E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Lee Grismer / AP
A psychedelic gecko recently discovered in Hon Khoai island, Ca Mau province, in southern Vietnam.
World Wildlife Fund Cambodia / EPA
Leiolepis ngovantrii - an all-female species that reproduces via cloning, without the need for male lizards.
World Wildlife Fund Cambodia / EPA
A new species of newt which was discovered in Laos in 2010.
World Wildlife Fund Cambodia / EPA
A small, distinctive bird living in the rocky forests of the Annamite mountain range in Laos and Vietnam which was described for the first time in January 2010.
AP reports:
HANOI, Vietnam — A psychedelic gecko and a monkey with an "Elvis" hairdo are among 208 new species described last year by scientists in the Mekong River region of Southeast Asia, a conservation group announced Monday.
The animals were discovered in a biodiverse region that is threatened by habitat loss, deforestation, climate change and overdevelopment, the WWF said in a report.
The newly described species include a "psychedelic gecko" in southern Vietnam and a nose-less monkey in a remote province of Myanmar that looks like it wears a pompadour.
Read the full story here.
World Wildlife Fund Cambodia / EPA
A new frog species (Amolops akhaorum). Seven new frog species from the Greater Mekong region were discovered in 2010, including three from Laos, three from Vietnam and one from Thailand.
World Wildlife Fund Cambodia / EPA
A wolf snake, Lycodon synaptor or Boehme's wolf snake, from Dongchuan, a mountainous region of Yunnan Province, China.
Leave a Comment:
200 NEW species?? I thought we(Humans)were destroying the Planet and killing off the ENTIRE ANIMAL WORLD. Now we are told that there are 200 NEW animals just discovered. WOW! Who DO I BELIEVE?
Maybe the new species all came about because of GLOBAL WARMING! If we stop global warming, they will all become extinct! : 0)
Oh, please. Is it so hard to believe that scientists have not yet studied every square inch of forest and ocean on the planet? Many of these species live in areas the size of football fields, in some of the remotest places on earth. These species are new to scientists, but not to the indigenous people of those regions. Sadly, many of these amazing creatures will become extinct in our lifetimes, largely due to human development.
Slodon, that is one of the most asinine comments I've ever read. What does humanity being ignorant of an animal thriving in a remote area of the planet have to do with humanity also pumping green house gasses into the air? So by your logic, the two can't happen at the same time? Why?
That's only because humans as a species are full of themselves. Delusional in their sense of universal self importance and pompously claiming that they are 'destroying' the Earth and that it needs to be 'saved' by them and them alone! The fact of the matter is that the Earth had being doing just fine without us for about 3.5 billion years and will continue to do so for the next 3-4 billion years when our sun finally runs out of Hydrogen and swallows it into its expanded size. In any case, even under the worst human disasters such as a nuclear holocaust, I'm sure cockroaches, scorpions, and other insects and arachnids will survive, evolve, and joyfully celebrate our final extinction.
Whom, Slodon. Whom do I believe.
What a stupid comment. All this shows is that we have not studied every square inch of the planet. We ARE killing off species and causing global warming. We just didn't realize all of the species that this affects because we have not explored everything about this planet that there is to explore. You have created a false dichotomy. We are both killing off species and discovering them at the same time; the two are NOT mutually exclusive.
New species are always evolving into existance, old species die out... that's been a fact of life for billions of years. All of these "new" species are "sub speces" of similiar related species. People need to study know their biology.
This is called EVOLUTION, surprise of all surprises.
As one species becomes extinct another takes its place, if it were not for this process mankind as we know it would not exist and we would all be Cro Magnans!
*cough* Newly discovered by humans does not necessarily mean new to the planet.
Yes, the earth has been fine and will continue to be fine - but the things living on it (including us) is another story.
Typical TeaDupe comment.
More creatures have gone extinct on this planet than exist today. It's a part of Earth's rebirth. With each species gone, new ones are created. Many existed for centuries before they were ever "discovered", such as the Great Mtn Gorilla in Africa. It was long thought to be tribal legend until it was discovered by white explorers.
Who is to say that some of our "Myths" of today such as Big Foot, and the Loch Ness monster may someday be revealed as being true?
A new species of Newt, called the Gingrich, just a giant walking anus!!!!!!
The discover hundreds of new species every year, ass-jack. It doesn't mean they just evolved and it doesn't stop the degradation of the species we have that are becoming extinct due to our greedy and wasteful natures.
