A new species of elephant shrew, or round-eared segni, called the Macroscelides micus has been discovered in the Namib desert by a group of researchers at the California Academy of Sciences.

Humans are mammals and they rule upon all other animals. Well this is something which even a primary class student can explain. However a new discovery has underlined the fact that so much is unknown and waiting to be discovered about the mammal fauna.

A group of mice known in Africa by their Bantu-derived name Sengi was the focus of a study by researchers at the California Academy of Sciences. The researchers noticed that the newly discovered elephant shrew species had a protruding snout somewhat similar to the trunk of an elephant. The researchers also noticed that the specimens whom they collected in the remote northwestern region of Namibia were different from the sengis in the museum collections which they had studied earlier.

To confirm the suspicions that the specimens they had collected were a new species of the sengis, the research hers revisited the same region in Namibia a number of times from 2005 to 2011 and in the process collected 16 more specimens. Their suspicions were confirmed when the genetic analysis revealed a new sengi species, Macroscelides micus, the Etendeka round-eared sengi. It was different from the other discovered sengis earlier.

Jack Dumbacher, a researcher at the Academy’s Curator of Ornithology and Mammalogy said, “Had our colleagues not collected those first invaluable specimens, we would never have realized that this was in fact a new species, since the differences between this and all other known species are very subtle.”

“These traits are the basis for the description of a new species of Macroscelides that seems to be confined to gravel plains associated with the distinctive reddish colored Etendeka geological formation of northwestern Namibia,” write the researchers in the paper’s abstract.

The genetic analysis not only confirmed the discovery of a new species Macroscelides micus, but it also revealed that the species were more related to elephants, sea cows, and aardvarks than they are to shrews.

The discovery of the mammal has been detailed by researchers from the California Academy of Sciences in the Journal of Mammalogy.

About The Author

A tech enthusiast, a traveler and a person who fights for the animal rights. He is well known for his love for the society and is the founder of the TheWestSideStory. His love for sharing information and journalism bought him to found thewestsidestory.net online news media website. A Proud American and a Proud Dad!

Related Posts

16 Responses

  1. bgrnathan

    GENETIC INFORMATION, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn’t mean all forms of life are biologically related! Only genetic similarities within a natural species proves relationship because it’s only within a natural species that members can interbreed and reproduce.

    Read more at my popular Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

    • disqus_GS46e5I0h0

      babu! you rascal. i knew you’d show up. where’s the rest of your popular article? the logic is flawed by your assumptions. bad assumptions make bad conclusions. if it’s all per some design, why are there so many mistakes? if mutations exist, it’s bad design. unless it’s supposed to mutate. the only purpose for mutation, then, would be evolution. so, which is it? bad design, or evolution?

      • Tyler Nieuwendorp

        Let me guess there’re both the same “Kinds”. I noticed that the Bible never actually makes mention of this “variation in kinds”. It only says animals may reproduce within their within their kinds. For all we know from that statement, Lions and Tigers could be their own kind, even though most Creationists would insist otherwise. It clearly reflects a mind set present of the Bible’s time period where most educated people didn’t believe in specification. It’s yet another example of how the Bible doesn’t match up with our modern knowlege.

  2. jelyob

    Journalism majors. Next to education majors, they are they masters of obsfucation.

    • whomedoyou

      And what would you say of the obfuscation masquerading as justification entirely based on religious belief?

      • Bernie Blasnalus

        That it is of your own making. Scientific discovery isn’t at odds with religious belief since they are different areas of study and knowledge.

      • whomedoyou

        Scientific discovery has no issues with religious belief – mostly I agree. Other than the fact that most of what religious belief is based upon is not repeatable by others. That is a fundamental basis for a scientific discovery to be accepted – not really of my own making.
        The issue really is that the almighty is used to answer everything without proof. And it follows that since everything stems from this entity it has been addressed, without explanation/repetition if I need to really call that out again.

  3. Mickey Mouse

    This is the 5th article on this discovery that I’ve seen today saying that this thing is a mouse. It is not a mouse. It is an Elephant Shrew. It is expected that an Elephant Shrew would have more Elephant Genes than a mouse. Did ANY of these journalists bother to look up what the scientists even discovered?

  4. F. S. Gadol

    Where to begin? Is the headline writer an idiot? Or just not trained in science in any way?
    This is not a “mouse”. It does not “have elephant genes”.
    it is a new species of elephant shrews. … which are not shrews. They are part of a group of mammals called Afrotheria, Included within that group is this clade of animals including aardvarks and “elephant shrews”, of which this is one. Another clade within the larger group has elephants, hyraxes, and manatees.
    Shrews are not part of this Afotheria and neither are mice. So this “new” guy is not a shrew nor is he/she a mouse.
    Please let the writer make up a headline. Not some third rate hack with a vivid imagination.

    • Insanitea

      Did you read the article? It isn’t any better than the headline. The problem isn’t that they didn’t let the writer make the headline, but that they let him be a writer in the first place.

      • F. S. Gadol

        Good heavens, you are right. I skimmed the article and missed where the author called the animals “mice”, so the author isn’t much better than the headline writer. At least the author did not assert that there were “elephant genes” in the “mice”. So, not quite as bad as the headline writer, but not a competent science writer.

  5. Gabriel

    Now did the elephants have sex with the mouse or did the mouse have sex with the elephants?..Just ain’t clear? lol

    • disqus_GS46e5I0h0

      the old joke is the mouse did the elephant, but somebody put him up to it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.