• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New species of tapir discovered in Amazon

The Shrike

Philosopher
The Shrike
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
5,147
Location
Oklahoma, USA
Mario A. Cozzuol, Camila L. Clozato, Elizete C. Holanda, Flavio H. G. Rodriques, Samuel Nienow, Benoit De Thoisy, Rodrigo A. F. Redonod, and Fabricio R. Santos. (2013) A new species of tapir from the Amazon. Journal of Mammalogy.

Where I first got the story.

Exciting part: Cozzuol et al. present their case for a new (5th) species of tapir. This is being touted as an important discovery because it is the first new tapir described since 1865 and the largest land mammal described I think since the Okapi.

Comparisons to the Saola discovery are already being made, as are the standard "natives knew it all along but stupid white men wouldn't believe them" claims.

Prediction: cryptozoologists will jump all over this story to bolster their shoddy claims.

Perspective: The Brazilian tapir (Tapirus terrestris) has no type specimen and its authority is Linnaeus (1758). This new species (T. kabomani) has long since been known, it just was assumed to represent variation within T. terrestris, rather than be recognized as a distinct species. The authors of the study make a good case based on morphological and molecular differences that it should be recognized as a distinct species.

There is abundant physical evidence to serve as the holotype for the new species, including what looks to be the oldest material:

"American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) 36661, partial skull and skin of an adult young male, collected by Theodore Roosevelt in January 1912, in Porto Campo at Sepotuba River, Mato Grosso, Brazil."

Cool? Yes. Crypto-cool? Not even close.
 
Brill!

I wonder how they didn't spot it from the AMNH specimen, though. Excellent......more reading.
 
The Shrike said:
Mario A. Cozzuol, Camila L. Clozato, Elizete C. Holanda, Flavio H. G. Rodriques, Samuel Nienow, Benoit De Thoisy, Rodrigo A. F. Redonod, and Fabricio R. Santos. (2013) A new species of tapir from the Amazon. Journal of Mammalogy.

Where I first got the story.

Exciting part: Cozzuol et al. present their case for a new (5th) species of tapir. This is being touted as an important discovery because it is the first new tapir described since 1865 and the largest land mammal described I think since the Okapi.

Comparisons to the Saola discovery are already being made, as are the standard "natives knew it all along but stupid white men wouldn't believe them" claims.

Prediction: cryptozoologists will jump all over this story to bolster their shoddy claims.Perspective: The Brazilian tapir (Tapirus terrestris) has no type specimen and its authority is Linnaeus (1758). This new species (T. kabomani) has long since been known, it just was assumed to represent variation within T. terrestris, rather than be recognized as a distinct species. The authors of the study make a good case based on morphological and molecular differences that it should be recognized as a distinct species.

There is abundant physical evidence to serve as the holotype for the new species, including what looks to be the oldest material:

"American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) 36661, partial skull and skin of an adult young male, collected by Theodore Roosevelt in January 1912, in Porto Campo at Sepotuba River, Mato Grosso, Brazil."

Cool? Yes. Crypto-cool? Not even close.
Click to expand...

Already have.
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/12/take-that-skeptics-largest-land-mammal.html#moretop

Of course no note is taken that one had to wade through a lot of Tapirs to find this particular tapir. It's just another example (if you needed one) of bigfoot enthusiast's intellectual dishonesty.

This is ten times cooler than most bigfoot campfire stories.
 
Big difference in 1912...

What's that? Oh it's another South American tapir skull and skin. Ok you can just put those in the drawer over there.

What's that? Oh it's a giant hairy North American ape skull and skin. Ok you can just put those in the drawer over there.
 
Last edited:
A different kind of title would cut the cryptozoologists off at the pass...

"Zoologists finally decide that a tapir which was already confirmed to exist by physical remains in 1912 and having been killed countless times by local people is actually a new species after all."

What gives them traction is "new species discovered".
 
Not only that, but they compare it to Bigfoot as if no one's ever seen any kind of tapir before--like they've all gone totally unseen until now, rather than the reality that amongst a variety of species of a well-known animal, was one specific type that had gone undifferentiated for a time.
 
The Shrike said:
The Brazilian tapir (Tapirus terrestris) has no type specimen and its authority is Linnaeus (1758). This new species (T. kabomani) has long since been known, it just was assumed to represent variation within T. terrestris, rather than be recognized as a distinct species. The authors of the study make a good case based on morphological and molecular differences that it should be recognized as a distinct species.
Click to expand...
While it's certainly very cool that a new tapir species has been identified, I'm concerned that the term "discovery" may be misleading here. It seems more of a re-interpretation of material. As such, it's not a terribly novel event--I had a friend that was working on Galathea taxonomy, and got to name a few genera. I wouldn't call such novel taxa discoveries--someone already found and labeled it, after all.

