This species is the most common of the gorilla species, but is also classified as critically endangered due the land clearing and poaching.

The western lowland gorilla is the most numerous and widespread of all gorilla subspecies. Populations can be found in Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Equatorial Guinea as well as in large areas in Gabon and the Republic of Congo. The exact number of western lowland gorillas is not known because they inhabit some of the most dense and remote rainforests in Africa. Significant populations still exist, including in isolated swamps and the remote swampy forests of the Republic of Congo.

Western lowland gorillas can be distinguished from other gorilla subspecies by their slightly smaller size, their brown-grey coats and auburn chests. They also have wider skulls with more pronounced brow ridges and smaller ears. Large numbers have not protected the western lowland gorilla from decline. Because of poaching and disease, the gorilla’s numbers have declined by more than 60% over the last 20 to 25 years. Even if all of the threats to western lowland gorillas were removed, scientists calculate that the population would require some 75 years to recover.

STATUS
Critically Endangered

POPULATION
Unknown

SCIENTIFIC NAME
Gorilla gorilla gorilla

HEIGHT
4 to 5 ½ feet when standing on two feet

WEIGHT
up to 440 pounds

https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/western-lowland-gorilla

SCIENTIFIC NAME
Gorilla gorilla gorilla

.

Probly what the discoverers were shouting as they ran away.

Ian said:

SCIENTIFIC NAME
Gorilla gorilla gorilla

.

Probly what the discoverers were shouting as they ran away.

A bit on the Far Side, must admit.

> Gorilla gorilla gorilla

Yep. Knew that. There are heaps of examples where the common name is used twice to make the scientific name. But this is the only example I’ve found where the common name is used three times to make the scientific name.

mollwollfumble said:

> Gorilla gorilla gorilla

Yep. Knew that. There are heaps of examples where the common name is used twice to make the scientific name. But this is the only example I’ve found where the common name is used three times to make the scientific name.

Close enough to do so. There are reasons as you should know.

mollwollfumble said:

> Gorilla gorilla gorilla

Yep. Knew that. There are heaps of examples where the common name is used twice to make the scientific name. But this is the only example I’ve found where the common name is used three times to make the scientific name.

The Gorilla with capital “G” denotes the Genus.

The second gorilla denotes the species.

The third gorilla denotes the subspecies.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Gorilla gorilla gorilla

Yep. Knew that. There are heaps of examples where the common name is used twice to make the scientific name. But this is the only example I’ve found where the common name is used three times to make the scientific name.

Close enough to do so. There are reasons as you should know.

What?

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Gorilla gorilla gorilla

Yep. Knew that. There are heaps of examples where the common name is used twice to make the scientific name. But this is the only example I’ve found where the common name is used three times to make the scientific name.

Close enough to do so. There are reasons as you should know.

What?

..

PermeateFree said:

This species is the most common of the gorilla species, but is also classified as critically endangered due the land clearing and poaching.

The western lowland gorilla is the most numerous and widespread of all gorilla subspecies. Populations can be found in Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Equatorial Guinea as well as in large areas in Gabon and the Republic of Congo. The exact number of western lowland gorillas is not known because they inhabit some of the most dense and remote rainforests in Africa. Significant populations still exist, including in isolated swamps and the remote swampy forests of the Republic of Congo.

Western lowland gorillas can be distinguished from other gorilla subspecies by their slightly smaller size, their brown-grey coats and auburn chests. They also have wider skulls with more pronounced brow ridges and smaller ears. Large numbers have not protected the western lowland gorilla from decline. Because of poaching and disease, the gorilla’s numbers have declined by more than 60% over the last 20 to 25 years. Even if all of the threats to western lowland gorillas were removed, scientists calculate that the population would require some 75 years to recover.

STATUS
Critically Endangered

POPULATION
Unknown

SCIENTIFIC NAME
Gorilla gorilla gorilla

HEIGHT
4 to 5 ½ feet when standing on two feet

WEIGHT
up to 440 pounds

https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/western-lowland-gorilla

> Critically Endangered

“Now, over 100,000 western lowland gorillas are thought to exist in the wild, with 4,000 in zoos”.

Not what I would call “critically endangered”.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

This species is the most common of the gorilla species, but is also classified as critically endangered due the land clearing and poaching.