Slodon, there seems to be this backward movement in the evolution of humans in recent years. It's bewildering that some people think there is a choice to believe in science and history. I know that some oil companies have an agenda and have spent billions on propaganda, but when all scientific organizations, including earth (oil) geologists, have concluded that the climate is changing, it makes you accountable to future generations to sort through the clutter to get to the science that has no agenda.
Science has long been saying that with globalization and the movement of people, which brings with it the movement of animals and plants, and climate change, which is brings the relocation of animals, there will be an extinction of species as well as the introduction of new species.
We will soon be decimated. The self alleged "crown of creation." Say bye y'all.
People here seem to toss the word "science" around as if it were a constant elemental reality. Don't you think that science exists in a political environment. It is not independent of politics. Science is mostly a collection of theories, most of which are accepted as truths. however, most of science has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
That is why religion is so important. Humans just don't know what they don't know. Show me one scientific theory which cannot be argued.
I should extend my comment just a little.
Science is primarily a political tool which is effective in politics only because people are so gullible and accepting with the word "Science".
Climate Change, Evolution, Space Exploration, UFO's, Energy Resources, Disease Control, Agriculture and others, are all used by political leaders to manipulate the public in the name of Science.
I appreciate Mackline's comment seems the only one here with a closer to truth comment. How do species just pop up when one dies out?? Evolution is just a "black box" theory. If evolution truly existed explain to me why cows and chickens cant create an offspring or why a bird cant mate with a lion?? If evolution is indeed fact... i could take a pile of nuts and bolts and rubber and metal (all things created btw) toss them in a pile and billions of yrs from now have a new species of car? or perhaps a UFO.. lol
Molecular biology proves that every species has a unique set of DNA and look at how intricate the human body is, that just doesn't happen it take someone with a lot of thought to CREATE a planet and everything it takes for life to exist. Without one of the little details such as say CO2 we couldn't live right??
Jeremy...your ignorance is simply astounding. Evolution is going on all around us as we speak...and it doesn't take "billions of years" as some other commenters have said. We have actually caused fish to evolve into being smaller and/or slower growing simply because of our policies of limiting catch to larger fish. Simply put, the ones who grew smaller or got big more slowly are not caught, while the larger fish are...and this has happened in a portion of my lifetime. Here's a link to a story about it. () Get some education.
NO NO NO!
This is called DISCOVERY. There are many creatures on this planet we have never seen.
Also as some are killed off others, that are more adaptable, will fill that niche.
slodon, you are a moron. Has It ever occurred to you that every rock on this vast world hasn't been turned over
BT - Glad to see they turned yours over. Welcome to earth.
Why is it that scientists never announce that anything new has "evolved." They only talk about new species being "discovered." Are they afraid that if they admit new species evolve people won't worry so much about extinction, or are they worried that if new species evolve as well as go extinct the money they make in discovering and protecting species will diminish? Or maybe they don't really believe in evolution, but think that every living creature on the eath was created long ago by God...
Jose -
Is there that much evolutionary difference between you and your grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents? If there is, then call a scientist immediately. Hope you can pass the questionnaire.
Ms. Lopez, it may take millions of years for a species to naturally "evolve." You're question suggests that evolutionary changes happen before ones eyes.
"Hey look! That fish just 'evolved', grew feet and ran into the street."
The species they discovered have been here for as long as we've been here, it's just that we've never seen them before, in a current events perspective. By your logic, every time I meet a new person, the guy just evolved before me. Seriously. How insipid is that? It's also arrogant.
Actually, you can see evolution--even MACROevolution occurring over short time intervals. We created the first new (reproductively isolated) species of fruit fly in the lab in the 1950s (Dobzansky's work). If you have a couple of years to kill, you can make your own. Don't take a scientist's word for it that new species can be created by the combination of genetic isolation of populations and a new selection force--do it yourself. It is quite repeatable. Here is the "recipe" for a new fruit fly species. Take Drosophila melanogaster (or any species of fruit fly that you like) and grow it on a stand fruit fly medium until you have a large population. Now take half the fruit flies (any half at random will do) and place them on a substrate with lots of maltose (or any other sugar of your choosing) and half on a medium of starch. Maintain these two populations on each substrate without mixing them for two years. Now try to mate individuals from each respective population. You won't be able to do it. Voila! New species. The only caveat is that this process relies on random mutations so the length of time it takes before the species become reproductively isolated (i.e. they can't breed with each other) varies from as little as one year to three, but inevitably you will get two populations that can no longer interbreed--the textbook definition of biological species.
