The word “duah,” regarding a flying creature, may not exist in any language of Papua New Guinea. The correct word is “duwas,” a.k.a. “ropen.”
Years ago, a number of web pages listed the duah and ropen as separate
kinds of pterosaur-like creatures in Papua New Guinea. More recent
expeditions and research, however, reveal problems with that old idea.
For one thing, the correct word is “duwas,” not “duah.”
Explorers who have searched for pterosaur-like creatures in Papua New
Guinea in the 21st century realize that there are many languages. Also,
many tribes know of nocturnal featherless flying creatures having long
tails. Some of the names for this creature, in PNG, are as follows:
•
seklo-bali
•
ropen
•
duwas
•
kor
•
wawanar
Frigate birds are very unlike the ropen (or duwas)
From 2004 until 2018, at least two persons
are known to have mistaken a frigate bird
for a ropen. A deep analysis of eyewitness
testimonies from reports in those years,
however, reveals that this misidentification
idea, from hundreds of accounts, does not
fit the sightings in general, not at all.
Flying “dinosaur” book for children and teenagers:
The Girl who saw a Flying Dinosaur (by Whitcomb)
The ropen (a.k.a. “duwas”) resembles, in
general shape & features, Sordes pilosus.
Small sampling of sightings in the United States of America:
•
Arkansas
•
California
•
Florida
•
Georgia
•
Hawaii
•
Idaho
•
Illinois
•
Indiana
•
Iowa
•
Kansas
•
Kentucky
•
Louisiana
•
Massachusetts
•
Michigan
•
Minnesota
•
Mississippi
•
Missouri
•
New Jersey
•
New York
•
North Carolina
•
Ohio
•
Oklahoma . . .
Copyright 2006-2019 Jonathan Whitcomb
ver-020
Duah
and
Ropen
Are these different species of living
pterosaurs in Papua New Guinea?
Written by Jonathan Whitcomb, this was published
in a peer-reviewed journal. It’s mostly on the two
ropen expeditions on Umboi Island in the year 2004.
In an early expedition in the 1990’s, this native
answered questions. He said, “in our language,
we call it duwas.” Other natives of Umboi Island
call the flying creature, that eats fish and glows
brightly (but briefly) at night, ropen.
Duah and Ropen, cont.
By the investigative journalist Jonathan Whitcomb
I gained a limited knowledge of the Tok Pisin language
before my expedition in Papua New Guinea in 2004. I
also gleaned a few words of Kovai, the village language
spoken in Gomlongon and Opai on Umboi Island.
The English word “door” is, in Tok Pisin, “dua.” This
language is an English pidgin, adopting and modifying
many English words. (Actually, Tok Pisin graduated
from the pidgin status some time ago; it is now a
distinct and actively-used language in PNG.) But the
point is this: That word for “door” is unrelated to
any flying creature. “Duah” probably came from a
misunderstanding or careless modification, by an
English speaker, of the native word “duwas,” which
refers to the large flying creature that is known, in
some villages of Umboi Island, as the ropen.
I believe that someone may have become confused
with this word “duwas,” thinking it was the plural for
“duah.” I know of no native or recent explorer who
uses the word “duah” for anything that flies or for any
animal. I suggest we use original words of languages
in Papua New Guinea. Forget about “duah.”
In addition, I suggest that someone may have heard of
a report, in one area, of a duwas that was very large and
a report, in another area, of a ropen that was smaller,
and that person may have assumed that there were two
kinds of pterosaur-like creatures.
I don’t mean to imply that all featherless non-bat flying
creatures in Papua New Guinea are of the same species.
In fact, my associates and I believe that the apparent
pterosaurs seen deep in the interior of New Britain Island
are not only a different species but a different type of
pterosaur than the ropen.
(I’ve written about the New Britain Creature elsewhere.)
The case, related to early misunderstanding about the
words “duah” and “ropen,” is this: Some ropens probably
live longer than others of their species. The older ones
have had more time to grow. The younger ropens may be
more numerous, yet many of them could be about the
same size as some birds. Let’s look at that.
The ropen, whether on Umboi Island or in other areas of
Papua New Guinea, is nocturnal. Also, ropens have been
reported to glow at night. That means they don’t come
out in daylight often. When one of them does appear in
daylight, however, it attracts attention according to its
size. If it is the size of a common bird, it will probably go
unnoticed. If it is one of the large ones, however, it could
attract the attention of one or more natives.
In other words, if apparent big pterosaurs are reported
in one area of Papua New Guinea, and smaller ones are
reported in another area, that may be unrelated to species
but greatly related to habits of nocturnal flying creatures
and habits of natives, in different areas. It’s complicated.