The western lowland gorilla is the most numerous and widespread of all gorilla subspecies. Populations can be found in Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Equatorial Guinea as well as in large areas in Gabon and the Republic of Congo. The exact number of western lowland gorillas is not known because they inhabit some of the most dense and remote rainforests in Africa. Significant populations still exist, including in isolated swamps and the remote swampy forests of the Republic of Congo.

Western lowland gorillas can be distinguished from other gorilla subspecies by their slightly smaller size, their brown-grey coats and auburn chests. They also have wider skulls with more pronounced brow ridges and smaller ears. Large numbers have not protected the western lowland gorilla from decline. Because of poaching and disease, the gorilla’s numbers have declined by more than 60% over the last 20 to 25 years. Even if all of the threats to western lowland gorillas were removed, scientists calculate that the population would require some 75 years to recover.

STATUS
Critically Endangered

POPULATION
Unknown

SCIENTIFIC NAME
Gorilla gorilla gorilla

HEIGHT
4 to 5 ½ feet when standing on two feet

WEIGHT
up to 440 pounds

https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/western-lowland-gorilla

> Critically Endangered

“Now, over 100,000 western lowland gorillas are thought to exist in the wild, with 4,000 in zoos”.

Not what I would call “critically endangered”.

>>Population and distribution
The western lowland gorilla is the most widespread and numerous of the four gorilla subspecies.

No accurate estimates of their numbers are possible, as these elusive apes inhabit some of Africa’s densest and most remote rainforests. However, the total population is thought to number up to 100,000 individuals.

In some areas they occur in surprisingly high densities – like in remote swamps or areas with dense leafy growth where they’ve been recorded at exceptionally high densities of almost 10 individuals per square kilometer.

The forests of Congo (Brazzaville) are currently considered to harbour the major population of western lowland gorillas, which are protected by the remoteness of the large, swampy forest areas.<<

https://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/endangered_species/great_apes/gorillas/western_lowland_gorilla/

If humans only numbered 100,000 they would likewise be considered critically endangered, especially as the pressures the gorillas face make their future very uncertain. Being classified as critically endangered provides some protection, particularly from CITES and is therefore an important classification.

CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, also known as the Washington Convention) is a multilateral treaty to protect endangered plants and animals. It was drafted as a result of a resolution adopted in 1963 at a meeting of members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The convention was opened for signature in 1973 and CITES entered into force on 1 July 1975.

But there again, why should you care?

> If humans only numbered 100,000 they would likewise be considered critically endangered

I generally go by:

• critically endangered 2,000 or less, (or more if single location, or more if rapid decline in numbers)
• endangered 20,000 or less
• threatened 200,000 or less
• least concern >200,000

> But there again, why should you care?

For me: altruism + humanism + utilitarianism

Why do you care? Same reasons or different?

mollwollfumble said:

> If humans only numbered 100,000 they would likewise be considered critically endangered

I generally go by:

• critically endangered 2,000 or less, (or more if single location, or more if rapid decline in numbers)
• endangered 20,000 or less
• threatened 200,000 or less
• least concern >200,000

> But there again, why should you care?

For me: altruism + humanism + utilitarianism

Why do you care? Same reasons or different?

I don’t think that you or I, or anybody, has the right to arbitrarily exterminate an entire species

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

> If humans only numbered 100,000 they would likewise be considered critically endangered

I generally go by:

• critically endangered 2,000 or less, (or more if single location, or more if rapid decline in numbers)
• endangered 20,000 or less
• threatened 200,000 or less
• least concern >200,000

> But there again, why should you care?

For me: altruism + humanism + utilitarianism

Why do you care? Same reasons or different?

I don’t think that you or I, or anybody, has the right to arbitrarily exterminate an entire species

It’s every man’s right to exterminate species if he wants to.

But seriously, I agree with moll. altruism + humanism + utilitarianism combine to provide a perfectly good reason to try and avoid species extermination, without getting into the foggy subject of “rights”.

the classification of ‘endangered’ does not just lean on numbers… “According to the IUCN, an endangered species is one that meets any one of the following criteria: a 50–70% population decrease over 10 years, a total geographic area less than 5,000 km2 (or local population area less than 500 km2), a population size less than 2,500 adults, a restricted population of 250 adults, or a statistical prediction that it will go extinct within the next 20 years.”

any one of those things…

mollwollfumble said:

> If humans only numbered 100,000 they would likewise be considered critically endangered

I generally go by:

• critically endangered 2,000 or less, (or more if single location, or more if rapid decline in numbers)
• endangered 20,000 or less
• threatened 200,000 or less
• least concern >200,000

> But there again, why should you care?

