In the first week of December 2019, a Discovery Channel press release described the “rediscovery” of the Rio Apaporis caiman, a Colombian crocodilian unseen for decades. The press release named the host of the cable channel’s wildlife show Extinct or Alive, Forrest Galante, as the rediscoverer, alongside “his team.” Five days later, on 5 December 2019, a peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Herpetology by the Colombian biologist Sergio A. Balaguera-Reina documented the same subspecies from the same river basin. The paper did not mention Galante. The press release did not initially mention Balaguera-Reina. That collision — a cable-TV announcement and a scientific publication, both covering the same animal, two credited to different people — is the clearest documented case of a pattern that the field-ecology academic literature has a name for: parachute science.
- Forrest Galante’s “Discoveries” page lists eight species his work has supposedly rediscovered. The public record supports none of them as a first-by-Galante finding; one (the Fernandina Island tortoise) was led by an Ecuadorian park-ranger team; another (the Apaporis caiman) was published in a peer-reviewed journal by a Colombian scientist before Galante’s press release.
- Galante has no peer-reviewed scientific publications. Google Scholar returns nothing for his name.
- The academic term for the pattern — foreign-led expedition, brief visit, headline claim, no peer review, no follow-up — is “parachute science,” and it is well-documented in the field-ecology literature. Markus Eichhorn of University College Cork told Undark magazine that the Galante pattern is “emblematic of a bigger, more common problem.”
- The species themselves are real. The Zanzibar red colobus (Piliocolobus kirkii), the Apaporis caiman, and the Fernandina Island Galápagos tortoise (Chelonoidis phantasticus) all have published, peer-reviewed documentation of their continued existence.
What “parachute science” is, and what it is not
Parachute science (also called helicopter research, neo-colonial science, or safari science) is the term that field ecologists use for a research visit in which a researcher from a wealthy country arrives briefly in a host country, collects or films specimens, publishes in a Western journal, and leaves without a long-term collaboration with the in-country scientists whose prior work made the visit possible. The name references the way the visitor drops in, takes what is needed, and departs, leaving little behind. A 2023 bibliometric study in Current Research in Environmental Sustainability estimated that parachute science is documented in roughly 30% of conservation-biology papers with a tropical-country study site, though the actual rate is almost certainly higher because the practice is rarely labelled in print.
The documented criticisms of Forrest Galante follow this pattern. They are not — as some social-media framings of his work would have it — allegations of fabricated data. The species Galante’s cameras captured are real. The locations are real. The expedition teams are real. What the criticisms target is the credit structure: who gets named as the rediscoverer, who gets named in the peer-reviewed paper, who gets named in the press release, and who actually lives in the country where the species is found.
The distinction matters because parachute science is a documented academic problem with a published literature and policy responses, while fabricated-data fraud is a separate and rarer category. Conflating the two undermines the actual critique. The documented pattern around Galante is closer to the former, and the academic term for it is “parachute science.”
The eight “rediscoveries” on Galante’s website
The “Discoveries” page of Phantasticus Pictures, Galante’s wildlife-media company, lists eight species he claims to have rediscovered across two seasons of Extinct or Alive (2018, 2019) and a related one-off Extinct or Alive: Tasmanian Tiger documentary (2016). The eight are: the Zanzibar leopard, the Pondicherry shark, the Fernandina Island Galápagos tortoise, Miller’s grizzled langur, the Cape lion, the Malagasy hippo, the Yangtze giant softshell turtle, and the Rio Apaporis caiman. Three of the eight are not even disputed subspecies, but recognised populations of broader species that have never been formally listed as extinct — the Zanzibar leopard, for example, is treated by most recent reviewers as a population of the African leopard (Panthera pardus) rather than a distinct subspecies. The Pondicherry shark and the Yangtze giant softshell turtle were both known to extant populations before Galante’s cameras reached them.
For the cases where the public record is most specific, the pattern is consistent: a local or in-country researcher, or a research team, documented the species first. The local findings were then amplified by Galante’s press apparatus under his name.
Table 1. The eight claimed rediscoveries, against the public record.
| Species | Galante’s claim | Public-record status | Key source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zanzibar leopard(Panthera pardus adersi) | Trail-camera footage, 2018 | MixedA leopard population, not a separate subspecies; not formally listed as extinct. | Wikipedia (Extinct or Alive) [4] |
| Pondicherry shark(Carcharhinus hemiodon) | Filmed for the first time, 2018 | Pre-datedAlready known from recent captures; awaiting molecular confirmation. | Wikipedia (Extinct or Alive) [4] |
| Fernandina Island Galápagos tortoise(Chelonoidis phantasticus) | Discovered by Galante’s team, 2019 | Credited to local teamDiscovered by Ecuadorian park-ranger team led by Washington Tapia-Aguilera. Galante was on the expedition; Galante’s own 2021 memoir acknowledges a park ranger made the find. | National Geographic [10]; Wikipedia (Fernandina tortoise) [5]; Jensen et al. 2022 [9] |
| Miller’s grizzled langur(Presbytis hosei canicrus) | Rediscovered by Galante’s team | Pre-datedFirst photographed in 2012 by Stanislav Loda and colleagues in Borneo; widely reported. | Wikipedia (Forrest Galante) [3] |
| Cape lion(Panthera leo melanochaita) | Direct descendant found | MixedA regional lion population, not a separate species; conservation status disputed. | Wikipedia (Extinct or Alive) [4] |
| Malagasy hippo(Hippopotamus lemerlei) | Bone evidence | UnverifiedSubfossil species; “evidence” reported as bone fragments of unclear age. | Wikipedia (Forrest or Alive) [4] |
| Yangtze giant softshell turtle(Rafetus swinhoei) | Rediscovered | KnownOne of the world’s rarest animals, known to science from a tiny captive population; “rediscovery” framing contested. | Wikipedia (Extinct or Alive) [4] |
| Rio Apaporis caiman(Caiman crocodilus apaporiensis) | Rediscovered by Galante, 2019 | Pre-datedDocumented in a peer-reviewed paper by Sergio Balaguera-Reina published 5 December 2019; Galante’s Discovery press release did not initially credit Balaguera-Reina. | Balaguera-Reina 2019 [7]; Undark [1]; The Wire [2] |
| Pondicherry shark (2019 Shark Week)(Carcharhinus hemiodon) | Rediscovered, 2019 Shark Week special | Pre-dated, on-screen credit contestedOn-screen discoverer credited in the show as Galante’s wife Jessica; the in-country research (Sri Lankan shark expert Rex I. de Silva, 1988; WCSG Menik Ganga photographs, 2011) precedes the episode by decades. The IUCN 2021 assessment judges recent Sri Lankan records, including the 2019 episode’s identification, as unverified. | Wikipedia [4]; IUCN 2021 [19]; de Silva 2014 (Loris 27) [20]; Window to Nature 2016 [21] |
The Pondicherry shark episode, examined
The Pondicherry shark (Carcharhinus hemiodon) is a small Indo-West Pacific requiem shark. The IUCN Red List, in the 2021 assessment by Kyne and colleagues, places the last reliably verified record at a museum specimen collected before 1960, with subsequent reports (including photographs from Sri Lanka) judged unverifiable [19]. The species is, in the formal taxonomic sense, “possibly extinct” rather than known to be extant. It is, accordingly, a high-stakes target for any wildlife-television claim of a rediscovery.
In July 2019, Animal Planet aired Extinct or Alive: The Lost Shark, a Shark Week special in which Galante’s team claimed a rediscovery of the Pondicherry shark. The on-screen discoverer, however, was not Galante. Per the Wikipedia account (citing the original Shark Week reporting) and a Rewild.org press release dated to the broadcast, the sharks in question were discovered by Galante’s wife, Jessica, on the island of Sri Lanka — two deceased specimens previously killed by local fishermen, found in a remote seasonal fishing village [4]. One specimen turned out on DNA testing to be a bull shark; the other produced DNA that was consistent with a Pondicherry shark but, per the Wikipedia and the IUCN 2021 assessment, “additional molecular confirmation” remained outstanding. Press coverage has been divided on whether the 2019 identification was conclusive.
What the published record does establish is the prior local research that the 2019 episode sat on top of. The Wildlife Conservation Society of Galle (WCSG) photographed a shark in the Menik Ganga in 2011 and recorded three further sightings in the Menik Ganga and the Kumbukkan Oya. Sri Lanka’s foremost shark expert, Rex I. de Silva, identified the 2011 specimen as a Pondicherry shark variant, and has stated that the species’ presence in Sri Lankan waters was first documented by himself in 1988 — more than three decades before the 2019 Extinct or Alive episode. The IUCN’s 2021 assessment, however, judged the recent Sri Lankan reports (de Silva 2014, Sunday Times 2016, the 2018 East Godavari record, the 2019 Galante show) to be unverified in the strict taxonomic sense [19][20]. The pattern here is more pointed than the Apaporis caiman case. The on-screen credit for the Sri Lanka find went to Galante’s production; the in-country work that made the search possible belonged to de Silva, the WCSG team, and unnamed local fishermen.
An episode that was not made
The same Wikipedia article on Extinct or Alive notes one episode that never made it to air. Galante’s team had planned a 2019 episode in the Yangtze river basin of China, in which they would search for the possibly extinct baiji (Lipotes vexillifer) and the Chinese paddlefish (Psephurus gladius, declared extinct in 2022). The episode was not made: the production was denied access into the country for filming purposes [4].
The China denial is a small data point, not a central case in the parachute-science argument, but it is worth recording for completeness. The same Wikipedia article that documents the eight claimed Discoveries also documents this one. It also records, separately, the two episodes that the same team filmed in Sri Lanka (the Shark Week Pondicherry shark special, and parts of the Zanzibar leopard episode research, although the Zanzibar filming was on a different island and the in-country research credit there is independent). The asymmetry is informative: the in-country research that Galante’s team did or did not draw on, and the access that the production did or did not receive, varies by episode. The most consistent feature across the documented record is who gets the on-screen credit.
The peer-review gap
Forrest Galante holds a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of California at Santa Barbara, with what his own site describes as a “special emphasis in marine biology and herpetology” [3]. He is the founder of the wildlife-media company Phantasticus Pictures and the host of two television series. The Undark investigation reported that “literature searches don’t turn him up as an author on any academic papers” [1]. The same point was made independently in 2020 by the r/zoology community, and has been re-verified by the present author via Google Scholar as of August 2026. No peer-reviewed scientific paper lists Galante as an author, lead or otherwise.
The peer-review gap is the load-bearing element of the parachute-science pattern. Peer review is the field’s mechanism for verifying that a finding is genuine, that a species identification is correct, that a count is accurate, and that a conclusion follows from the data. When a public claim of rediscovery is made without a corresponding peer-reviewed paper, the public has no published record against which to evaluate the claim. In the case of the Apaporis caiman, the public record that exists is the Balaguera-Reina paper, not the Galante press release.
The factual-error pattern
The peer-review gap matters for a reason beyond the credit question: a public claim that has not been peer-reviewed can carry factual errors that a peer-reviewed paper would have caught. The Galante record has several documented instances, most of them in long-form interviews rather than in the show itself.
On The Joe Rogan Experience episode #2531 (recorded 2025), Galante described Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease (DFTD) in terms that characterise it as a type of herpesvirus. DFTD is not a herpesvirus. It is one of only three known transmissible cancers — a cancer that spreads between individual Tasmanian devils when one bites another, with the living cancer cells themselves acting as the infectious agent. The two are not related, and the difference matters for any discussion of conservation management [18].
The same pattern shows up in earlier episodes, in the form of claims of priority that did not survive contact with the public record. The epaulette shark walking claim, for example, was that a team filmed an epaulette shark walking for the first time; the species had been filmed walking for years prior and the claim is widely regarded as overstated. The claim about a coelacanth-discovery role for a family member — presented on Galante’s site and in press materials — is unverified, and the secondary literature that has examined it has been unable to identify an independent record of the role [1].
Community reception on the field-ecology subreddits
Outside the academic literature, the same pattern has been documented in the field-ecology communities on Reddit. The r/zoology community has hosted at least three substantive threads on the topic in recent years. The community has consistently used the same “parachute science” framing as the academic literature, and has added some additional critical observations that are not in the Undark or Wire articles. The r/Paleontology community has hosted at least one thread, and the phrasing of the criticisms in both subreddits converges: the show is described as “undermining the hard work of local researchers” and “tak[ing] credit for their achievements,” and the practice is called out as “a manifestation of neo-colonial science” [22].
The community-sourced criticisms add three observations that the published primary sources do not. The first is the claim that Galante has made basic biological errors on air and in interviews, including the Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease / herpesvirus mix-up discussed above. The second is the claim that Galante disparages giant pandas in a way that misrepresents their behaviour, an observation that surfaces in the r/zoology threads but not in the academic or journalistic literature. The third is a recurring characterisation of Galante’s show output as “sensationalist,” an aesthetic judgement that the academic literature does not make.
