The Little Rock Zoo

.The Little Rock Zoo needs to step up and care for the animals better! Please read the several artciles here with deaths, sickness and a bald chimp!
Showing posts with label Bonobo behaviour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bonobo behaviour. Show all posts

Friday, April 8, 2011

Brains of peaceful Bonobo apes differ from those of aggressive chimps - Brian Hare












Photo courtesy of Vanessa Woods/ - Bonobos, an endangered species of primate in Central Africa, are much mellower than chimpanzees.
The striking absence of aggression among one species of ape — bonobos, sometimes called pygmy chimpanzees — may be hard-wired into their brains, a new study suggests.

Though closely related to chimps, the endangered bonobos of central Africa are much mellower.

“They are the only ape in our family that does not kill,” said Brian Hare, an assistant professor who studies chimpanzees and bonobos at Duke University.

In contrast, male chimpanzees have been documented dispatching infants sired by other males. They also stalk and kill outsider chimps, often by stomping the interloper to death.
The much more laid-back bonobos react to stress by sharing, playing and engaging in lots of sex.
“It’s not like they never have antagonistic interactions,” Hare said of the bonobos. “But it’s a joke compared to what you see in chimpanzees.”
Scientists studying apes as a window into human behavior are eager to tease apart these differences, asking how they arose in the 1 million to 2 million years of evolution that separate chimps and bonobos.

The new study, which gathered detailed brain images of both species, hints at an intriguing answer: The brains of bonobos may be wired to chill.
In the study, James Rilling of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, part of Emory University in Atlanta, scanned the brains of 13 living and dead bonobos and chimps. One imaging method, used with the living animals, built pictures of gray matter, the large-scale structures of the brain. The second technique, used on the deceased animals, filled in lines of white matter, the neuronal wires connecting various brain regions.

By combining the images, “you can get at circuits in the brain, how the brain is organized,” Rilling said.

Compared with those of chimps, bonobo brains displayed bigger, more developed regions thought to be vital for feeling empathy, perceiving distress in others and feeling anxiety, Rilling said.

One of these structures, the right anterior insula, is crucial for generating empathy, as people with damage to this region notably lack the ability to perceive how others are feeling, Rilling said.

Even more notably, Rilling said, bonobo brains carry a thick connection between a flash point of emotion and a higher brain region that helps control impulses. This neuronal wire runs from the amygdala, a deep-seated and evolutionarily old emotional center that can spark aggression, to a region called the ventral anterior cingulate cortex, which is thought be important for suppressing impulsive behavior.

Chimp brains displayed a much thinner connection along this aggression-suppression pathway, meaning the channel carries less information.

The thicker connection in bonobos may explain why the animals are “better at regulating [aggressive] impulses and better at avoiding anti-social behavior,” said Rilling, who published the study in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.

But “this pathway does not function very well in people who are psychopaths, people with conduct disorder, people who don’t take others’ feelings into consideration,” Rilling said.

Besides being less aggressive than apes, bonobos are notably more anxious. Experts say the urge to soothe this anxiety may be impulse that drives the animals to engage in frequent sex and rough-house play.
The scans highlight a possible source of this anxiety-and-release lifestyle: An enlarged stress-response center called the hypothalamus. This brain region triggers the release of stress hormones and is “strongly implicated” in response to fear and anxiety, Rilling noted.

One question prompted by the study: why the social brains of these two species diverged so dramatically. Emerging theories suggest that bonobos evolved on one side of the Congo River with great food abundance, whereas chimps evolved on the other side of the river where intense competition for food may have driven the apes to fight and claw their way into every fruit tree.

Hare, who was not involved in the study, said the new findings support a theory he is developing that bonobos are “self-domesticated.” Whereas aggressive chimps are akin to wild wolves, he said, bonobos act more like domesticated dogs.

“There’s been a really strong natural selection against aggression in bonobos,” Hare said. “It’s been a natural process.” That process, in turn, may have been driven by the differing environments in which the two species evolved.

Although the study offers tantalizing glimpses into the social evolution of the two species, Rilling acknowledged that the small number of brains he scanned means the results are preliminary. “We really need a larger sample,” he said. “But bonobo brains are hard to come by.”

Experts say fewer than 10,000 bonobos survive in the wild; an additional 84 live in U.S. zoos.
Story Credit here

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Male aggression in the Bonobo Society is just simply not tolerated says Brian Hare

Humans share 98.7 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, but we share one important similarity with one species of chimp, the common chimpanzee, that we don't share with the other, the bonobo. That similarity is violence. While humans and the common chimpanzee wage war and kill each other, bonobos do not. "There has never been a recorded case in captivity or in the wild of a bonobo killing another bonobo," notes anthropologist Brian Hare.

Hare is an assistant professor in evolutionary anthropology at Duke University. With support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), he and his wife and colleague, Vanessa Woods, studied bonobo behavior at Lola ya Bonobo in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an orphanage for young bonobos whose parents were killed for the bush meat trade. The war-torn Congo is the only place in the world where these endangered apes can be found.

"We go to this sanctuary and we play these fun problem-solving games with them to just try and get inside their heads and figure out exactly how they think," says Woods. "They're wonderful animals to be related to. It's a shame so few people have heard of them."

Woods is author of the book "Bonobo Handshake," a memoir about her experiences with these peaceful, playful primates, and some of the differences she noted between bonobos and common chimpanzees.