Gideon Koro witnessed a huge ropen on Umboi
The flying fox fruit bat is very much unlike the ropen:
•
No long tail
•
No eating of fish
•
No bioluminescence
•
No wingspan of over 25 feet
Various kinds of flying fox, giant fruit bats, live in
Papua New Guinea and surrounding countries. But
this kind of bat has almost no tail, no appetite for
fish, and no glow of bioluminescent light. How can
many eyewitnesses of pterosaur-like creatures be
mistaken about so many details that are unlike the
appearances and habits of the Flying Fox fruit bats?
Answer: They are not mistaken but simply report
what they have seen: non-bats.
Critics who ascribe the living-pterosaur sightings
to Flying Fox fruit bats seem to avoid any mention
of any particular sighting: They just make a general
statement about sightings. But why not consider
the eyewitnesses themselves? Consider the accounts
of Gideon Koro, Jonah Jim, David Woetzel, Duane
Hodgkinson, Brian Hennessy, Jacob Kepas, and the
Perth couple. And why not compare one eyewitness
testimony with another?
The ropen of Papua New Guinea may be
similar to the two “pterodactyls” seen by the
U.S. Marine Eskin Kuhn. His sighting was at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 1971.
He drew his sketch just a few minutes after
his encounter with the two flying creatures,
and a similar one was seen there in 1965.
Duah
and
Ropen
Are these different species of living
pterosaurs in Papua New Guinea?
The word “duah,” for a flying creature, may not
exist in any language of Papua New Guinea.
The correct word is “duwas,” a.k.a. “ropen.”
Years ago, a number of web pages listed the duah and ropen as separate
kinds of pterosaur-like creatures in Papua New Guinea. More recent
expeditions and research, however, reveal problems with that old idea.
For one thing, the correct word is “duwas,” not “duah.”
Explorers who have searched for pterosaur-like creatures in Papua New
Guinea in the 21st century realize that there are many languages. Also,
many tribes know of nocturnal featherless flying creatures having long
tails. Some of the names for this creature, in PNG, are as follows:
•
seklo-bali
•
ropen
•
duwas
•
kor
•
wawanar
Duah and Ropen, cont.
By the investigative journalist Jonathan Whitcomb
I gained a limited knowledge of the Tok Pisin language
before my expedition in Papua New Guinea in 2004. I
also gleaned a few words of Kovai, the village language
spoken in Gomlongon and Opai on Umboi Island.
The English word “door” is, in Tok Pisin, “dua.” This
language is an English pidgin, adopting and modifying
many English words. (Actually, Tok Pisin graduated
from the pidgin status some time ago; it is now a
distinct and actively-used language in PNG.) But the
point is this: That word for “door” is unrelated to
any flying creature. “Duah” probably came from a
misunderstanding or careless modification, by an
English speaker, of the native word “duwas,” which
refers to the large flying creature that is known, in
some villages of Umboi Island, as the ropen.
I believe that someone may have become confused
with this word “duwas,” thinking it was the plural for
“duah.” I know of no native or recent explorer who
uses the word “duah” for anything that flies or for any
animal. I suggest we use original words of languages
in Papua New Guinea. Forget about “duah.”
In addition, I suggest that someone may have heard of
a report, in one area, of a duwas that was very large and
a report, in another area, of a ropen that was smaller,
and that person may have assumed that there were two
kinds of pterosaur-like creatures.
I don’t mean to imply that all featherless non-bat flying
creatures in Papua New Guinea are of the same species.
In fact, my associates and I believe that the apparent
pterosaurs seen deep in the interior of New Britain Island
are not only a different species but a different type of
pterosaur than the ropen.
(I’ve written about the New Britain Creature elsewhere.)
The case, related to early misunderstanding about the
words “duah” and “ropen,” is this: Some ropens probably
live longer than others of their species. The older ones
have had more time to grow. The younger ropens may be
more numerous, yet many of them could be about the
same size as some birds. Let’s look at that.
The ropen, whether on Umboi Island or in other areas of
Papua New Guinea, is nocturnal. Also, ropens have been
reported to glow at night. That means they don’t come
out in daylight often. When one of them does appear in
daylight, however, it attracts attention according to its
size. If it is the size of a common bird, it will probably go
unnoticed. If it is one of the large ones, however, it could
attract the attention of one or more natives.
In other words, if apparent big pterosaurs are reported
in one area of Papua New Guinea, and smaller ones are
reported in another area, that may be unrelated to species
but greatly related to habits of nocturnal flying creatures
and habits of natives, in different areas. It’s complicated.
In an early expedition in the 1990’s, this native
answered questions. He said, “in our language,
we call it duwas.” Other natives of Umboi Island
call the flying creature, that eats fish and glows
brightly (but briefly) at night, ropen.
Copyright 2006-2019 Jonathan Whitcomb
ver-020