A new monkey species has been found deep in Congo’s forests 1%

By Tawanda Karombo0%

7/30/2026, 6:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Status Quo Bias, and Indoctrination, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 14.2% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 478 faulty-reasoning hits from 367 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 1.9% and a BS Rank of 1% (30,308 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.10% of the article peer group.

High in the forested canopy of Democratic Republic of Congo, an all-black monkey turned its back to a photographer’s camera. 
The partial image taken in 2008 revealed little more than the monkey’s dark coat and part of its tail. 
But it was enough to get Junior Amboko, a biological primatologist at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, and other researchers wondering if the photo revealed a species unknown to science. 
Over the next several years, Amboko and his colleagues returned to the dense, closed-canopy forest, where the mystery monkey shared its range with seven other monkey species and bonobos. 
From 2018 to 2022, the team logged dozens of sightings, noting a distinct orange patch around the monkey’s mouth, and recorded the primate’s deep, distinctive roars. 
The team also studied skulls from primate carcasses confiscated by the Congolese parks and nature authority. 
“Based on the coat color, we knew [the monkey] belonged to the genus&nbsp;<em>Colobus</em>,” says Julia Arenson, an evolutionary biologist with Yale University. 
“And my first impression of the skull was that it was very similar to&nbsp;<em>Colobus satanas</em>&nbsp;but so much smaller.” 
Genetic evidence eventually confirmed that the monkey represented a distinct lineage that had diverged from <em>C. satanas </em>at least 4 million years ago. 
The monkey was, in fact, a new species, to science earning the name <em>Colobus congoensis</em>, Amboko and colleagues report July 15 in <em>PLOS ONE</em>. 
“New primates are rare for science,” says zoologist and primate conservationist Tim Davenport, the Africa director of the conservation group Re:wild. 
When new species are found, it’s only in “remote, challenging and understudied” areas, he says. 
The monkey was known to some local communities by the name of Likweli, though researchers do not know when it was first given that name. 
The new monkey species might already be at risk of being threatened or endangered. 
The monkey is hunted for meat, and its habitat is small  only about 1,700 square kilometers. 
Alexander Georgiev, a primate ecologist at Bangor University in Wales not involved in the study, says researchers should prioritize studying the threats facing the new species and work with local communities to protect <em>C. congoensis’</em> habitat. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.1%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 2.5%Confirmation Bias7.1%This article: 6.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 1.0%Anchoring Bias6.0%This article: 14.2%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 2.0%Availability Heuristic14.2%This article: 4.9%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.9%This article: 4.1%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias4.1%This article: 6.5%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 3.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.8%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 3.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Tawanda Karombo: 1.9%Science News: 1.2%Pessimism Bias3.8%This article: 4.6%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 3.1%Negativity Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Primacy Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.7%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 3.4%Appeal to Authority11.7%This article: 4.1%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 1.0%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 1.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 6.3%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Begging the Question6.3%This article: 4.6%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.6%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.8%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof6.8%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.2%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.2%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.6%Unattributed Quote6.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice3.0%This article: 9.8%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.6%Indoctrination9.8%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tawanda Karombo: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

367 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers31%attributed speech255writer words
Selected voice

Julia Arenson

100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words36% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote+55.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Julia Arenson: 55.0%55.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Julia Arenson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.