For me: altruism + humanism + utilitarianism

Why do you care? Same reasons or different?

Arts said:

the classification of ‘endangered’ does not just lean on numbers… “According to the IUCN, an endangered species is one that meets any one of the following criteria: a 50–70% population decrease over 10 years, a total geographic area less than 5,000 km2 (or local population area less than 500 km2), a population size less than 2,500 adults, a restricted population of 250 adults, or a statistical prediction that it will go extinct within the next 20 years.”

any one of those things…

I stand corrected.

• critically endangered 2,500 or less, (or more if single location, or more if rapid decline in numbers)

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

> If humans only numbered 100,000 they would likewise be considered critically endangered

I generally go by:

• critically endangered 2,000 or less, (or more if single location, or more if rapid decline in numbers)
• endangered 20,000 or less
• threatened 200,000 or less
• least concern >200,000

> But there again, why should you care?

For me: altruism + humanism + utilitarianism

Why do you care? Same reasons or different?

Arts said:

the classification of ‘endangered’ does not just lean on numbers… “According to the IUCN, an endangered species is one that meets any one of the following criteria: a 50–70% population decrease over 10 years, a total geographic area less than 5,000 km2 (or local population area less than 500 km2), a population size less than 2,500 adults, a restricted population of 250 adults, or a statistical prediction that it will go extinct within the next 20 years.”

any one of those things…

I stand corrected.

• critically endangered 2,500 or less, (or more if single location, or more if rapid decline in numbers)
  

that’s endangered… critically endangered is less than 250 mature

Arts said:

that’s endangered… critically endangered is less than 250 mature

Apologies.

An annoyance I have with the Red List is that there are at least ten species with fewer than 250 known mature individuals that are not counted as “critically endangered”.

So, obviously calling the Western Lowland with more than 100,000 individuals “critically endangered” is a blatant error.

mollwollfumble said:

Arts said:

that’s endangered… critically endangered is less than 250 mature

Apologies.

An annoyance I have with the Red List is that there are at least ten species with fewer than 250 known mature individuals that are not counted as “critically endangered”.

So, obviously calling the Western Lowland with more than 100,000 individuals “critically endangered” is a blatant error.

Perhaps it takes into account where they live is quite likely to be destroyed over the coming decades

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Arts said:

that’s endangered… critically endangered is less than 250 mature

Apologies.

An annoyance I have with the Red List is that there are at least ten species with fewer than 250 known mature individuals that are not counted as “critically endangered”.

So, obviously calling the Western Lowland with more than 100,000 individuals “critically endangered” is a blatant error.

Perhaps it takes into account where they live is quite likely to be destroyed over the coming decades

5,000 live in zoos. And no.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Apologies.

An annoyance I have with the Red List is that there are at least ten species with fewer than 250 known mature individuals that are not counted as “critically endangered”.

So, obviously calling the Western Lowland with more than 100,000 individuals “critically endangered” is a blatant error.

Perhaps it takes into account where they live is quite likely to be destroyed over the coming decades

5,000 live in zoos. And no.

You had it as 4,000 last night. So as long as an animal is alive there is no need to be concerned with its natural habitat. FFS get real!

mollwollfumble said:

> If humans only numbered 100,000 they would likewise be considered critically endangered

I generally go by:

• critically endangered 2,000 or less, (or more if single location, or more if rapid decline in numbers)
• endangered 20,000 or less
• threatened 200,000 or less
• least concern >200,000

> But there again, why should you care?

For me: altruism + humanism + utilitarianism

Why do you care? Same reasons or different?

I care about the animals, their future and well being. Not statics that are often used by people for their own narrow and selfish outlook on life.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

> If humans only numbered 100,000 they would likewise be considered critically endangered

I generally go by:

• critically endangered 2,000 or less, (or more if single location, or more if rapid decline in numbers)
• endangered 20,000 or less
• threatened 200,000 or less
• least concern >200,000

> But there again, why should you care?