"Chimpanzees can be very empathetic, loving but they also have this darker side. They have war, they kill each other, they beat their females. Bonobos don't really have any of that," explains Woods. "They're different because they've managed to live in a society virtually without violence. How do they do that? Humans, for all of our intelligence and all our technology, we haven't managed to live without war, and so I think that's something very important that bonobos can teach us."

One way bonobos deal with conflict and tension is to have sex. Yes, they're the ultimate hippies--they make love, not war. "Whenever things get tense in the bonobo world, they'll usually have some kind of sociosexual activity and this seems to really help everybody get along. But another one of the ways that they sort of have this peaceful society is they're naturally more tolerant. They share more, and if one of them gets upset, it's not just sex but they can also hug and comfort one another."

In one study, Woods and Hare were surprised when a hungry bonobo opened a gate to share prized treats with another bonobo. "The idea that you would give something to someone else at a cost to yourself, we thought this was something only humans would do."

Bonobos' generous nature likely evolved because they live in an area of the Congo where food is plentiful. They never had to compete with gorillas or kill for a meal like common chimps do.

The females stick together, creating a matriarchal society, and when necessary will gang up on threatening males. "Females will work together to protect themselves from male aggression. So male aggression is just simply not tolerated," says Hare.

With chimps, the most aggressive males tend to team up to dominate females and weaker males. In bonobo society, Hare says it's the mother and son relationship that commands the most respect.

"Basically, bonobos are the ultimate 'mama's boys.' Essentially, it's more like a debutante society where mothers have to introduce their sons into polite society and it's through your mother, as a bonobo, that you will gain access to other females," explains Hare.

How did two such similar species, the bonobo and the common chimpanzee, evolve so differently? Hare says understanding that may shed light on human behavior, considering that we are a lot like both of them.
"Humans are probably the most generous species on the planet," notes Hare, which is very bonobo-like. But like chimps, Hare says, we have that dark side. "Bonobos don't have a darker side. So, although they can't fly to the moon, they don't kill each other. I think they challenge your normal notion of what intelligence is. I think we have a lot to learn from them."

(Video: Science Nation, Miles O'Brien/Science Nation Correspondent, Ann Kellan/Science Nation Producer)
Story and video credit here

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Peaceful bonobos may have something to teach humans

Humans share 98.7 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, but we share one important similarity with one species of chimp, the common chimpanzee, that we don't share with the other, the bonobo. That similarity is violence. While humans and the common chimpanzee wage war and kill each other, bonobos do not. "There has never been a recorded case in captivity or in the wild of a bonobo killing another bonobo," notes anthropologist Brian Hare.

Hare is an assistant professor in evolutionary anthropology at Duke University. With support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), he and his wife and colleague, Vanessa Woods, studied bonobo behavior at Lola ya Bonobo in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an orphanage for young bonobos whose parents were killed for the bush meat trade. The war-torn Congo is the only place in the world where these endangered apes can be found.

"We go to this sanctuary and we play these fun problem-solving games with them to just try and get inside their heads and figure out exactly how they think," says Woods. "They're wonderful animals to be related to. It's a shame so few people have heard of them."

Woods is author of the book "Bonobo Handshake," a memoir about her experiences with these peaceful, playful primates, and some of the differences she noted between bonobos and common chimpanzees.

"Chimpanzees can be very empathetic, loving but they also have this darker side. They have war, they kill each other, they beat their females. Bonobos don't really have any of that," explains Woods. "They're different because they've managed to live in a society virtually without violence. How do they do that? Humans, for all of our intelligence and all our technology, we haven't managed to live without war, and so I think that's something very important that bonobos can teach us."

One way bonobos deal with conflict and tension is to have sex. Yes, they're the ultimate hippies--they make love, not war. "Whenever things get tense in the bonobo world, they'll usually have some kind of sociosexual activity and this seems to really help everybody get along. But another one of the ways that they sort of have this peaceful society is they're naturally more tolerant. They share more, and if one of them gets upset, it's not just sex but they can also hug and comfort one another."

In one study, Woods and Hare were surprised when a hungry bonobo opened a gate to share prized treats with another bonobo. "The idea that you would give something to someone else at a cost to yourself, we thought this was something only humans would do."

Bonobos' generous nature likely evolved because they live in an area of the Congo where food is plentiful. They never had to compete with gorillas or kill for a meal like common chimps do.

The females stick together, creating a matriarchal society, and when necessary will gang up on threatening males. "Females will work together to protect themselves from male aggression. So male aggression is just simply not tolerated," says Hare.

With chimps, the most aggressive males tend to team up to dominate females and weaker males. In bonobo society, Hare says it's the mother and son relationship that commands the most respect.

"Basically, bonobos are the ultimate 'mama's boys.' Essentially, it's more like a debutante society where mothers have to introduce their sons into polite society and it's through your mother, as a bonobo, that you will gain access to other females," explains Hare.

How did two such similar species, the bonobo and the common chimpanzee, evolve so differently? Hare says understanding that may shed light on human behavior, considering that we are a lot like both of them.

