Chimpanzees combine calls to communicate new meaning
Chimpanzees combine calls to communicate new meaning Chimpanzees are known to produce a number of different vocalizations and combine these calls into larger sequences. Credit: Adrian Soldati A key feature of human language is our ability to combine words into larger compositional phrases, where the meaning of the whole is related to the meaning of the parts. Where this ability came from or how it evolved, however, is less clear.
Chimpanzees, our closest-living relative, are known to produce a number of different vocalizations to manage their social and ecological lives and, under some circumstances, combine these calls into larger sequences. By conducting careful, controlled experiments with wild chimpanzees in Uganda, researchers from the University of Zurich (UZH) showed that these combinations are understood by chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees react most strongly to call combinations “Chimpanzees produce ‘alarm-huus’ when surprised and ‘waa-barks’ when potentially recruiting conspecifics during aggression or hunting,” says Maël Leroux, a postdoctoral student at the Department of Comparative Language Science of UZH, who led the study. “Our behavioral observations suggest that chimpanzees combine these calls when exposed to a threat where recruiting group members is advantageous, such as when encountering a snake, but until now experimental verification has been missing.”
The researchers presented chimpanzees with model snakes and were able to elicit the call combination. Critically, chimpanzees responded strongest to playbacks of the combination than when hearing either the “alarm-huu” or “waa-bark” alone. “This makes sense because a threat that needs recruitment is an urgent event and suggests listening chimpanzees really are combining the meaning of the individual calls,” adds study last author and UZH professor Simon Townsend.
An important implication of the new findings is the potential light they can shed on the evolutionary roots of language’s compositional nature. “Humans and chimpanzees last shared a common ancestor approximately 6 million years ago. Our data therefore indicate that the capacity to combine meaningful vocalizations is potentially at least 6 million years old, if not older,” says Townsend.
“These data provide an intriguing glimpse into the evolutionary emergence of language,” added Leroux. In a nutshell, it points towards compositionality originating prior to the appearance of language itself, though follow-up observational and experimental work, ideally in other great ape species, will be central to confirming this.
The findings are published in the journal Nature Communications.
More information: Maël Leroux et al, Call combinations and compositional processing in wild chimpanzees, Nature Communications (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-37816-y
Researchers have identified a new species of orangutan in an isolated forest on the Indonesian island of Sumatra. Fewer than 800 individuals remain, and the construction of a dam and road threaten the prime habitat of the ape, which is distinguished from its cousins by, among other things, frizzier hair and a taste for caterpillars.
“As a scientist, I’m thrilled by this discovery,” says Graham Banes, a primatologist at the University of Wisconsin in Madison who was not involved in the rare find, described online this week in Current Biology. “As a human, I’m horrified that we might not have enough time to save the species.”
Note: That Primate Discoveries of new Apes and Monkeys are happening all the time. There’s many hidden elusive species out there ! Daniel Benoit
A combination of genetic, anatomical, and ecological data convinced researchers that Pongo tapanuliensis, named for the Tapanuli districts where it is found, is distinct from the two accepted species of orangutan. Conservationists hope the find—the first new species of great ape to be discovered since the bonobo in 1929—will help raise awareness of the plight of orangutans. Both existing species are critically endangered, and the new species immediately surpasses them to become one of the world’s most endangered apes. The discovery “will enable us to get the message out about primate conservation in a major way,” predicts Russell Mittermeier, executive vice-chair of Conservation International in Arlington, Virginia.
Just 15,000 individuals of P. abeliiremain in Sumatra. Most of their forest habitat has been destroyed by logging, palm oil plantations, and other development. On Borneo, the population of P. pygmaeus has fallen by 25% over the past 10 years to about 60,000. A recent study estimated that up to 3100 orangutans are killed each year on Borneo alone. This is a high death rate for animals that are extremely slow to reproduce; Sumatran orangutans give birth every 8 to 9 years, less frequently than any other mammal. “Any negative effect will have a long-lasting impact on the population,” says Vincent Nijman, a conservation biologist and anthropologist at Oxford Brookes University in the United Kingdom. “That’s why you need to be so careful.”
The Tapanuli population had been lost to science for decades. In 1997, Erik Meijaard, a co-author of the paper and a biologist with Borneo Futures, a conservation group based in Bandar Seri Begawan, led a team that followed up on a 1935 report by a colonial-era zoologist. It mentioned orangutans in the Batang Toru forest, which by the 1990s was believed to be outside the orangutans’ range.
Clues that the Batang Toru population might be a breed apart began to emerge after Gabriella Fredriksson, a conservationist with the Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Programme (SOCP) in Medan, Indonesia, helped set up a field station in 2005. One clue came from their unusual diet—not just caterpillars, but also other foods such as conifer cones. And fecal samples yielded mitochondrial DNA that suggested they are more closely related to orangutans on the relatively distant island of Borneo than to those in nearer northern Sumatra. “This was very odd,” says co-author Michael Krützen, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Zurich (UZH) in Switzerland.
Without a skeleton to study, scientists couldn’t tell whether these differences were enough to warrant a separate species. Then, in 2013, villagers killed an adult male orangutan after it invaded a garden. Its skull and jaw differed significantly from those of the two known species on 24 of 39 standard measurements, found coauthor Anton Nurcahyo, a doctoral student at the Australian National University in Canberra. Other differences emerged, too. Photographs of two Tapanuli males and a female showed they had frizzier hair, and sound recordings analyzed by SOCP’s Matthew Nowak revealed calls with more pulses and higher pitches.