I'm not trying to deminish the quality of this research or to support crytpozoologists at all--this sort of thing is more vital than most imagine. I'm just saying that the terminology can be a bit confusing. To me, this falls under the heading "Keep results and interpretations separate", is all. To me, "discovery" denotes actually finding the specimen; anything after that is preparation or interpretation.

William Parcher said:
Big difference in 1912...
Click to expand...
Not nearly as much as you'd think. I've yet to go to a museum that didn't have several years worth of backlog to catelogue and curate. Even small museums--even those in a university--have enough backloged material that a very good career could be made merely identifying them. The Burgess Shale material demonstrates the importance of such activities, and this new tapir is another demonstration.

From the perspective of someone who collects stuff, there's good reason for this: there's a lot more of me out there than there are museum curators, and there's a LOT more money in taking stuff out of nature than in actually making sense of it. Plus, a lot of field workers SUCK at field notes. You'd think we'd be better, but not really. We all focus on different things, and that's reflected in our notes. Modern notes aren't too bad; schools pound rigorous note taking into your head anymore. But in the past? "East of the red barn" was once considered adequate locality data.

As a general statement (not directed at either of you two!), i would like to point out that this fundamentally disproves the cryptozoologist paradigm. They think that new species can be identified by meandering around in the woods, incomprehensible photographs, and eye-witness accounts. In contrast, real scientists go to tremendous lengths to ensure that even a comparatively minor species is well-supported by numerous lines of data. (Again, this is not to disparage the new tapir's importance; it's just that compared to finding the first large primate in North America, one with no previous record and which can elude even modern survelance, would be a find on the order of discovering a new moon around the Earth!) The results of the two methods tell the whole tale--the scientific, rigorous method produces demonstrable results that can be used by numerous fields, while the cryptozoology methods produce nothing but a few very wealthy frauds.
 
Dinwar said:
Not nearly as much as you'd think. I've yet to go to a museum that didn't have several years worth of backlog to catelogue and curate. Even small museums--even those in a university--have enough backloged material that a very good career could be made merely identifying them.
Click to expand...

You must have missed the significant difference. The skull and skin of a giant hairy North American ape would never be backlogged or shelved. It would become immediate priority over everything else and become world headline news within hours. Even back in 1912.

Your response was something of a nonsequitur to what I posted.
 
William Parcher said:
Your response was something of a nonsequitur to what I posted.
Click to expand...
I was merely giving my impressions of how museums deal with finds. :) Since the material for this tapir was stored in a museum, I figured it was worth adding to the conversation.
 
Is it big enough to pull a chariot? If so better post this in the LDS thread in R&P. There's been lots of discussion about tapirs being the Nephlim's "horse" that pulled their chariots in the New World. The two Mormon posters will be beside themselves with glee.
 
Stanley Kubrick put modern South American tapirs in prehistoric Africa. Maybe that is confusing the Mormons and those other weirdos.
 
We shouldn't be wasting our breath on crypto-whatever in a thread about straight-forward zoology. Should we? I'd rather talk about the tapir.
 
If we don't talk about it in a skeptical framework then it belongs in a different forum such as Science or Current Events or Community.

When you put it here it ought to have a woo angle somehow.
 
The third post in the thread establishes why I put it here. I believe in heading off crypto-craziness at the pass whenever possible.
 
So the Bigfooters are saying that this is another example of science not listening to local folks because the locals had been saying that this was a different tapir and the scientists didn't do anything about it until now. They extend that to local Joe Schmoes saying that Bigfoot is out there but then the scientists don't just go and classify it like any of the these other animals.

But obviously there is a huge difference. The locals would have been happy and able to provide a tapir body at any time (they probably eat them). Whereas the North American locals will only tell the scientist that Bigfoot exists but they don't provide any bodies. So we end up right where we are now.

Bigfoot exists I saw one.
Provide us a body or body part.
We can't do that - you go and do that.
Nevermind.
Remember the tapir when you eat the crow.
Bring me the Bigfoot body and the crow.
Nevermind.
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
Is it big enough to pull a chariot? If so better post this in the LDS thread in R&P. There's been lots of discussion about tapirs being the Nephlim's "horse" that pulled their chariots in the New World. The two Mormon posters will be beside themselves with glee.
Click to expand...

Darn it! I have GOT to quit work, so I don't get ninja'ed like this!
 
The Shrike said:
They do eat them and yes, that was the source of the holotype.
Click to expand...

My wife is going to HATE this! :D She already has a rule "No comparison specimens in the house". If I started pulling out references pointing out the importance of dinner leftovers to science, she may actually stab me. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom