I would not argue that they were previously unknown varieties of frogs, fish, bats, and rats. And as far as I know it would be technically proper to call them different species, although this layman usually thinks at least of frogs, bats, and rats as a single species. I just noted that the species were indeed identified, some as a type of frog, some as a type of fish, one as a type of bat, and one as a type of rat.
A really unidentified species would be more interesting. Of which somone might say: "Wow, what is that thing? We are going to have to think of a new name. Its certainly not a frog or a fish or a rat or a bat."
Now, about that carbon cycle.