Sir

Although recent correspondence has highlighted the way in which scientists are increasingly over-indulgent in their use of the concept of novelty (Nature 385, 480 & 387, 843; 1997), the practice continues.

In a recent contribution to Nature 388, 337; 1997) entitled “A new west African chimpanzee subspecies?”, the authors suggest that “a previously unrecognized type of chimpanzee may be present in Nigeria and adjacent parts of Cameroon”, but then go on to point out that if the subspecies is “eventually recognized, the name vellerosus seems to be available”.

It would appear, therefore, that J. E. Gray described this potential “new” subspecies more than a century ago, a contribution that should not be overlooked simply because he lacked the technological advantages of polymerase chain reaction. Should not the recent findings be more accurately presented as a case of an old and forgotten subspecies that has been rediscovered and validated using new techniques?