The Tapanuli orangutans face many threats, including fragmented habitat, gold mining, and a planned dam.CREDITS: (MAPS) J. YOU/SCIENCE; (DATA) IUCN RED LIST; PANECO FOUNDATION
Genomic analysis confirmed the uniqueness of the population. Co-author Maja Mattle-Greminger at UZH and colleagues sequenced the genomes of one captive Tapanuli orangutan and 15 from Sumatra and Borneo. The researchers then combined these data with 20 previously published genomes, including another from Batang Toru, to work out a family tree. Alexander Nater, a co-author then at UZH, and the team concluded that by 3.4 million years ago, orangutans in northern Sumatra had split from those in southern Sumatra and Borneo. (The two islands and mainland Asia have been repeatedly joined and separated by changes in sea level.) Then, about 674,000 years ago, the populations in southern Sumatra and Borneo diverged.
Although orangutans in north and south Sumatra occasionally interbred after the lineages diverged, the Tapanuli orangutans became completely isolated by about 20,000 years ago, and the new genetic analysis shows signs of inbreeding. One factor in the divergence appears to have been cataclysmic eruptions of Mount Toba in Sumatra about 73,000 years ago, which destroyed habitat and likely hindered the dispersal of males. Humans arrived at about the same time, clearing forests and presumably hunting orangutans.
Conservationists say the highest priority is to protect the remaining population, which persists in about 1100 square kilometers of forest. In 2014, the government protected most of the forest from logging. But the best habitat—about 7 square kilometers of low-land forest—is not protected, and villagers sometimes kill orangutans that raid gardens. Gold mining is also driving deforestation.
A planned hydropower dam is the latest threat. The so-called run-of-river design would not store much water behind a dam, but would require digging a long tunnel in an area that holds the densest population of orangutans. An access road would promote deforestation, Fredriksson says, complicating plans to use forest corridors to reconnect the four blocks of orangutan habitat.
In March, the provincial government established the first management authority focused on the Batang Toru ecosystem. Fredriksson says a key task for conservation groups is working with local communities to reduce illegal tree-cutting and hunting. But she warns that, by itself, “the new species of orangutan is not so exciting” to Batang Toru residents. So conservationists will need to find creative ways of enlisting their help, for example by promoting tourism and other benefits of a healthy forest, to keep the world’s newest ape species alive.
The Tapanuli orangutan (Pongo tapanuliensis) is a species of orangutan restricted to South Tapanuli in the island of Sumatra in Indonesia. ] It is one of three known species of orangutan, alongside the Sumatran orangutan (P. abelii), found farther northwest on the island, and the Bornean orangutan (P. pygmaeus). It was described as a distinct species in 2017. As of 2018, there are roughly 800 individuals of this species and it is currently on the critically endangered species list.
Garrett Wilbur of Greenville holds the skull and antlers from a deer that he discovered on April 20 while searching for moose antler sheds near Greenville. Credit: Courtesy of David Wilbur Garrett Wilbur is an avid deer hunter and enjoys spending time in the woods near his home in Greenville.
He found a dream buck in the Maine woods. There was just one catch.
In the spring, those forays often center around searching for moose sheds, antlers that have dropped off the heads of bull moose over the winter.
“I’ve been doing it quite a while, since I was a kid,” Wilbur said. “We find some good-looking wintering areas for moose and just meander through and hope for the best.”
On April 20, the Gray native visited a spot where a year ago he had found a matching set of moose sheds. Wilbur likes to collect antlers, and even sold a set for the first time last year.
This year, there were no moose antlers to be found during his return to the spot. Instead, Wilbur stumbled onto something even more intriguing.
There on the ground was a so-called deadhead, the skull and antlers of a deer. Two of the tines appeared to have been embedded in the dirt for a while. All that remained of the animal were the antlers, the top of the skull and one neck vertebra. There was little hair and flesh left on the skull.
“It’s definitely the coolest thing I’ve ever found, for sure, just because of the size and the uniqueness of it,” said Wilbur, who did not take the time to search the area more thoroughly for other signs of the deer.
“I was absolutely not expecting to ever stumble across something like that,” he said.
Garrett Wilbur of Greenville stumbled across this impressive “deadhead” of a deer while searching for moose antler sheds on April 20 near Greenville. Credit: Courtesy of Garrett Wilbur And so the questions began: How did the deer die? How big was it? How did its head wind up in that spot, separated from the rest of the skeleton?
“The story of what happened to it is still a mystery,” Wilbur said.
It’s possible that coyotes or another carnivore may have come upon the carcass and moved it. Wilbur said he has previously come upon scattered animal bones in the woods.
“It must have been dragged a little ways to where it was,” Wilbur said.
What we do know about the deer is that it sported an impressive set of antlers. It’s a mainframe eight-pointer, but there are 13 points total.
Wilbur, who isn’t a trained Boone and Crockett scorer, measured the antlers at approximately 167 inches.
“Everything about it is unique and cool,” he said.
Based on the appearance of the antlers, the deer once attached to them likely was a good one.
