhaps Likweli looks, well, like other monkeys around there, and in the pre-Darwin West people were probably not super clear about about small differences between species. I'm just curious, usually for monkeys there are some humans around who've been eating them. this paragraph mentions it but doesn't clear much up: >Residents in only eight villages reported knowledge of the species and could accurately describe it. Since people in the region typically have detailed knowledge of local flora and fauna, this supports the notion that Likweli is a cryptic species, the researchers said.

Diogenesian 3mo ago
Maybe you skipped over this in the beginning: The species, Colobus congoensis, is a rare and cryptic monkey largely unknown even among people living within its range. But those who are familiar with the small, black monkeys — an arboreal creature marked by distinctive orange-cream patches around their mouths and noses — call them “Likweli,” which the researchers recommend remain the species’ common name. Otherwise I am a little confused what you're asking about. Edit: also see the point that there is a very similar Colobus monkey more widely known by locals, but this is a distinct species known only to a few, and until 2018 was previously unknown even to local naturalists/explorers.
- culi 3mo ago
  Yeah the second paragraph explicitly says the name "likweli" is the local name for it. A lot of people seem confused about what "new species of [insert terrestrial animal]" means in 2026. Maybe it's a science communication failure. It'd be more correct and less confusing if we use "scientifically described" instead of "discovered". Even 100 years ago, almost every newly described species was already known and often named by local indigenous groups. I'm reminded of how astounded modern botanists are at the "folk taxonomy" of Cahuilla people for oak species. They have a word for every modern species. An astounding feat given how notoriously difficult Quercus species are to differentiate given their profuse tendency to hybridize
  - mmooss 3mo ago
    > A lot of people seem confused about what "new species of [insert terrestrial animal]" means in 2026. Are there comments here reflecting confusion? Species is a relatively straightforward term, especially in a relatively scientifically literate community. The researchers and authors of the article discuss surveying locals about the species. > They have a word for every modern species. Every modern species of oak grows where they live? A quick search says 450 species of oak, spread across continents: https://www.internationaloaksociety.org/content/updated-global-maps-oak-quercus-spp-sections https://www.internationaloaksociety.org/content/updated-glob...
    - culi 3mo ago
      You know what I meant. Every species of oak that grows there. Mexico and southern California are the epicenter of oak diversity. They can be incredibly variable in form and features due to hybridization and heterophylly
      - mmooss 3mo ago
        I don't mean to be a jerk; I didn't know what you meant: A problem with writing like that - in loose exaggeration and hyperbole - is that the reader knows the literal meaning likely isn't intended (but sometimes is!) but they don't know what you do mean, and they don't know if you actually know or are just spouting BS (which happens on the Internet!). You're exaggerating something in your head but I don't know what's in your head. Imagine a 2-d (or 3-d) diagram of possible meanings: I have one data point; the point or region for the actual meaning could be anywhere else on the diagram. It's nothing personal - I don't know you. All I have to go on is what's in the comment. From the reader's perpsective: Is there even such a group - maybe it's all an urban myth? Did such a thing actually happen? Did they identify one or two trees, or several, or actually a lot of them? Was it as you said or was, for example, some member of the group a botanist or amateur botanist who was studying these things - it fits too neatly the trope that the locals are primitive, but still outsmart the bookish, arrogant scientists. I don't know. Add that to the part about the words species and discovery, and the comment seems mostly based on tropes about experts. Again, I don't know; I have nothing else to go on. Maybe exaggeration only works if the actual factual basis is already established.
walrus01 3mo ago
There is more detail here: https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/new-monkey-species-congo https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/new-monkey-species-con... "The newly identified primate is not only genetically and anatomically distinct from other African colobus monkeys but is further distinguished by its vocalizations. Its deep, resonant roaring calls resemble those of related Colobus species but possess a distinct acoustic structure. Researchers also incorporated local ecological knowledge to better understand the species’ distribution and behavior, speaking with residents and hunters across villages in the Lomami National Park’s buffer zone. Only eight villages recognized the species or could accurately describe it. Local communities referred to the monkey as “Likweli” and “kasaba nkoni,” the latter meaning “the branch shaker,” and described it as elusive and rarely seen." "Between 2018 and 2022, researchers recorded 114 sightings across an estimated range of just 1,700 square kilometers – an unusually small range for colobus monkeys. C. congoensis appears naturally isolated by rivers and forest barriers and dependent on scattered upland forest patches in the Congo Basin." ----------- My understanding of the local terrain and jungle there is that 'upland forest' is not well suited for manual labor type human agriculture, so there would be few if any villages directly in its habitat. And not frequent reasons for the people who live near it to go directly into its habitat, and even when they do, it's living high up in the tree canopy and may not be directly observed.

gregjw 3mo ago

wake up babe new monkey just dropped

pfdietz 3mo ago

The new species is an example of a "cryptic species": a species that is morphologically similar to another species but can be distinguished by DNA. Cryptic species are astoundingly common. A recent paper estimates that each known vertebrate morphological species is, on average, actually two cryptic species. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article/293/2064/20252377/479920/Cryptic-species-are-widespread-across-vertebrates https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article/293/2064/202...

astrobe_ 3mo ago
The "crypto" Greek root can mean "hidden" indeed [1]. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CF%85%CF%80%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CF%85%CF%80%CF%8...

rickdangerous1 3mo ago

The bigfoot folks will be talking about this for years.