"Humans are probably the most generous species on the planet," notes Hare, which is very bonobo-like. But like chimps, Hare says, we have that dark side. "Bonobos don't have a darker side. So, although they can't fly to the moon, they don't kill each other. I think they challenge your normal notion of what intelligence is. I think we have a lot to learn from them."
Story credit and wonderful videos here

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Bonobos don't kill each other like chimpanzees do

Brian Hare is one of the few people in the Ape Community that I respect and adore. Vanessa Woods has a great book that anyone that is interested in learning about Bonobos should read.
Story;
Humans share 98.7 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, but we share one important similarity with one species of chimp, the common chimpanzee, that we don't share with the other, the bonobo. That similarity is violence. While humans and the common chimpanzee wage war and kill each other, bonobos do not. "There has never been a recorded case in captivity or in the wild of a bonobo killing another bonobo," notes anthropologist Brian Hare.

Hare is an assistant professor in evolutionary anthropology at Duke University. With support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), he and his wife and colleague, Vanessa Woods, studied bonobo behavior at Lola ya Bonobo in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an orphanage for young bonobos whose parents were killed for the bush meat trade. The war-torn Congo is the only place in the world where these endangered apes can be found.
"We go to this sanctuary and we play these fun problem-solving games with them to just try and get inside their heads and figure out exactly how they think," says Woods. "They're wonderful animals to be related to. It's a shame so few people have heard of them."

Woods is author of the book "Bonobo Handshake," a memoir about her experiences with these peaceful, playful primates, and some of the differences she noted between bonobos and common chimpanzees.

"Chimpanzees can be very empathetic, loving but they also have this darker side. They have war, they kill each other, they beat their females. Bonobos don't really have any of that," explains Woods. "They're different because they've managed to live in a society virtually without violence. How do they do that? Humans, for all of our intelligence and all our technology, we haven't managed to live without war, and so I think that's something very important that bonobos can teach us."

One way bonobos deal with conflict and tension is to have sex. Yes, they're the ultimate hippies--they make love, not war. "Whenever things get tense in the bonobo world, they'll usually have some kind of sociosexual activity and this seems to really help everybody get along. But another one of the ways that they sort of have this peaceful society is they're naturally more tolerant. They share more, and if one of them gets upset, it's not just sex but they can also hug and comfort one another."

In one study, Woods and Hare were surprised when a hungry bonobo opened a gate to share prized treats with another bonobo. "The idea that you would give something to someone else at a cost to yourself, we thought this was something only humans would do."

Bonobos' generous nature likely evolved because they live in an area of the Congo where food is plentiful. They never had to compete with gorillas or kill for a meal like common chimps do.
The females stick together, creating a matriarchal society, and when necessary will gang up on threatening males. "Females will work together to protect themselves from male aggression. So male aggression is just simply not tolerated," says Hare.

With chimps, the most aggressive males tend to team up to dominate females and weaker males. In bonobo society, Hare says it's the mother and son relationship that commands the most respect.

"Basically, bonobos are the ultimate 'mama's boys.' Essentially, it's more like a debutante society where mothers have to introduce their sons into polite society and it's through your mother, as a bonobo, that you will gain access to other females," explains Hare.

How did two such similar species, the bonobo and the common chimpanzee, evolve so differently? Hare says understanding that may shed light on human behavior, considering that we are a lot like both of them.

"Humans are probably the most generous species on the planet," notes Hare, which is very bonobo-like. But like chimps, Hare says, we have that dark side. "Bonobos don't have a darker side. So, although they can't fly to the moon, they don't kill each other. I think they challenge your normal notion of what intelligence is. I think we have a lot to learn from them."

Miles O'Brien, Science Nation Correspondent











Image Caption: Brian Hare, assistant professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University, spends several months of the year in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where he studies bonobos. He focuses on their behavior, specifically on how they solve problems and interact with other bonobos. Bonobos are genetically close to humans, yet most people know very little about them. Credit: Vanessa Woods, Duke University
Story Credit Here

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Study shows female Bonobo Apes use cries to signal the social status of their partner

A study has shown that female bonobo chimpanzees use sex cries to signal the social status of their partner and, as a consequence, themselves.

Bonobos are notoriously promiscuous, with instances of group sex and females often engaging in same sex relations. Research published in the February edition of Biology Letters revealed that females cry out when copulating with either sex, and when two females are together, the lower ranking one cries out to signal her achievement.

"Female bonobos achieve power by forming coalitions with other females as well as males, so getting powerful female friends, and advertising it, matters," Zanna Clay, a primatologist at the University of St. Andrews University told LiveScience. "Like humans, sex among bonobos is not only used for reproduction, it is also important in other ways, such as friendship and bonding, and keeping close to powerful others."

Typically, female cries were seen to represent the ability to attract a superior partner and an aptitiude for sex, thus making themselves more attractive to other potential mates and increasing chances of reproducing. This recent study proves that the cries are used for other purposes.

When lower-ranking females copulate with either sex, it was found the chances of the inferior bonobo crying out increased as its partner's social ranking increased, irrespective of sex. This demonstrates that the main point of the cry is to announce new alliances -- but only the ones worth shouting about.

The endangered bonobo species are the closest living relatives to humans, along with chimpanzees, yet little is known about them. They can only be found in the wild in the Democratic Republic of Congo, making it difficult to study them for any extended period.

"The political instability and poor logistics of the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as the forest's remoteness, mean that research on bonobos still remains a great challenge," explains Clay.