“Incredible buck,” said Nathan Bieber, deer biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
“At that size, I have to assume his rack was near peak,” Bieber said. “Buck rack size begins to decline later in life, so I don’t think he was on that downslope yet.”
Bieber said that given the apparent health of the antlers, the lack of velvet and that they were still attached to the deer when it died, some inferences can be drawn.
“That narrows down the time of death a bit to mid-fall through mid-winter,” Bieber said.
He said collared deer studied by the state, which die of poor body condition or malnutrition, often succumb in April. The deer in question typically would have shed its antlers by then, so that doesn’t seem likely.
What else might have killed the buck?
And so the questions began: How did the deer die? How big was it? How did its head wind up in that spot, separated from the rest of the skeleton?
“Some possibilities would be rut [mating season] injury or hunting injury leading to a death — or predation,” Bieber said.
However, he suspects this particular buck, given its likely age, if healthy would have presented a challenge to four-legged predators.
If a hunter had the chance to shoot at the buck, they obviously never found it. That would have been agonizing for most hunters.
Ultimately, there is no way to know precisely how a seemingly healthy mature buck died and lost its head.
“It’s all conjecture, of course, but fun to try and imagine how his life may have unfolded,” Bieber said.
Wilbur has achieved some success of his own as a hunter, shooting a 214-pound buck in the region in 2018. He hopes to turn the discovery of the deadhead into another lasting memory.
“I’ll honestly probably just boil it down, clean it up and maybe darken the antlers back up a little bit just to give it some character so it can be hung on the wall,” Wilbur said.
Australopithecus, meaning “southern ape”, was an early hominin that existed in Africa during the Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene. The genera Homo, which includes modern humans, Paranthropus, and Kenyanthropus evolved from Australopithecus. In other words, Australopithecus were primates closely related to, if not actually ancestors of, modern human beings. For this reason, it is a crucial evolutionary link between nonhuman ape-like creatures and early human species. It is perhaps one of the richest paleoanthropological finds with fossils like “Lucy” yielding significant insights into our evolutionary past.
Species are numerous, and include Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, and Australopithecus deyiremeda.
Australopithecus is known from a series of fossils found at numerous sites in eastern, north-central, and southern Africa, also known as the cradle of humankind. For the longest time, scientists believed our early ancestors arose from Europe or Asia, yet in 1924, a fossil discovery in South Africa revolutionized the perception of early human evolution, known as the Taung Child, which we will get to later in the video.
The earliest known member of the genus, Australopithecus anamensis, existed in eastern Africa around 4.2 million years ago, possessing a smaller cranial capacity than other australopithecines. Australopithecus fossils become more widely dispersed throughout eastern and southern Africa, with the Chadian Australopithecus bahrelghazali indicating the genus was much more widespread than the fossil record suggests, before eventually becoming extinct 1.9 million years ago, or 1.2 million to 600,000 years ago if Paranthropus is included, during the Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs. The validity of Paranthropus is contested, with paleoanthropologists currently debating about synonymy with Australopithecus. While none of the groups normally directly assigned to this group survived, including the subspecies, Australopithecus gave rise to living descendants: humans, or Homo, which emerged from an Australopithecus species some time between 3 and 2 million years ago. One of the greatest mysteries in paleoanthropology might be the exact species from which early Homo arose, whose discovery could notably change our view of early human evolution.
For anyone who is considering getting involved with Bigfoot or Cryptid Research and seeking Evidence or if you are already involved, I want to address a thing or two for you to think about before I share my experience in the field.
First of all it’s very important that you enter into this field with a clear mind, an objective mind, and Leave Bigfoot out of your mind ! So your asking why ? Right? Well allow me to explain. Well not everyone conducts research the same way, Some just go into the woods and hike around and look at broken trees, and odd formations and call it bigfooting, and saying Bigfoot did this or did that. And I’m not lying, because I see this all the time.
With that being said – It’s no more than just hiking and throwing out and making outrageous claims without evidence with the lack of observation. This is where Bigfoot is on the brain and you just completely neglected and ruled out every other possible suspect in nature, when in fact there’s so many other possibilities, such as other wildlife, and weather. Bigfoot should always be the last consideration when observing what we can’t explain.
Now by no means am I trying or attempting to belittle anyone but only pointing out my observations and what I personally see of what’s in error. Also only making a statement for you to consider
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ME:
I’ve been in the woods for as long as I can remember, from a very young age as I been in the woods tagging along with Dad as he hunts or just playing in the woods with friends building forts or what have you. I’ve learned so much just by spending a great deal of time in the woods. I’ve witnessed my share of wildlife over the years, and it’s been quite rewarding and fascinating to observe them even now in my adult life, it never ceases to see God’s beautiful Creatures and Creations.
I’ve been hiking, exploring, and camping through all kinds of weather, yes I’ve even been caught in bad storms. And let me tell you it can be a very scary and dangerous place to be when out in the woods when storms move in with strong winds. I’ve witnessed multiple tree damage, trees falling and much more. I’ve witnessed tree formations being created by the weather out in nature, and not to mention the wildlife that create such….. Let me explain! BEARS – are very destructive mammals as they often play, and rough house on trees, pushing them over, uprooting them and on some occasions climbing them causing them to topple over and bend. With their weight and strength as the trees bend over, the trees will often stay bent due to the inner fibers stretching. Now in some situations trees will naturally bend on their own as they will reach and bend towards the sunlight. ICE & SNOW – These other suspects which I have observed and studied over the years play another key role in tree formations and bends. Weight & Momentum Again stretching the inner fibers. Yes in some cases the tree will possibly straighten out but not always the case.