By the way, we are still discovering new species in corn fields in Ohio. They just don't happen to be large vertebrates so we ignore these new discoveries. Finding a new species of lizard makes the MSNBC pages.
A new species of spider that you found on your windowsill (true story!) doesn't. Too bad.
Actually, you can see evolution--even MACROevolution occurring over short time intervals. We created the first new (reproductively isolated) species of fruit fly in the lab in the 1950s (Dobzansky's work). If you have a couple of years to kill, you can make your own. Don't take a scientist's word for it that new species can be created by the combination of genetic isolation of populations and a new selection force--do it yourself. It is quite repeatable. Here is the "recipe" for a new fruit fly species. Take Drosophila melanogaster (or any species of fruit fly that you like) and grow it on a stand fruit fly medium until you have a large population. Now take half the fruit flies (any half at random will do) and place them on a substrate with lots of maltose (or any other sugar of your choosing) and half on a medium of starch. Maintain these two populations on each substrate without mixing them for two years. Now try to mate individuals from each respective population. You won't be able to do it. Voila! New species. The only caveat is that this process relies on random mutations so the length of time it takes before the species become reproductively isolated (i.e. they can't breed with each other) varies from as little as one year to three, but inevitably you will get two populations that can no longer interbreed--the textbook definition of biological species.
By the way, we are still discovering new species in corn fields in Ohio. They just don't happen to be large vertebrates so we ignore these new discoveries. Finding a new species of lizard makes the MSNBC pages.
A new species of spider that you found on your windowsill (true story!) doesn't. Too bad.
No one is so unteachable as the willfully ignorant. Evolution happens over millions of years, so in order to say somthing has "evovled" we would have to be around for millions of years to see it evolve. Please go back and read a basic biology textbook instead of basing all of your scientific information of the Bible, which is a religious, not a scientific text.
Scientists say 'newly discovered' because they are 'newly discovered'....
Your arrogant statement depends on the presupposition that man has already discovered every species on the planet and anything new is literally new to the planet; these animals have likely been around for quite some time, we have just not discovered them until now.
How absurd! Next you'll try to tell me that the western hemisphere was around all the time and didn't really just appear when Columbus found it
Umm, this isn't Pokemon man...
That is called MICRO-evolution. It is still a fruit fly. There are lots of examples of MICRO-evolution. That is why my Great Dane didn't look like my Pomeranian Pekinese. That is why someone indigenous to the Congo area doesn't look like someone indigenous to the Rhine area.
As far as fruit fly's go we have been breeding them for a generational equivalency of 1,000,000+ years (because of their short breeding cycles). They are all still fruit fly's and you can breed one with another.
So far we have never had a documented origin of a Species (Macro Evolution).
lOG.pOS. Actually, beside fruit flys we can see macro evolution in our population. My grand parents were a thin, hard working, intelligent healthy species. Now make their offspring eat MacDonald's, inject dozens of vaccines before they have any stable immune system, feed them sugar and place them in front of the TV for 5 hours a day. Now you have a fat, lazy, asthmatic, diabetic with high cholesterol that can not add without a calculator. A mutant that will also not breed with others. Viola, evolution:)
slodon
WOW! Who DO I BELIEVE?
Common sense.
Yeah, sometimes I'm totally blown away by how completely dense some statements can be.... Slodon's definitely draws forth that feeling. Actually the first 2 thread toppers are just ridiculous and show a total lack of understanding and common sense.
You think it's possible, maybe, that this lack of understanding and common sense might have something to do with their equally ridiculous opinions? =P Maybe?
I think the old saying applies....Activate brain gear becoming engaging mouth train.
MIght have something to do with why homo sapiens sapiens become prematurely extinct.
They are new to a bunch of scientists that didn't want to walk around Vietnam and surrounding countries during their very long (even before the US commitment) times of war.
No more bombs, mines, or guns means we can actually look at the critters around us.
Is that a Newt in the first 3 pics?
When I saw that picture of a snake on the front page, I thought that this article was going to be about someone in Washington...
No. If that were the case it would have been the picture of an invertebrate such as a poisonous jelly fish or some form of parasitic microbe.
Always nice to hear stuff like this. At least we get to know they're here before we wipe them out.
I wonder how many species have already gone extinct that we never had a chance to discover?
Who cares
Amazing what you find when your clearing massive tracts of rainforest...
ha,ha. LMAO.