The team spent a year monitoring the animals, but Clay admits more research would be needed to understand how bonobos interpret the calls.
Story Credit Here and Photo

Thursday, February 17, 2011

What can a Bonobo Ape teach us

Editor's Note: The annual TED Conference (Feb. 26-Mar. 4) is an invitation-only affair known as the place where high-tech tycoons, Nobel laureates, and other very smart people gather to share ideas that will inspire. The TED Fellows program was established to give people who wouldn't ordinarily have the opportunity—or the means—a chance to present their remarkable work to an audience that just might include Bill Gates and Al Gore. In a series leading up to TED, Businessweek.com will feature interviews conducted via e-mail with a handful of this year's fellows.
Isabel Behncke Izquierdo

Primatologist

Oxford University

Isabel Behncke Izquierdo is a Chilean primatologist who studies the bonobos in a remote jungle region in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Very little is known about the bonobo, which along with the chimpanzee is the closest living evolutionary relative to humans. Behncke Izquierdo, 34, who studied animal behavior and evolutionary anthropology at Cambridge and Oxford, hopes that a better understanding of the bonobo will provide new insights into human evolution and a better understanding of how we come to experience such things as joy, creativity, and our capacity for wonder.

What can humans learn from the bonobo?

Much! Three main aspects: playfulness, social tolerance, and female bonding.

We have an extraordinary opportunity to learn from bonobos, more about our own evolutionary past on one hand, and on the other the incredible diversity of social organization in animals. Bonobos are our evolutionary cousins, that is, we share a common ancestor with them who lived approximately 6 million years ago. Since all the modern human ancestors are extinct, bonobos and chimpanzees are our living closest relatives, the best window we have into our past.

Most of the narratives around human evolution have been informed by what we know from chimpanzees, not from bonobos—since we know relatively little about them and most studies come from captivity, not from the wild. Chimpanzees are well-known for being toolmakers, hunters, patriarchal, aggressive, political, and strongly hierarchical. Bonobos on the other hand are female-dominated, much more socially tolerant, with lessened and more flexible hierarchies, playful throughout their lives, peaceful both within and between groups.

It then follows that if we were to learn only from chimpanzees, our ideas of our past would be heavily skewed; we would be missing essential and wonderful aspects of what makes us human.

Are bonobos the swingers of the chimpanzee world? Are they as sexually liberated as the literature suggests?

Short answer is yes—bonobos are highly sexual creatures. Their use of sex is multidimensional: It is seen in contexts as varied as highly tense situations around food competition, bonding, play, and so on. A primatologist once said that "chimpanzees resolve sexual issues with power; bonobos resolve power issues with sex."

In addition to variety in context, partner combination is also incredibly varied: There is adult male/adult female sex, of course, but in addition there is female-female, male-male, and also adult-infant sex. Much of adult-adult sex happens in stress-related situations (such as just before and during feeding), and a lot of infant sex seems to have elements of playful exploration (such as a game of chase in which a young female held a male literally by the balls as he laughed). But these are generalizations—bonobos' sexual behavior always surprises.

If you could take a few bonobo behaviors and somehow make them part of human nature, what would they be?

What a fun thought experiment. I would have to choose grooming, inter-group tolerance, and sex. Aspects of these of course, since we already do them, yet not in the same way as bonobos do.

First, grooming because those long sessions of tactile social contact must feel wonderful—the only simile for us these days is paying for massage! Second, female bonding, and social tolerance in general: Formation of strong alliances between females seems to make for a more peaceful, tolerant, and less strongly hierarchical society. Last but not the very least, to bring in at least part of the sexual exuberance that bonobos have would certainly keep humans both very fit and happy! Just kidding, I don't want to think about the complications that would cause!

How do you observe bonobos? Do you live with them? Do they come to know you or recognize you?

I study a group of wild bonobos that have been habituated to human observation by Japanese scientists and local Congolese trackers since the mid-'70s. The research station is a house made of mud and bricks in the village of Wamba (at the very heart of the Congo basin), which lies at the center of the study group's range. I get up at 3:30 a.m. and walk through the jungle with the trackers to get to the bonobos' sleeping site before they get up and start traveling (usually around 6 a.m.). We then follow them thorough their daily activities. They travel and split in smaller parties, looking for food. Usually at mid-morning, there will be a long "social session," where the adults groom and the juveniles play. When they make their nests (beds) again in the evening, I record the place in my GPS and we then walk back to camp, shower, eat, and prepare for the next day of bonobo observations.

I think they do know me and recognize my voice and face, since for example when they hear the voices of villagers foraging in the forest they get startled in a way that does not happen with my voice (and those of the people they know). Bonobos are highly intelligent and curious animals, and there are a few bold individuals that have come to observe me at closer quarters sometimes.

Did your parents encourage you to have lots of pets? Is that what sparked your interest in becoming a primatologist?

Having lots of pets is an understatement. My dad had anything from eagles-in-rehabilitation roaming inside the house to a South American rhea running outside. So no lack of animal diversity there! Also, I was very lucky that we spent the long summer holidays at a sheep ranch where horses, dogs, and the local wildlife made for all the fun a child could possibly want. But exposure to animals is not all that made me a primatologist, since the multitude of books my mom encouraged me to read left an intellectual curiosity which has been a key driver all the way.

Did you really have a pet parrot as a child that you used to sneak on airplanes?