I can’t stress enough how important it is to be objective towards our findings, and rule out all suspects, Bigfoot and Cryptids should always be our last consideration.
SOME OF MY FINDINGS:
Some but not all of my findings
Exploring and being out in nature must be loved and enjoyed, Finding Potential evidence is never guaranteed, but a bonus to come across. Take your time when you are out there.
CAMPING & EXPEDITIONS
Over the years I’ve hosted group campouts to take others out to show them my research area. With some individuals they want to learn about nature, or See what it is like to explore and seek out Bigfoot evidence. I always point out the possibilities or potential evidence, such as Track impressions and so forth. Above all I try my best to present an objective and logical view on what’s observed. Again being objective but yet keeping an open mind on that possibility. To blatantly say Bigfoot made or did that with out witnessing the act or creation is being in serious error. It proves to us nothing but shows others with a sound mind that we are fools. Education and awareness of what I do and know is very important for me to share. I don’t have facts about Bigfoot accept what I’ve personally witnessed, but what I do have is experience, knowledge, understanding and the facts regarding wildlife and nature.
During our excursions in the field, we also love to observe and refresh ourselves on what is known among us as we venture through the outdoors. Do we ever experience odd and unfamiliar activities such us vocals, tree knocks, and having rocks thrown at us by an unknown? Yes absolutely. We have on a number of occasions and have had Bigfoot encounters here in Virginia. Matter of fact 6 of us on May 3rd of 2014 shared a Bigfoot Encounter of what we believe was a family unit of 3 . Now I myself have experienced another up in the mountains behind the lake in my research area, it was a distant observation through my zoomed camcorder that was set up on a tripod- it was on the opposite ridge from me. I’ve also had a large heavy subject biped walk away from me one time, Now although I did not see it , I can honestly tell you without doubt it was bipedal and very close to me just inside the tree line across from my camp site. There’s much more that I can share regarding other stories and report s that I’ve gathered from other eyewitness here in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Many Bigfoot reports are not openly shared or reported to the public nor are they documented in the BFRO database.
So let me tell dear reader, Bigfoot does exist here in Virginia and is a live and well.
REGISTER | SIGN IN MENU + The Return of Melba Ketchum April 20, 2023 Benjamin Radford
A team of researchers led by Dr. Melba Ketchum, a Texas veterinarian, claimed to have not only conclusively proven the existence of Bigfoot through genetic testing, but also that the mysterious monster is a half-human hybrid, the result of mating with modern human females about 15,000 years ago. That was in 2012, and she’s back at it with a GoFundMe page “raising research funding for genetic research. Samples include Bigfoot, Dogman, giants, and others. Object is to prove relatedness and origins of the species. This fundraiser is to complete the study. Massive amounts of data have already been obtained. Donors will be kept abreast of progress with a signed NDA. Thanks so much in advance.” (For those who aren’t familiar with Dogman—yes, it’s a creature claimed to be half human and half dog. And no, there’s no good evidence that it exists, just like Bigfoot, fairies, Mothman, djinn, chupacabras, giants, trolls, elves, and other such fanciful creatures.)
As of April 20 she’d raised nearly $23,000 for this endeavor, promising as noted to reveal information to donors who agree to a non-disclosure agreement. It’s not clear whether the editor of a peer-reviewed journal would need to sign such an NDA should Ketchum submit her research, though I suspect the issue is moot.
Dr. Ketchum is prominent Bigfoot researcher who trades heavily on her academic pedigree, a rarity in the field. Dr. Ketchum’s 2012 study claimed that her “team of scientists… confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called Bigfoot or Sasquatch, living in North America,” and that Bigfoot is a human relative that arose some 15,000 years ago. Ketchum has a Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine from Texas A&M; she is a veterinarian. This is a perfectly respectable profession, but one that does not necessarily provide expertise in Bigfoot genetic analysis. When her badly flawed research was delayed for years because no peer-reviewed scientific journal would accept her sloppy study—it was finally published in something called the DeNovo Scientific Journal, an online “journal” which she created specifically for the purpose. Overall the whole fiasco caused deep embarrassment within the Bigfoot community, especially given the purported scientific basis for the research. She did far more harm to the field than the most rabid skeptic.
The DeNovo Fiasco
Sharon Hill described Ketchum’s background in an interview on the Squaring the Strange podcast and in 2013 Skeptical Inquirer piece titled “Bigfoot DNA Study: Making an End Run Around Science.”
The Ketchum study began back in 2008, when her lab was picked to analyze an alleged Bigfoot/Yeti hair from Bhutan collected as part of Josh Gates’s adventure show, Destination Truth. She then connected with several individuals and entered partnerships that provided her with suspected Bigfoot samples to test and funding for the project. Ketchum had filed a copyright notice in September 2010 for a media project that would describe “a new tribe of living humans.” The theme of a proposed book and video was to be “Sasquatch as a modern human with some genetic mutations accounting for their physical appearance.” This copyright notice foreshadowed the DNA study results.