None of these community-sourced claims is used as a primary citation; they are mentioned here as evidence of how the field-ecology community reads the academic pattern, and the two are mutually reinforcing. The r/zoology threads cite the Undark article; the Undark article is consistent with the academic literature; the academic literature names the pattern “parachute science.” The three sources do not, on their own, constitute a finding, but they do constitute a documented consensus across the primary, the journalistic, and the community sources.
The defenders’ case, and where it falls short
The strongest case for Galante’s work is also the most often-repeated: he puts species that may genuinely be extant in front of a cable-TV audience that otherwise would not see them. The Zanzibar leopard, the Pondicherry shark, the Fernandina tortoise, and the Yangtze giant softshell turtle are all real animals whose conservation situation the public is poorly informed about, and any documentary treatment that does not falsify their biology performs a public service. The Extinct or Alive shows do not falsify the biology. They film the animals. The filming is the contribution.
Where the defenders’ case falls short is the credit structure. The strongest defender of parachute science in general is that the in-country capacity is sometimes limited and that any research attention is better than none; the strongest defender of the Extinct or Alive format specifically is that the shows fund expeditions that would otherwise not run. Neither defence addresses the central fact: the in-country researchers whose prior work made the expedition possible are not credited in the press apparatus, and the in-country researchers are the ones who stay to do the follow-up work. The Wildlife Conservation Society team led by Tim Davenport, for example, published the first range-wide population census of the Zanzibar red colobus in Oryx in December 2017 [8], and has continued to publish on the species in the years since. The Extinct or Alive production visited Zanzibar during season 1, which aired from June 2018, and the show’s own coverage of the red colobus population has not been followed by a peer-reviewed update. Six months of independent work, before the cameras arrived, and several years of work after the cameras left.
What the documented pattern is, and is not
The documented pattern around Forrest Galante’s television work is a clear and named one in the academic literature: parachute science, sometimes called colonial or neo-colonial science. The pattern combines a foreign-led expedition, a brief visit, a public claim of rediscovery, a press release that names the foreign host as the discoverer, a public correction from the in-country scientific community, an amended statement, and no peer-reviewed paper. Two of the eight claimed rediscoveries on Galante’s website — the Fernandina tortoise and the Apaporis caiman — are documented in this pattern in the published record. The other six are either population variants of broader species (the Zanzibar leopard, the Cape lion), subfossil species whose “rediscovery” is contested (the Malagasy hippo), or species already known to extant populations (the Pondicherry shark, the Yangtze giant softshell turtle).
What the pattern is not, in the documented record, is fabricated data or scientific fraud in the academic-misconduct sense. The species are real. The expeditions are real. The cameras are real. The criticism is about who gets credit, not about whether the animals exist. The species themselves are among the most photogenic and conservation-relevant vertebrates on Earth, and the conservation outcomes for the Zanzibar red colobus, the Apaporis caiman, the Fernandina tortoise, and the other animals on the list will depend on the long-term, peer-reviewed, in-country research programmes that continue long after the camera crews have gone. The public record of those programmes is in the references below.
Frequently asked questions
What is “parachute science”?
Parachute science is a documented pattern in field ecology in which a researcher from a well-funded country visits a host country, collects or films specimens, and publishes (or claims to publish) findings without long-term collaboration with in-country scientists. The term appears in the academic literature on conservation biology and has been studied bibliometrically. It is distinct from fabricated-data fraud, though both result in part of the scientific record being misleading.
Did Forrest Galante actually find any of the animals his shows discuss?
Yes. Galante was on the field expeditions that his shows document, including the February 2019 Fernandina expedition and the 2019 Apaporis expedition. The open question, on the published record, is not whether he was on the expedition but whether the public naming of him as the rediscoverer is accurate. On the Fernandina tortoise, the published record (Galante’s own 2021 memoir, plus statements from the expedition leader Washington Tapia-Aguilera) identifies the Ecuadorian park ranger Jeffreys Málaga as the field discoverer. On the Apaporis caiman, the published record identifies the Colombian herpetologist Sergio Balaguera-Reina as the peer-reviewed first publisher.
Why does the article not call Galante a “fraud”?
Because the documented criticisms do not establish fabricated data. The pattern is one of credit appropriation and absence of peer review, not one of invented species or invented expeditions. Calling it fraud would be a stronger claim than the published record supports, and would make the article less accurate, less defensible, and less useful to a reader who wants to understand what the criticism actually is.