Imagine all the new species. Now imagine this: news says man is going to live much longer in the years to come. Science says man will survive for hundreds of years. There was a story on msnbc a while ago.
Evidentially, a snake, a lizard, or a bird half way around the planet can’t escape empty American political assaults. What a sad state of affairs in having to identify everything with inane political baggage. One would have to agree that it is very difficult to see things for what they are while enclosed inside a box. Want something really insightful? Really astonishing? Open the flaps and try stepping outside the box for once. You, too, might discover something unique. Yourself!
Very well said Charles.
We have discovered an old species just down the road: politico imbecilicus. It is humiliating to live in a country where a buffoon like Rick Perry gets even one second of serious airtime. Hopefully the folks in Texas are cringing to realize what a nitwit they have repeatedly elected.
politico imbecilicus? Now that's funny....lol. I'm glad Rick Perry is imploding in front of our very eyes. What this country DOESN'T need is another Texas Republican in charge.
starbuck49
If that were Newt, it would have white hair.
Gullible this one down if you wish,but I for one believe the bulls out of the pen again.
This article about the new species discovered in the Mekong River Region is interesting and the photographs are beautiful. But, I'm disheartened by some of the sarcastic and inflammatory comments about the article posted by some people. It is sad that we cannot discuss an article about an exciting discovery of new species of animals without resorting to political rhetoric and talking points.
Oh god Mary, really? Get back in the bed you know your shrink doesnt allow you to participate in these types of things.
50 new species are being "discovered" every month I hear. Most all, are species that evolved un-noticed for some time. They're really sub-species. A change of skin color is not really a sign of a new species.
Do you have evidence gathered to disprove their statement or are you just assuming because you don't agree with them? I'm curious what your educational background is to assume as much.
Bill, let me educate you on how a "species" is classified. Species are classified mostly on reproduction. If two lizards can't reproduce and have viable offspring, they are two distinct species. Your comment is like comparing skin color of humans. Infact, we are more like dogs. Hundreds of different looks but they can all bread. Conversly, just because something looks alike doesn't mean it can reproduce with something else that looks just like it.
I have to agree with Bill on this one. Most of you so called educated(brainwashed) posters on here are just trying to prove that youve read this in your college textbooks. There are many avenues of evolution the main one being used in an argumentative role here is in lamens terms bull@!$%# and has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Evolution as in "adaptation" is factual but is also limited and has been grossly exaggerated by many over the years. Most predominant scientists in this feild agree that its a far stretch. That being said if one beleives in "creationism" or either "evolution" there is actually NO hard evidence of either one. Now, yes there is evidence of adaptation but that in no way proves ultimate evolution from single cells to what you see today. So let people beleive and speculate what they want because when the truth falls out youll find that alot of what you beleive is based on a guess too. Hypothesis ring a bell??
To stir-
Through many a color.
Does it just look psychedelic or do you have to lick it?
Interesting how some of these species have scientific names and then there is the psychedelic gecko. I wish the economy would pick up so we could send some biologists under the sea. It would be cool to discover many more new species.
Listening to all this banter about global warming, species extinction and the pomposity of man, I think back from my English Literature classes and how all that the human species has ever written about can be summarized into three conflicts: man vs man, man vs self, and man vs nature. In man vs man, nobody wins. In man vs self, there is a 50/50 chance one will win over oneself. In man vs nature, I put all my bets on nature.
Hear hear!
You paid all that money for school and that is what you learned? Amazing!
All of these critters are evolved from higher species that were able to survive without the drastic social and climate changes that Michael Moore and Al Gore have brought on the world. The cloning lizard developed after "the kiss" was broadcast to the world. Who knew critters watched tv? But, who can blame her/him/it?
I would be interested in knowing if the destruction of the Mekong River region during the Vietnam Conflict had anything to do with eliminating what was there causing these new species to develop. Would there be any antitoxins that developed to withstand the poisons that were used there. I think this is all very interesting.
According to E. O. Wilson (who can be a better source?), there are tens of thousands of species yet undiscovered -- e.g. nematodes living in soil. Mammals, or "higher level animals, make up only a tiny percentage of all life on earth. Wilson's worry is that we will destroy many species before even knowing of their existence. It would no doubt benefit the earth if we could reduce the number of species of religious conservatives.
Could some of these anomalies be the result of exposure to chemicals we have used in that region of the world? Just asking!
Looks like that multi-colored lizzard may be the results of Agent Orange we used in Nam.
I think I ate one of those lizards out west of Hiep Duc in 1968....