For me: altruism + humanism + utilitarianism

Why do you care? Same reasons or different?

I care about the animals, their future and well being. Not statics that are often used by people for their own narrow and selfish outlook on life.

A critically endangered (CR) species is one that has been categorized by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. As of 2014, there are 2,464 animal and 2,104 plant species with this assessment.

To be defined as critically endangered in the Red List, a species must meet any of the following criteria (A–E) (“3G/10Y” signifies three generations or ten years—whichever is longer—over a maximum of 100 years; “MI” signifies Mature Individuals):

A: Population size reduction
1. If the reasons for population reduction no longer occur and can be reversed, the population needs to have been reduced by at least 90%
2. 3. and 4. If not, then the population needs to have been reduced by at least 80%

B: Occurring over less than 100 km2 OR the area of occupancy is less than 10 km2
1. Severe habitat fragmentation or existing at just one location
2. Decline in extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, area/extent/quality of habitat, number of locations/subpopulations, or amount of MI.
3. Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, number of locations/subpopulations, or amount of MI.

C: Declining population of less than 250 MI and either:
1. A decline of 25% over 3G/10Y;
2. Extreme fluctuations, or over 90% of MI in a single subpopulation, or no more than 50 MI in any one subpopulation.

D: Numbers less than 50 MI.

E: At least 50% chance of going Extinct in the Wild over 3G/10Y.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

> If humans only numbered 100,000 they would likewise be considered critically endangered

I generally go by:

• critically endangered 2,000 or less, (or more if single location, or more if rapid decline in numbers)
• endangered 20,000 or less
• threatened 200,000 or less
• least concern >200,000

> But there again, why should you care?

For me: altruism + humanism + utilitarianism

Why do you care? Same reasons or different?

I care about the animals, their future and well being. Not statics that are often used by people for their own narrow and selfish outlook on life.

It’s a hard situation to resolve, the human race grows at the expense of everything else, hopefully we smarten up before the planet is ruined or a pale imitation that it once was.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

> If humans only numbered 100,000 they would likewise be considered critically endangered

I generally go by:

• critically endangered 2,000 or less, (or more if single location, or more if rapid decline in numbers)
• endangered 20,000 or less
• threatened 200,000 or less
• least concern >200,000

> But there again, why should you care?

For me: altruism + humanism + utilitarianism

Why do you care? Same reasons or different?

I care about the animals, their future and well being. Not statics that are often used by people for their own narrow and selfish outlook on life.

It’s a hard situation to resolve, the human race grows at the expense of everything else, hopefully we smarten up before the planet is ruined or a pale imitation that it once was.

Unfortunately it does not seem to be in our nature. It does not matter what environmental wonder or the creatures that live there, always there is someone who would destroy it if they think they can make a dollar from it, simply to get a faster car or a larger house, or just plain greed. The problem with these types of people is there are far too many of them and they are relentless. You fight to stop one, but within a couple of years there is another with a slightly different proposal and all you need is a selfish right wing government in charge and they are granted their wish and we lose a little more.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

I care about the animals, their future and well being. Not statics that are often used by people for their own narrow and selfish outlook on life.

It’s a hard situation to resolve, the human race grows at the expense of everything else, hopefully we smarten up before the planet is ruined or a pale imitation that it once was.

Unfortunately it does not seem to be in our nature. It does not matter what environmental wonder or the creatures that live there, always there is someone who would destroy it if they think they can make a dollar from it, simply to get a faster car or a larger house, or just plain greed. The problem with these types of people is there are far too many of them and they are relentless. You fight to stop one, but within a couple of years there is another with a slightly different proposal and all you need is a selfish right wing government in charge and they are granted their wish and we lose a little more.

It does seem human nature that helped us to be the dominant lifeform will be our undoing.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Apologies.

An annoyance I have with the Red List is that there are at least ten species with fewer than 250 known mature individuals that are not counted as “critically endangered”.

So, obviously calling the Western Lowland with more than 100,000 individuals “critically endangered” is a blatant error.

Perhaps it takes into account where they live is quite likely to be destroyed over the coming decades

5,000 live in zoos. And no.

um yes it does.. the classification isn’t based on pure numbers..