The actual paper detailing the study and results was supposedly submitted to an undisclosed journal in late 2010 or early 2011. Since peer review takes several months, Ketchum kept enthusiasm alive for those who followed her progress by providing teasers and assurances on social media: “Our data is amazing and beautiful and all cutting edge” (posted to her Facebook page in February 2012). Ketchum’s business, DNA Diagnostics (also doing business as Shelterwood Laboratory), appeared to be having difficulties. Ketchum had been party to a suit for patent infringement that required her lab to stop using certain tests (OptiGen vs. Texas A&M, Shelterwood, Ketchum, et al.). DNA Diagnostics was not in good standing with the Better Business Bureau, having received an “F” rating due to complaints. Issues regarding taxes and lost contracts were also rumored. In October 2012, the building that housed the lab in Timpson, Texas, was observed to be closed and advertised for rent, and the business’s phone line was disconnected.
Ketchum failed to appear in person at two Bigfoot-themed conferences at which she was scheduled to speak (one in October 2011 and another in May 2012). She mentioned that she felt threatened and was shocked at the negative response she has received from some members of the Bigfoot research community who had grown impatient with continual promises of evidence. Some began to accuse her of perpetrating a hoax. In a curious disclosure to her followers, Ketchum declared that she had actually seen the Bigfoot creatures herself and observed that they were “peaceful and gentle.” In April of 2012, she made public a photo of an array of sticks in the forest that she said she took with her mobile phone, suggesting that it was made by the creatures. The picture of “blurry sticks” did not go over well with the Bigfoot community, as many supporters abandoned hope for the legitimacy of Ketchum’s scientific work.
The fact that the samples Ketchum used were not collected uniformly, scientifically, or professionally was problematic and resulted in many cases of contamination. The most compelling evidence for Bigfoot would be DNA analyses, since they are scientific and theoretically definitive. However answers are not always possible; “unknown” or “unidentified” results do not mean “Bigfoot.” There are many reasons why a given hair or DNA sample might come back unknown, including that it was contaminated or too degraded by environmental conditions. Or it could simply mean that the animal it came from was not among the reference samples that the laboratory used for comparison. We have no reference sample of Bigfoot DNA to compare it to, so by definition there cannot be a “conclusive match.” The same goes for any genetic material from any source including dragons, mermaids, vampires, or any other creature that Ketchum for whatever reason thinks she has.
Protecting the Forest People
So what’s this all about? Why, exactly, is Ketchum struggling so mightily to prove that Bigfoot exist? Though Ketchum is charging for copies of her article, her motivation is likely not profit, since she’s not going to get rich from her research. Nor is it fame, since the paper garnered universally scathing reviews from scientists, which can only further tarnish her reputation.
Ketchum sees her research as an important first step in obtaining legal status for Bigfoot, which she believes are an undiscovered Native American population. Ketchum issued a statement demanding that the U.S. “Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights against those who would see in their physical and cultural differences a ‘license’ to hunt, trap, or kill them.”
Ketchum apparently views herself as less of a Bigfoot researcher than a valiant protector of a peaceful, vulnerable, and undiscovered native people. If you go to her website you can find lots of declarative, seemingly factual statements about Bigfoot… Ketchum believes that “The Sasquatch people are more like us than they are different. The Sasquatch people have their own language, traditions, and rituals. They live in family units, they order their lives according to the laws of their people, and they bury their dead. Yet the Sasquatch people are captivating because of their physical, genetic, and cultural differences. Sadly, these special traits also make them uniquely vulnerable to those who would see in their unusual lifestyle or appearance a justification to harass, trap, or even kill them. Your compassion and understanding will be vital to protect the Sasquatch people.” She’s also written some steamy Bigfoot romance books, if that’s your thing.
Misconduct Findings
In June 2021 Dr. Ketchum was accused by the Harris County Public Defender’s Office of professional misconduct related to her forensic analysis in a criminal trial: “Ketchum committed misconduct when she testified about the forensic analysis of canine DNA while knowing her laboratory was not accredited under Texas law. The complaint also alleges Ketchum presented incomplete and misleading testimony regarding the DNA analysis in the case by failing to explain the limitations of her opinion…. The Commission finds the testimony of Ketchum in the trial was incomplete and posed a substantial risk of misleading the trier of fact. The Commission also finds Ketchum was aware of and consciously disregarded the accepted standard of practice as set forth in the peer-reviewed article she co-authored. Ketchum’s testimony constituted professional misconduct because she was aware of and consciously disregarded an accepted standard of practice.”
Though Dr. Ketchum’s testimony in the trial was separate from her Bigfoot research, they are closely related. For example her analysis in both cases involved misidentification of mitochondrial sequencing of non-human hairs, overstating the certainty of her conclusions, and disregarding accepted standard of practice in her field. Her expert testimony misconduct is in some ways more serious than that of her Bigfoot research, as it occurred in the context of a criminal trial, and could have contributed to an innocent person being wrongly convicted—or a guilty person going free.
It’s of course possible that this project will finally yield long-sought hard evidence for Bigfoot and the rest of Melba’s mysterious menagerie, and I will celebrate that moment if and when it happens. All signs point to the Sasquatch Genome Project being a waste of time and resources, but of course it’s private money. Suckers—er, supporters—wishing to donate might note that at the bottom of the donations page GoFundMe guarantees “a full refund for up to a year in the rare case that fraud occurs.” I am of course not suggesting that Ketchum’s fundraiser might be in any way fraudulent, just that it’s important for donors to be aware of the site’s policies.