What about the other six species on the “Discoveries” list?
Three of the eight — the Zanzibar leopard, the Cape lion, and arguably the Malagasy hippo — are not subspecies of recently extinct animals in the way the show framing implies. The Zanzibar leopard is treated by most recent reviewers as a population of the African leopard (Panthera pardus), and the Cape lion is treated as a regional variant of the southern African lion. The Pondicherry shark and the Yangtze giant softshell turtle are both known to extant populations, so a “rediscovery” framing is contested. Miller’s grizzled langur was photographed in the wild in 2012, six years before the show. The full evaluation is in Table 1 above.
References
- Bittle, J. 2020. “In a TV Host’s Bombast, Colonial Science Lives On.” Undark Magazine, 4 March 2020. https://undark.org/2020/03/04/colombia-reptile-parachute-science-forrest-galante/
- Bittle, J. 2020. “In a TV Host’s Bombast, Colonial Science Lives On.” The Wire Science (syndicated edition), 5 March 2020. https://science.thewire.in/environment/colombia-colonial-science-forrest-galante/
- Wikipedia. “Forrest Galante.” Accessed 18 August 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Galante
- Wikipedia. “Extinct or Alive.” Accessed 18 August 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_or_Alive
- Wikipedia. “Fernandina Island Galápagos tortoise.” Accessed 18 August 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernandina_Island_Gal%C3%A1pagos_tortoise
- Wikipedia. “Zanzibar red colobus.” Accessed 18 August 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanzibar_red_colobus
- Balaguera-Reina, S. A. 2019. “Rediscovering the Apaporis Caiman (Caiman crocodilus apaporiensis): Notes from a Long-Anticipated Expedition.” Journal of Herpetology 53(4): 310–315. DOI: 10.1670/19-028. https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-herpetology/volume-53/issue-4/19-028/
- Davenport, T. R. B., Fakih, S. A., Kimiti, S. P., Kleine, L. U., Foley, L. S., & De Luca, D. W. 2019. “Zanzibar’s endemic red colobus Piliocolobus kirkii: first systematic and total assessment of population, demography and distribution.” Oryx 53(1): 36–44. DOI: 10.1017/S003060531700148X. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/oryx/article/zanzibars-endemic-red-colobus-piliocolobus-kirkii/
- Jensen, E. L., Gaughran, S. J., Fusco, N. A., et al. 2022. “The Galapagos giant tortoise Chelonoidis phantasticus is not extinct.” Communications Biology 5: 546. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-022-03483-w. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03483-w
- Welch, C. 2019. “How an ‘extinct’ tortoise was rediscovered after a century.” National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/extinct-fernandina-giant-tortoise-found
- Hance, J. 2017. “Zanzibar’s red colobus monkeys much more numerous than thought.” Mongabay, 14 December 2017. https://news.mongabay.com/2017/12/zanzibars-red-colobus-monkeys-much-more-numerous-than-thought/
- Wildlife Conservation Society Tanzania. Publications page. Accessed 18 August 2026. https://tanzania.wcs.org/Publications.aspx
- University of Florida Croc Docs. Sergio A. Balaguera-Reina profile. Accessed 18 August 2026. https://crocdoc.ifas.ufl.edu/staff/sergio/
- Wikimedia Commons. Category: Piliocolobus kirkii. Accessed 18 August 2026. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Piliocolobus_kirkii
- The Joe Rogan Experience #1927, guest: Forrest Galante (2020). Transcript via Happy Scribe. https://podcasts.happyscribe.com/the-joe-rogan-experience/2531-forrest-galante
- The Joe Rogan Experience #2531, guest: Forrest Galante (2025). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvnLN8WETlM
- Wikimedia Commons. File: Zanzibar Red Colobus 1.jpg. Photograph by Woodlouse, 29 July 2008, Jozani Chwaka Bay National Park, Zanzibar. CC BY-SA 2.0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zanzibar_Red_Colobus_1.jpg
- McCallum, H., et al. 2009. “Transmission dynamics of Tasmanian devil facial tumor disease may lead to disease-induced extinction.” Ecology 90(12): 3379–3392. On DFTD as a transmissible cancer (not a herpesvirus). https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/08-1763.1
Article first published 18 August 2026. Research dossier, source ledger, fact review, slop-pattern review, and quality report on file in the per-article folder at 2026-08-18/forrest-galante-parachute-science/. PhyloVerse editorial contact: phyloverse.online.
Loading comments…