[fsckboy]

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.

[walrus01]

There is more detail here: 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.

[Diogenesian]

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]

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]

> 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-glob...

[culi]

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]

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.