I was 8 years old when I was given this untamed, angry parrot by my father. I had the whole summer and total determination, so I succeeded in befriending him so that nothing would separate us for the following 15 years. During my late teens and early 20s I was frequently flying within Chile, and so to get onto planes I would regularly hide my parrot inside my sweater. To be honest, I think stewardesses knew about it but turned a blind eye. The proof came once when there was a disabled girl who had a panic attack, and since nothing seemed to calm her, they came to get me to see whether showing her the parrot would work. My little parrot did a great laughter impression and so it worked. We were then invited to visit the captain's cockpit, but the adventure finished not quite on a high since the parrot decided to poo all over the flying instruments. Unforgettable.
Story Credit Here

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Chimpanzee and Bonobo education

"Panina" redirects here. For the Russian surname Panina, see Panin (disambiguation).
Chimpanzee, sometimes colloquially chimp, is the common name for the two extant species of ape in the genus Pan. The Congo River forms the boundary between the native habitat of the two species:[2]
Common Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes (West and Central Africa)
Bonobo, Pan paniscus (forests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo)

Chimpanzees are members of the Hominidae family, along with gorillas, humans, and orangutans. Chimpanzees split from human evolution about 6 million years ago and the two chimpanzee species are the closest living relatives to humans, all being members of the Hominini tribe (along with extinct species of Hominina subtribe). Chimpanzees are the only known members of the Panina subtribe. The two Pan species split only about one million years ago.










Common Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Panina
Genus: Pan
Oken, 1816
Type species
Pan troglodytes (Common Chimpanzee)
Pan paniscus (Bonobo)

Species
Pan troglodytes
Pan paniscus







Distribution of Pan troglodytes (Common Chimpanzee) and Pan paniscus (Bonobo, in red).






The taxonomic relationships of Hominoidea
Evolutionary relationship:
History of hominoid taxonomy

The taxonomic relationships of HominoideaThe genus Pan is considered to be part of the subfamily Homininae to which humans also belong. These two species are the closest living evolutionary relatives to humans, sharing a common ancestor with humans six million years ago.[3] Research by Mary-Claire King in 1973 found 99% identical DNA between human beings and chimpanzees,[4] although research since has modified that finding to about 94%[5] commonality, with some of the difference occurring in non-coding DNA. It has been proposed that troglodytes and paniscus belong with sapiens in the genus Homo, rather than in Pan. One of the arguments for this is that other species have been reclassified to belong to the same genus on the basis of less genetic similarity than that between humans and chimpanzees.

Fossils
A lot of human fossils have been found, but chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate that both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[6]

Anatomy and physiology
The male common chimp is up to 1.7 metres (5.6 ft) high when standing, and weighs as much as 70 kilograms (150 lb); the female is somewhat smaller. The common chimp’s long arms, when extended, have a span one and a half times as long as the body’s height and a chimpanzee's arms are longer than its legs.[7] The bonobo is a little shorter and thinner than the common chimpanzee but has longer limbs. Both species use their long, powerful arms for climbing in trees. On the ground, chimpanzees usually walk on all fours using their knuckles for support with their hands clenched, a form of locomotion called knuckle-walking. Chimpanzee feet are better suited for walking than are those of the orangutan because the chimp’s soles are broader and the toes shorter. Both the common chimpanzee and bonobo can walk upright on two legs when carrying objects with their hands and arms. The Bonobo has proportionately longer upper limbs and tends to walk upright more often than the Common Chimpanzee. The coat is dark; the face, fingers, palms of the hands, and soles of the feet are hairless; and the chimp has no tail. The exposed skin of the face, hands and feet varies from pink to very dark in both species, but is generally lighter in younger individuals, darkening as maturity is reached. A University of Chicago Medical Centre study has found significant genetic differences between chimpanzee populations.[8] A bony shelf over the eyes gives the forehead a receding appearance, and the nose is flat. Although the jaws protrude, the lips are thrust out only when a chimp pouts. The brain of a chimpanzee is about half the size of the human brain.[9]

Chimpanzee testicles are unusually large for their body size, with a combined weight of about 4 ounces (110 g) compared to a gorilla's 1 ounce (28 g) or a human's 1.5 ounces (43 g). This is generally attributed to sperm competition due to the polyandrous nature of chimpanzee mating behavior.[10] Chimpanzees reach puberty at an age of between 8 and 10 years and rarely live past the age of 40 in the wild, but have been known to reach the age of more than 60 in captivity.









Bonobo


Behaviors

BonoboAnatomical differences between the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo are slight, but in sexual and social behaviour there are marked differences. The Common Chimpanzee has an omnivorous diet, a troop hunting culture based on beta males led by an alpha male, and highly complex social relationships. The Bonobo, on the other hand, has a mostly frugivorous diet and an egalitarian, nonviolent, matriarchal, sexually receptive behaviour.[11] Bonobos are well known to have frequent sex, with bisexuality the norm for both males and females, and also to use sex to help prevent and resolve conflicts. Different groups of chimpanzees also have different cultural behaviour with preferences for types of tools.[12] The Common Chimpanzee tends to display higher levels of aggression than the Bonobo.[13]

Social structure
Chimpanzees live in large multi-male and multi-female social groups called communities. Within a community there is a definite social hierarchy which is dictated by the position of an individual and the influence the individual has on others. Chimpanzees live in a leaner hierarchy in which more than one individual may be dominant enough to dominate other members of lower rank. Typically there is a dominant male referred to as the Alpha male. The Alpha male is the highest-ranking male who controls the group and maintains order during any disputes. In chimpanzee society the 'dominant male' does not always have to be the largest or strongest male but rather the most manipulative and political male who can influence the goings on within a group. Male chimpanzees typically attain dominance through cultivating allies who will provide support for that individual in case of future ambitions for power. Its within a male chimpanzee's character to display in an attempt to show strength and recognition from others which may be fundamental to holding on to status. The alpha male will regularly display by making their normally slim coats puffed up to increase view size and charge to look as threatening and as powerful as possible to intimidate other members in an attempt to hold on to power and maintain authority. Lower-ranking chimpanzees will show respect by making submissive gestures in body language or reaching out their hand while grunting. Female chimpanzees will show deference to the alpha male by presenting their hind-quarters.

