Cryptobotany: New Tree Genus Discovered
Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 19th, 2010
A team led by Carmen Ulloa, associate curator at the Missouri Botanical Garden, recently discovered and announced a new tree in northwest Honduras, known as Hondurodendron urceolatum .
In the misty cloud forests of Parque National El Cusuco (Spanish for the Armadillo National Park), the tree was known only to the squirrels, coatimundia, and local Hondurans. The locals called it guayaba, because the fruit resembles the guava, though it is not edible by humans.
Photo credit: J. Kolby, 2010
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
If the tree which could not move was just found why could there not be an animal which can move to hide.
Mr. Elekom,
At first glance your question, contrasting the likelihood of discovery for a stationary tree vs. a mobile animal, seems to present a valid conundrum.
However, let me explain why this “common sense” question is misleading: by definition an immobile tree remains in one place for its entire life, requiring any potential discoverer to happen upon the exact spot (among the entire area in question) in which it exists.
In contrast, an animal’s requisite movements to find food, water, shelter, mates, etc., ensure it must cover a much larger percentage of its habitat on a regular basis, thereby providing ongoing opportunities for the creature to cross paths with its potential discoverer.
To put it another way: sure, an animal can “hide” whenever it feels threatened. But, by hiding i.e. “staying still,” it is essentially using the same strategy the tree uses its entire life! It is the animal’s movement during the other 99% of its waking life that marks it as a better candidate for discovery.
Remember, while it may be harder to hit a moving target, said movement makes the target that much easier to spot in the first place! 🙂
A valid point. Also, do plant species not need a smaller viable population? I recall trees such as the metasequoia being rescued from extinction with only several specimens found in China (they were thought to have been a long extinct and so are a living fossil).