Myrmornis 3mo ago

It's an allopatric population. It's one of the great embarrassments of biology. The question "is this population part of the same 'species' as this other population" is simply not defined in biology when they are allopatric. Look at your country's bird identification guide. If you're in Europe or N. America you'll find lots of "species" that are just allopatric populations accompanied by some mtDNA / sound recording data claiming they're "sufficiently" distinct. It shouldn't be controversial to say that this is nonsense. The main problem is that it is challenging for conservation biology to admit that 'species' isn't well defined in allopatry. That is indeed unfortunate. But, science can't be politics. Think about it: there's nothing about the laws of physics, chemistry, or fundamental biology that implies that all populations must be clearly assignable to distinct categories. What biology says is that sexual eukaryotic organisms exist and they breed and distribute themselves more of less connectedly over space, and, stuff happens over time. Whether or not you can interbreed in sympatry is profoundly important -- loss of interbreeding is the basis of biological diversity. And allopatry is profoundly important -- it's the main way you lose the ability to interbreed. But two allopatric populations are just that: the organisms don't interbreed because they can't; they're not in "cruising distance". You could take two groups of individuals of any population you like and ship them off to islands on the other side of the world and they won't interbreed. They were part of the same "species" before their trip so presumably they still are when they get to their new homes. But the question of "when in the future should we say that they've evolved apart enough for us to call them different 'species'" is a question about what's convenient or useful, not a question about biological concepts or mechanisms. So it's not that studying the biology of allopatric populations isn't worthwhile -- far from it -- it's just that biology has a sentimental attachment to the idea that populations can always be assigned to "species". You can consider their ancestry as organismal pedigrees, and you can consider the ancestry of different parts of their genome, you can model it mathematically, you can collect genetic data and try to make inferences about it and about how the world they evolved in gave rise to it all. Population genetics, phylogeography, biogeography, phylogenetics etc are all extremely interesting and worthwhile. But with those subjects came confused "species concepts" stretching over decades trying to explain why some or other genealogical or phylogenetic criterion was the right basis to use to define the word "species". But the correct thing to do was much simpler: just accept that there is no scientific reason for the question "are these allopatric populations the same thing or not" to have any particular meaning, let alone answer. People who have written some sense among the decades of nonsense: Jürgen Haffer and and Ernst Mayr's geographical species, and Jody Hey's in his book "Genes, categories and species".

anotherpaul 3mo ago

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0349857 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... The link to the paper

rustyhancock 3mo ago

I wish they called it confirmed and not discovered It was known about by the locals, they even gave it a name, it's call was very well known even if few had sighted it. They did important scientific work to confirm a distinct species. But they did not discover it unless you discount the local people!

markdown 3mo ago
Incredible that that language is still used in 2026. https://www.audubon.org/news/like-finding-unicorn-researchers-rediscover-black-naped-pheasant-pigeon-bird https://www.audubon.org/news/like-finding-unicorn-researcher... This article about finding a bird presumed to be extinct for 140yrs is a good example of the local people knowing the bird was there all along, and guiding researchers with cameras to spots where they could find them. BTW the youtube video on that page of the team in utter jubilation upon seeing the photos in their cameras never fails to make me smile.
- BobaFloutist 3mo ago
  I mean it's used by editors in headlines, but the article itself says "has described a new Colobus monkey species," and goes on to discuss the locals (relative un)familiarity with the species.
dash2 3mo ago
I mean did the locals think of the two species as separate? If not then the discovery of a separate species is what’s important, not the knowledge of the physical population. Or was the population previously unknown to researchers?

fleroviumna 3mo ago

[dead]

brokegrammer 3mo ago

They look very similar to Kalisks

talktalkmake 3mo ago

OOO! Chimpanzee-that! Monkey News.

zomglings 3mo ago
God I miss that show.

penguin_booze 3mo ago

I can't imagine anything worse that could happen to an animal than getting discovered by humans. Dear monkey, please run, and run far!

RetroTechie 3mo ago
> Dear monkey, please run, and run far! Where to? Article says they're in a national park already (and even there, hunted sometimes).