Female chimpanzees also have a hierarchy which is influenced by the position of a female individual within a group. In some chimpanzee communities, the young females may inherit high status from a high-ranking mother. The females will also form allies to dominate lower-ranking females. In contrast to males who have a main purpose of acquiring dominant status for access to mating privileges and sometimes violent domination of subordinates, females acquire dominant status for access to resources such as food. High-ranking females will often get first access to resources. In general, both genders acquire dominant status to improve social standing within a group.

Its often the females who choose the alpha male. For a male chimpanzee to win the alpha status he must gain acceptance from the females in the community as they are the ones who actually dictate the way the lifestyles are set up (the females are the ones who ensure the survival of the next generation; they have to make sure that their group is going to places that supply them with enough food). There are cases where a group of dominant females will oust an alpha male who is not to their preference and rather back up the other male who they see potential of leading the group as a successful alpha male.

Intelligence
Diagram of brain. Topography of the main groups of foci in the motor field of ChimpanzeeChimpanzees make tools and use them to acquire foods and for social displays; they have sophisticated hunting strategies requiring cooperation, influence and rank; they are status conscious, manipulative and capable of deception; they can learn to use symbols and understand aspects of human language including some relational syntax, concepts of number and numerical sequence;[14] and they are capable of spontaneous planning for a future state or event.[15]












Diagram of brain. Topography of the main groups of foci in the motor field of Chimpanzee

Tool use
One of the most significant discoveries was in October 1960 when Jane Goodall observed the use of tools among chimpanzees. Recent research indicates that chimpanzee stone tool use dates to at least 4,300 years ago.[16] Chimpanzee tool usage includes digging into termite mounds with a large stick tool, and then using a small stick that has been altered to "fish" the termites out.[17] A recent study revealed the use of such advanced tools as spears, with which Common Chimpanzees in Senegal sharpen with their teeth and use to spear Senegal Bushbabies out of small holes in trees.[18][19] Before the discovery of tool use in chimps, it was believed that humans were the only species to make and use tools, but several other tool-using species are now known.[20][21]

Empathy
Chimpanzee mother and babyRecent studies have shown that chimpanzees engage in apparently altruistic behaviour within groups,[22][23] but are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members.[24]


















Chimpanzee mother and baby

Evidence for "chimpanzee spirituality" includes display of mourning, "incipient romantic love", "rain dance", appreciation of natural beauty such as a sunset over a lake, curiosity and respect towards wildlife (such as the python, which is neither a threat nor a food source to chimpanzees), empathy toward other species (such as feeding turtles) and even "animism" or "pretend play" in chimps cradling and grooming rocks or sticks.[25]

Communication
Chimps communicate in a manner similar to human non-verbal communication, using vocalizations, hand gestures, and facial expressions. Research into the chimpanzee brain has revealed that chimp communication activates an area of the chimp brain that is in the same position as Broca's area, the language center in the human brain.[26]
Studies of language










Side profile of a Chimpanzee

Scientists have long been fascinated with the studies of language, believing it to be a unique human cognitive ability. To test this hypothesis, scientists have attempted to teach human language to several species of great apes. One early attempt by Allen and Beatrice Gardner in the 1960s involved spending 51 months teaching American Sign Language to a chimpanzee named Washoe. The Gardners reported that Washoe learned 151 signs, and that she had spontaneously taught them to other chimpanzees.[27] Over a longer period of time, Washoe learned over 800 signs.[28]

There is ongoing debate among some scientists, notably Noam Chomsky and David Premack, about non-human great apes' ability to learn language. Since the early reports on Washoe, numerous other studies have been conducted with varying levels of success,[29] including one involving a chimpanzee named, in parody, Nim Chimpsky, trained by Herbert Terrace of Columbia University. Although his initial reports were quite positive, in November 1979, Terrace and his team re-evaluated the videotapes of Nim with his trainers, analyzing them frame by frame for signs as well as for exact context (what was happening both before and after Nim’s signs). In the re-analysis, Terrace concluded that Nim’s utterances could be explained merely as prompting on the part of the experimenters, as well as mistakes in reporting the data. “Much of the apes’ behavior is pure drill,” he said. “Language still stands as an important definition of the human species.” In this reversal, Terrace now argued that Nim’s use of ASL was not like human language acquisition. Nim never initiated conversations himself, rarely introduced new words, and simply imitated what the humans did. Nim’s sentences also did not grow in length, unlike human children whose vocabulary and sentence length show a strong positive correlation.[30]

Memory
A 30-year study at Kyoto University’s Primate Research Institute has shown that chimps are able to learn to recognize the numbers 1-9 and their values. The chimps further show an aptitude for photographic memory, demonstrated in experiments in which the jumbled digits 1-9 are flashed onto a computer screen for less than a quarter of a second, after which the chimp, Ayumu, is able to correctly and quickly point to the positions where they appeared in ascending order. The same experiment was failed by world memory champion Ben Pridmore on most attempts.[31]

Laughter in apes
Young chimpanzees playingLaughter might not be confined or unique to humans. The differences between chimpanzee and human laughter may be the result of adaptations that have evolved to enable human speech. Self-awareness of one's situation as seen in the mirror test, or the ability to identify with another's predicament (see mirror neurons), are prerequisites for laughter, so animals may be laughing in the same way that humans do.













