Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

De Loy's Ape (Ameranthropoides loysi) ____ South America

south america de loys ape ameranthropoides loysi spider monkey

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,299 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 18 February 2015 - 02:53 AM

A South American ‘ape’?

 

http://blogs.scienti...-to-do-with-it/

 

Ameranthropoides-cropped-shot-300-px-tin

The familiar, cropped version of the De Loys' ape photo - the creature is sat on a crate, propped up with a stick. That giant organ between its legs is typical of the females of a certain group of South American primates. That's right, this is not a male, and that is not a penis.

 

Arguably one of the most fascinating episodes in cryptozoological history involves the alleged South American primate species Ameranthropoides loysi, proposed as a new species by anthropologist George Montandon in 1929. This large, allegedly new primate species is represented only by a single photograph, allegedly taken on the Colombian-Venezuelan border by Swiss geologist François De Loys in 1920. De Loys claimed that he and his party encountered two of these bipedal, erect-walking primates, shot one of them dead, and propped its body up on a wooden crate before taking the famous (and famously creepy) photograph so familiar from books on monsters and mysteries.

 

The creature was supposedly very large (De Loys said 1.5 m tall), tailless, and with a human-like tooth count. Combined with its erect form of habitual bipedality, it was – according to De Loys – wholly different from all known South American primates (or platyrrhines), and perhaps a convergently evolved South American ‘ape’. The story has been discussed several times in the cryptozoology literature, most usefully by Heuvelmans (1995), Shuker (1991, 2008) and Urbani & Viloria (2009).

Ameranthropoides-uncropped-shot-600-px-t

The less frequently seen uncropped version of the photo. Note the plants on either side -- some authors with botanical expertise have claimed that these show how the photo couldn't have been taken where Montandon said it was.

 

A sceptical look at De Loys’ ‘ape’

 

Montandon’s naming of A. loysi and De Loys’ alleged discovery of it were both treated with immediate scepticism across Europe (Keith 1929). The fact that no part of the specimen had been retained was one problem. De Loys argued that the remains had either been lost due to accident, or became destroyed due to mistreatment (the skull, for example, supposedly corroded away after being used as a salt container).



#2 SRA Andy

SRA Andy

    Board Member

  • Administrators
  • 724 posts
  • LocationMpls Metro, MN, USA

Posted 19 February 2015 - 01:28 PM

I have always been skeptical of this one for several reasons.

 

1. It looks a lot like a spider monkey, and with no back shot to prove it is "tail-less" there is no proof of this feature.

2. It's hands are obviously constructed for arboreal movement and brachiation.  Not typical of a biped ground dweller.

3. It's feet have a very large, well developed opposable big toe. This is also a trait seen in arboreal species and not an adaptation that would be suited to bipedal movement.

4. There is nothing in the picture to indicate the size of the animal. We have no idea how big the crate is.

 

It does however look very similar to the Black Spider Monkey.

 

Black-spider-monkey-chained-up-as-a-pet.Black-spider-monkey-walking-bipedally-on

 

Or other Spider Monkey Species (personally, i think it is closest to the Varigated Spider monkey as seen in the first two pictures below):

 

Variegated-spider-monkey-portrait.jpg

 

Variegated-spider-monkey.jpgCaptive-white-bellied-spider-monkey.jpg

Close-up-of-the-foot-of-a-white-bellied-


Don't Believe, Know.


#3 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,299 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 19 February 2015 - 03:29 PM

Funny, I was also thinking it resembled a spider monkey, and my biggest problem was the feet.  Seeing how they are indigenous to Central and South America I think that's the most likely call.  But I posted it anyway since it's labeled as a possible bipedal cryptid.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users