TechPulseTechPulse
Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 287 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#species#local#likweli#researchers#monkeys#around#name#known#living#clear

Discussion (3 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

fsckboy•about 1 hour 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•33 minutes 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•22 minutes 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