Young chimpanzees playing

Chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans show laughterlike vocalizations in response to physical contact, such as wrestling, play chasing, or tickling. This is documented in wild and captive chimpanzees. Common Chimpanzee laughter is not readily recognizable to humans as such, because it is generated by alternating inhalations and exhalations that sound more like breathing and panting. There are instances in which non-human primates have been reported to have expressed joy. One study analyzed and recorded sounds made by human babies and Bonobos when tickled. It found that although the Bonobo's laugh was a higher frequency, the laugh followed a pattern similar to that of human babies and included similar facial expressions. Humans and chimpanzees share similar ticklish areas of the body, such as the armpits and belly. The enjoyment of tickling in chimpanzees does not diminish with age.[32]
Aggression









Male chimpanzees in Mahale National Park, Tanzania
Common Chimpanzees, particularly males, can be very aggressive. They are highly territorial and are known to kill other chimps.[33] Chimpanzees also engage in targeted hunting of lower order primates such as the red colobus[34] and bush babies,[35][36] and use the meat from these kills as a "social tool" within their community.[37] In February 2009, after an incident in which a pet chimp named Travis attacked and mutilated a woman in Stamford, Connecticut, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a primate pet ban in the United States.[38]

Interactions with humans
History
Gregoire: 62-year-old chimpanzeeAfricans have had contact with chimpanzees for millennia. Chimpanzees have been kept as pets for centuries in a few African villages, especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In Virunga National Park in the east of the country the park authorities regularly confiscate chimpanzees from people who are keeping them as pets.[39] The first recorded contact of Europeans with chimps took place in present-day Angola during the 17th century. The diary of Portuguese explorer Duarte Pacheco Pereira (1506), preserved in the Portuguese National Archive (Torre do Tombo), is probably the first European document to acknowledge that chimpanzees built their own rudimentary tools.












Male chimpanzees in Mahale National Park, Tanzania
The first use of the name "chimpanzee", however, did not occur until 1738. The name is derived from a Tshiluba language term "kivili-chimpenze", which is the local name for the animal and translates loosely as "mockman" or possibly just "ape". The colloquialism "chimp" was most likely coined some time in the late 1870s.[40] Biologists applied Pan as the genus name of the animal. Chimps as well as other apes had also been purported to have been known to Western writers in ancient times, but mainly as myths and legends on the edge of European and Arab societal consciousness, mainly through fragmented and sketchy accounts of European adventurers. Apes are mentioned variously by Aristotle, as well as the English Bible, where they are described as having been collected by Solomon. (1 Kings 10:22. However the Hebrew word, qőf, may mean a monkey.) Apes are mentioned in the Qur'an (7:166), where God tells Israelites who transgressed Shabbat "Be ye apes".
The first of these early transcontinental chimpanzees came from Angola and were presented as a gift to Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange in 1640, and were followed by a few of its brethren over the next several years. Scientists described these first chimpanzees as "pygmies", and noted the animals' distinct similarities to humans. The next two decades would see a number of the creatures imported into Europe, mainly acquired by various zoological gardens as entertainment for visitors.









Hugo Rheinhold's Affe mit Schädel ("Ape with skull") is an example of how chimps were viewed at the end of the 19th century
Hugo Rheinhold's Affe mit Schädel ("Ape with skull") is an example of how chimps were viewed at the end of the 19th century.Darwin's theory of natural selection (published in 1859) spurred scientific interest in chimpanzees, as in much of life science, leading eventually to numerous studies of the animals in the wild and captivity. The observers of chimpanzees at the time were mainly interested in behaviour as it related to that of humans. This was less strictly and disinterestedly scientific than it might sound, with much attention being focused on whether or not the animals had traits that could be considered 'good'; the intelligence of chimpanzees was often significantly exaggerated, as immortalized in Hugo Rheinhold's Affe mit Schädel (see image, left). By the end of the 19th century chimpanzees remained very much a mystery to humans, with very little factual scientific information available.

Chimpanzee at the Los Angeles Zoo








The 20th century saw a new age of scientific research into chimpanzee behaviour. Before 1960, almost nothing was known about chimpanzee behaviour in their natural habitat. In July of that year, Jane Goodall set out to Tanzania's Gombe forest to live among the chimpanzees, where she primarily studied the members of the Kasakela chimpanzee community. Her discovery that chimpanzees made and used tools was groundbreaking, as humans were previously believed to be the only species to do so. The most progressive early studies on chimpanzees were spearheaded primarily by Wolfgang Köhler and Robert Yerkes, both of whom were renowned psychologists. Both men and their colleagues established laboratory studies of chimpanzees focused specifically on learning about the intellectual abilities of chimpanzees, particularly problem-solving. This typically involved basic, practical tests on laboratory chimpanzees, which required a fairly high intellectual capacity (such as how to solve the problem of acquiring an out-of-reach banana). Notably, Yerkes also made extensive observations of chimpanzees in the wild which added tremendously to the scientific understanding of chimpanzees and their behaviour. Yerkes studied chimpanzees until World War II, while Köhler concluded five years of study and published his famous Mentality of Apes in 1925 (which is coincidentally when Yerkes began his analyses), eventually concluding that "chimpanzees manifest intelligent behaviour of the general kind familiar in human beings ... a type of behaviour which counts as specifically human" (1925).[41]