Key Points This eagle was one of the largest and heaviest birds to ever exist, weighing up to 37 pounds and measuring four feet long, with a nine to ten-foot wingspan. Their feeding tactics were similar to a vulture. Bald eagles reach up to 14 pounds and measure three feet long, with a seven-foot wingspan. The bald eagle is incredibly powerful and one of the largest birds on earth. They soar the skies with their long, broad wings and use their forceful talons (ten times stronger than a human’s grip) to lift animals up to four pounds. And while these stats are impressive for modern birds, did you know there was an eagle three times the size of a bald eagle? Discover everything there is to know about the Haast’s eagle, including its size, abilities, and how it went extinct.
The Haast’s eagle is a giant extinct species of eagle endemic to the South Island of New Zealand. It soared among prehistoric fauna from sea level to the subalpine zone and was one of the top predators in terrestrial South Island ecosystems. There is evidence that the Haast’s eagle survived and evolved through multiple ice ages but went extinct around 500 to 600 years ago.
This eagle is unique as its feeding tactics were closer to a vulture’s, and it possessed a beak similar to an Andean condor’s. These giant eagles primarily hunted moa, an extinct group of large flightless birds. They had a specialized hunting technique where it would fly into the back of the moa’s legs before crushing the skull with its immense talons. It would then use its condor-like bill to devour the internal organs from the body cavity.
Bald eagles hunt much smaller prey, but they swoop from a high perch similar to the Haast’s eagle. Bald eagles swoop down, using their talon to snatch prey like fish and small rodents before constricting them.
How Large Was the Haast’s Eagle? The Haast’s eagle is the largest and heaviest eagle to ever exist, weighing up to 37 pounds and measuring four feet long, with a nine to ten-foot wingspan. This enormous eagle had a bill larger than any living vulture and claws bigger than a tiger’s. Their main prey was moa, which could easily topple 12 feet high and weigh over 500 pounds! While the Haast’s eagle couldn’t necessarily fly off with a moa, they could use their sharp, powerful talons to rip through flesh and crush bone.
In comparison, the biggest of the bald eagles can only reach up to 14 pounds and measure three feet long, with a seven-foot wingspan. They typically eat fish, carrion, and small animals. But bald eagles have also been known to devour deer, pronghorns, and calves.
Could a Haast’s Eagle Pick Up a Human? The Maori, indigenous Polynesian people of New Zealand, made cave drawings of giant eagles and described them through oral traditions. Based on their oral records, Haast’s eagles were known for attacking human children. While there is no concrete evidence that these eagles ate humans, researchers believe that the tales of Haast’s eagles swooping down on humans in the mountains may be true. They were fierce predators, capable of killing prey much bigger than they were.
As for bald eagles, there is no record of them flying off with or killing a human, including small children. At most, the bald eagle may be capable of snatching tiny dogs or cats.
We don’t know exactly why the Haast’s eagle went extinct but humans are most likely to blame. Humans overhunted its moa prey into extinction and burned its dry forests and shrublands. Apart from a decline in their prey species and a loss of habitat, Haast’s eagles were also hunted by locals, and their bones were made into tools.
Could it Still Exist Today? The Haast’s eagle would most likely not be alive today. The moa was their main food source, and they could not survive without them. These eagles went extinct around 1400 AD shortly after humans arrived on the islands, and have not been seen since.
It’s hard to know what is going through this gorilla’s mind. Is he being playful? Is he being aggressive? Is he just curious? Whatever is going on, it’s a good job that there is a thick pane of glass between the animal and the humans otherwise there would have been some serious injuries!
Gorilla Bouncing off the Glass From the commentary on this video, it sounds as if the family who captured this footage are frequent visitors to Omaha Zoo. The zoo has created the Hubbard Gorilla Valley which has allowed them to become a major partner in gorilla conservation. The gorilla enclosure includes some complex climbing structures and tree limbs providing plenty of enrichment opportunities. This allows the gorillas to investigate and forage and gives them a chance to use their problem-solving skills as they would in the wild. There are also waterfalls and streams to provide constant movement in the environment.
There are windows at eye-level so you come literally face-to-face with the gorillas. When the lady in the bright pink sweatshirt turned her back on the gorilla, it was if he was trying to get her attention by taking a flying leap at the glass. Three times!
Gorillas are mainly vegetarian
Gorillas Living in the Wild Gorillas are the biggest primate in the world and share 98 percent of their DNA with we humans. There are actually four different subspecies of gorillas. Silverback is not a name of a subspecies. It is a way of describing adult, male gorillas that from 12 years old, develop a silver section of hair over their back and hips.
These amazing animals are not violent or aggressive most of the time, in fact they are quite shy.
Even though they are four times as strong as a human and can bend an iron bar with their bare hands, they are mainly vegetarian (although some eat insects). They like to eat leaves, bamboo shoots and fruit. These animals can eat as much as 40 pounds of plant matter per day! Their diet changes with the season and they use their dexterous hands to pick up what they need. You can see the gorilla in this video doing exactly this.
Gorilla Jumps at Window
Notes from Daniel J Benoit………. From all non human primates Gorillas have always fascinated me for a number of reasons.
