[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.