In their own environment in the wild they are a very social species like all other primates both Human and Non Human. They work together in groups/Clans. There’s a lot we can learn from our Non Human Primates if we read, study, and observe them with their behaviors and actions. Everything we contribute or associate to Bigfoot occurs with The various Species of Non Human Primates……. Daniel J Benoit
A concept image of a Bigfoot silhouette walking through a forest. (Image credit: David Wall via Bigfoot, or Sasquatch, is a giant ape-like creature that some people believe roams North America. It is a cryptid(opens in new tab) (or species rumored to exist)and just like the Chupacabra or Loch Ness monster(opens in new tab), there’s scant physical evidence to suggest Bigfoot is actually out there. But that doesn’t stop alleged sightings of the ape that never shows its face or Bigfoot buffs from trying to prove there’s life in the legend.
Most Bigfoot sightings occur in the Northwest, where the creature can be linked to Indigenous myths and legends. The word Sasquatch is derived from Sasq’ets, a word from the Halq’emeylem language used by some Salish First Nations peoples in southwestern British Columbia, according to the Oregon Encyclopedia(opens in new tab). It means “wild man” or “hairy man.”
WHAT STARTED THE BIGFOOT PHENOMENON? A still image or grainy video alleged to be of Bigfoot taken northeast of Eureka, California in 1967
Alleged image of Bigfoot, taken northeast of Eureka, California in 1967. (Image credit: Bettmann/Contributor via Getty Images) (opens in new tab) As early as 1884, the British Colonist newspaper in Victoria, Canada published an account of a “gorilla type” creature captured in the area. Other accounts, largely decried as hoaxes, followed, according to the Canadian Encyclopedia(opens in new tab). Sasquatch book author John Green compiled a list of 1,340 sightings through the 19th and 20th centuries. But the modern Bigfoot or Sasquatch myth gained new life in the late 1950s.
In 1958, the Humboldt Times, a local newspaper in Northern California, published a story about the discovery of giant, mysterious footprints near Bluff Creek, California. In the story, they referred to the creature that made them as “Bigfoot”, according to Smithsonian Magazine(opens in new tab). Bigfoot curiosity grew rapidly during the second half of the 20th century, after an article in True magazine(opens in new tab), published in December 1959, described the 1958 discovery.
RECOMMENDED VIDEOS FOR YOU… The footprints near Bluff Creek were a prank by a man called Ray Wallace, his children revealed after his death in 2002, according to Smithsonian Magazine. By that time, though, Bigfoot was firmly established in popular culture across the continent. Since the 1958 article was published, a wealth of other claims have been made about Sasquatch tracks, casts, photos, videos, and other “evidence.”
BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS A blurry image of a supposed Bigfoot sighting
There have been more than 10,000 eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot in the continental U.S. in the last 50 years, Live Science reported(opens in new tab) in 2019. In these accounts, Bigfoot is usually described as being about 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3 meters) tall and covered in hair.
Eyewitness reports, or sightings, are the most common evidence put forward for the existence of Bigfoot. Unfortunately, these are based on human memories, and memories are not reliable, Live Science previously reported(opens in new tab). In crime cases, for example, witnesses can be influenced by their emotions and may miss or distort important details. In the same vein, people also often overestimate their ability to remember things. When it comes to cryptids like Bigfoot, the human brain is capable of making up explanations for events it can’t immediately interpret, and many people simply want to believe they exist, Live Science previously reported(opens in new tab).
BIGFOOT VIDEO AND PHOTOGRAPHS
The most famous Bigfoot video is a short film taken in 1967 by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, known as the “Patterson–Gimlin film,” or “Patterson film.” Shot in Bluff Creek, the video shows what appears to be a large and hairy bipedal ape, or Bigfoot, striding through a clearing. The video’s authenticity is still debated but it was likely a hoax, with the ape-like figure just a human wearing a costume.
With the rise of high-quality cameras in smartphones, photographs of people, cars, mountains, flowers, sunsets, deer and more have gotten sharper and clearer over the years; Bigfoot is a notable exception. The logical explanation for this discrepancy is that the creatures don’t exist, and that photographs of them are merely hoaxes or misidentifications. HOAXES are more popular, however the average enthusiast or believers are more blind to this and accept anything because their mind and imagination controls what is real today.
AUDIO RECORDINGS A bigfoot-hunter attempts to record calls from Bigfoot
Some people claim to have heard Bigfoot shrieks(opens in new tab), howls, growls, screams or other vocalizations. The creatures are also associated with other noises, such as wood-knocking, according to Scientific American(opens in new tab). Strange noise recordings associated with Bigfoot occasionally attract media attention but the noises can often be attributed to known animals, such as foxes, coyotes, Owls etc….DJB
Experts can’t always identify the exact animal in strange recordings that cryptozoologists, people who search for creatures rumored to exist, point to as Bigfoot evidence. In 2019, for example, a YouTube video(opens in new tab) of mysterious howls and screams in a forest in northwestern Ontario, Canada went viral, driving Bigfoot speculation. Jolanta Kowalski, Ontario’s Ministry of Resources and Forestry media relations officer, told Vice News(opens in new tab) at the time: “Our biologists say it could be a larger mammal–for example a wolf–but because it’s a considerable distance from the recorder there is no way to know for sure.”
The late anthropologist Grover Krantz investigated sound recordings claimed to be of Bigfoot for his book “Big Footprints: A Scientific Inquiry Into the Reality of Sasquatch(opens in new tab)” (Johnson Books, 1992). He listened to at least 10 tapes and found “no compelling reason to believe that any of them are what the recorders claimed them to be,” Live Science previously reported.
ELUSIVE HARD EVIDENCE Dr. Grover Krantz, physical anthropologist at Washington State University, displays casts of supposed Sasquatch footprints
Grover Krantz, physical anthropologist at Washington State University, displays casts of supposed Sasquatch footprints (Image credit: Bettmann via Getty Images) There is no hard evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Krantz, the anthropologist who investigated sound recordings, also discussed alleged Bigfoot hair, feces, skin scrapings and blood in his “Big Footprints” book. “The usual fate of these items is that they either receive no scientific study, or else the documentation of that study is either lost or unobtainable,” he wrote. “In most cases where competent analyses have been made, the material turned out to be bogus or else no determination could be made.”
When alleged Bigfoot samples are subject to vigorous scientific analysis, they typically turn out to be from ordinary sources. For example, in 2014, a team of researchers led by the late geneticist Bryan Sykes from the University of Oxford in England, conducted genetic analysis on 36 hair samples claimed to belong to Bigfoot or the Yeti(opens in new tab) — a similar ape-like creature said to exist in the Himalayas. Almost all of the hairs turned out to be from known animals such as cows, raccoons(opens in new tab), deer and humans. However, two of the samples closely matched an extinct Paleolithic polar bear(opens in new tab), Live Science previously reported(opens in new tab). These samples may have come from an unknown bear species or a hybrid of modern bears, but they were from a bear, not a primate.
Related: Bigfoot’s FBI file reveals strange story of a monster hunter and 15 mysterious hairs(opens in new tab)
The study of genetics(opens in new tab) provides another reason to doubt the existence of Bigfoot. A single creature can’t breed and maintain a population, much less a species. For Bigfoot to be viable, it would need to have a population, or populations, large enough to avoid inbreeding and low genetic diversity,(opens in new tab) or else face extinction.
The existence of multiple Bigfoot increases the chances that one would be killed by a hunter or hit by a motorist on a highway, or even found dead (by accident, disease, or old age) by a hiker or farmer at some point, yet no bodies have ever been found. People do occasionally claim to find bones or other large body parts. For example, a man in Utah discovered what he thought was a fossilized Bigfoot skull in 2013. A paleontologist confirmed that the “skull” was simply an oddly weathered rock, Live Science previously reported(opens in new tab).
BIGFOOT HOAXES Bigfoot hoaxers(opens in new tab) have further complicated the problem of sorting Sasquatch fact from fiction. Dozens of people have admitted or been found out to have faked Bigfoot prints, photographs, and nearly every other type of Bigfoot evidence. One prominent example is Ray Wallace, whose family revealed he was responsible for the footprints near Bluff Creek in 1958. An even earlier example is the late Rant Mullens, who was a logger in Toledo, Washington. In 1982, he admitted to carving giant feet out of wood and using them to make fake tracks with the help of a friend in the 1920s, The Chronicle(opens in new tab), a Washington newspaper, reported in 2007. This built on the legend of ape-like men decades before Wallace’s footprints helped make Bigfoot a phenomenon.
There are also 21st century examples of Bigfoot hoaxes. In 2008, two men from Georgia claimed to have a complete, frozen Bigfoot specimen that they found on a hike. Their Bigfoot turned out to be a gorilla(opens in new tab) costume, Reuters(opens in new tab) reported in 2008.
Justin Humphrey, an Oklahoma lawmaker, proposed creating a Bigfoot hunting season in January, 2021, CNN(opens in new tab) reported. Humphrey suggested that the hunting season could coincide with an annual Bigfoot festival that takes place in Honobia, Oklahoma, and would help to bring more tourists to the area. Oklahoma tourism officials later announced a $2.1 million bounty in March for the capture of a live Bigfoot, NPR(opens in new tab) reported.
Related: ‘Expedition Bigfoot’ scours Oregon woods for signs of the mythical and elusive beast(opens in new tab)
THE REAL BIGFOOT A 2003 replica of the extinct Gigantopithecus
A 2003 replica of the extinct Gigantopithecus. Gigantopithecus was about 10 feet (3 m.) tall and weighed up to 595 pounds (270 kilograms), based on fossil evidence. (Image credit: ZUMA Press, Scientific evidence for the existence of a modern-day Bigfoot may be proving elusive, but a giant, bipedal ape did once walk the Earth. A species named Gigantopithecus blacki was about 10 feet (3 m.) tall and weighed up to 1000 pounds based on fossil evidence. However, Gigantopithecus lived in Southeast Asia, not North America,So we believe but could possibly have had relatives in other parts of the world, and went extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago. The extinct ape is also more closely related to modern orangutans than to humans or our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos. But I would not rule out that What we believe Bigfoot today is , could possibly have a connection. Don’t rule that possibly out.
Giganto like many species today had to adapt to changes in the world. Adaptation is key to survival……. Daniel J Benoit
I was not the original author of this blog article, however I added to it some and will add more In later blogs regarding my take, views and research on the subject….. Daniel J Benoit
East Coast Bigfoot Researchers Organization 