The August 2008 issue of the American Journal of Primatology reported results of a year-long study of chimpanzees in Tanzania’s Mahale Mountains National Park which produced evidence that chimpanzees are becoming sick from viral infectious diseases they have likely contracted from humans. Molecular, microscopic and epidemiological investigations demonstrated that the chimpanzees living at Mahale Mountains National Park have been suffering from a respiratory disease that is likely caused by a variant of a human paramyxovirus.[42]
Studies










Enos the space chimp before being inserted into the Mercury-Atlas 5 capsule in 1961.As of November 2007, there were 1,300 chimpanzees housed in 10 U.S. laboratories (out of 3,000 great apes living in captivity there), either wild-caught, or acquired from circuses, animal trainers, or zoos.[43] Most of the labs either conduct or make the chimps available for invasive research,[44] defined as "inoculation with an infectious agent, surgery or biopsy conducted for the sake of research and not for the sake of the chimpanzee, and/or drug testing".[45] Two federally-funded laboratories use chimps: Yerkes National Primate Research Laboratory at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and the Southwest National Primate Center in San Antonio, Texas.[46] Five hundred chimps have been retired from laboratory use in the U.S. and live in sanctuaries in the U.S. or Canada.[44]
Chimpanzees used in biomedical research tend to be used repeatedly over decades, rather than used and killed as with most laboratory animals. Some individual chimps currently in U.S. laboratories have been used in experiments for over 40 years.[47] According to Project R&R, a campaign to release chimps held in U.S. labs—run by the New England Anti-Vivisection Society in conjunction with Jane Goodall and other primate researchers—the oldest known chimp in a U.S. lab is Wenka, who was born in a laboratory in Florida on May 21, 1954.[48] She was removed from her mother on the day of birth to be used in a vision experiment that lasted 17 months, then sold as a pet to a family in North Carolina. She was returned to the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in 1957 when she became too big to handle. Since then, she has given birth six times, and has been used in research into alcohol use, oral contraceptives, ageing, and cognitive studies.[49]

With the publication of the chimpanzee genome, there are reportedly plans to increase the use of chimps in labs, with some scientists arguing that the federal moratorium on breeding chimps for research should be lifted.[46][50] A five-year moratorium was imposed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1996, because too many chimps had been bred for HIV research, and it has been extended annually since 2001.[46]

Other researchers argue that chimps are unique animals and either should not be used in research, or should be treated differently. Pascal Gagneux, an evolutionary biologist and primate expert at the University of California, San Diego, argues that, given chimpanzees' sense of self, tool use, and genetic similarity to human beings, studies using chimps should follow the ethical guidelines that are used for human subjects unable to give consent.[46] Also, a recent study suggests that chimpanzees which are retired from labs exhibit a form of posttraumatic stress disorder.[51] Stuart Zola, director of the Yerkes National Primate Research Laboratory, disagrees. He told National Geographic: "I don't think we should make a distinction between our obligation to treat humanely any species, whether it's a rat or a monkey or a chimpanzee. No matter how much we may wish it, chimps are not human."[46]

An increasing number of governments are enacting a Great Ape research ban forbidding the use of chimpanzees and other great apes in research or toxicology testing.[52] As of 2006, Austria, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK had introduced such bans.[53]

In popular culture
Chimpanzees have been commonly stereotyped in popular culture, where they are most often cast in standardized roles[54] as childlike companions, sidekicks or clowns.[55] They are especially suited for the latter role on account of their prominent facial features, long limbs and fast movements, which humans often find amusing.[55] Accordingly, entertainment acts featuring chimpanzees dressed up as humans have been traditional staples of circuses and stage shows.[55]

In the age of television, a new genre of chimp act emerged in the United States: series whose cast consisted entirely of chimpanzees dressed as humans and "speaking" lines dubbed by human actors.[54] These shows, examples of which include Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp in the 1970s or The Chimp Channel in the 1990s, relied on the novelty of their ape cast to make their timeworn, low comedy gags funny.[54] Their chimpanzee "actors" were as interchangeable as the apes in a circus act, being amusing as chimpanzees and not as individuals.[54] Animal rights group, PETA, has urged advertisers against the use of chimpanzees in television and commercials, citing animal abuse.[56]

When chimpanzees appear in other TV shows, they generally do so as comic relief sidekicks to humans. In that role, for instance, J. Fred Muggs appeared with Today Show host Dave Garroway in the 1950s, Judy on Daktari in the 1960s or Darwin on The Wild Thornberrys in the 1990s.[54] In contrast to the fictional depictions of other animals, such as dogs (as in Lassie), dolphins (Flipper), horses (The Black Stallion) or even other great apes (King Kong), chimpanzee characters and actions are rarely relevant to the plot.[54]

Portrayals in science fictionThe rare depictions of chimpanzees as individuals rather than stock characters, and as central rather than incidental to the plot[54] are generally found in works of science fiction. Robert A. Heinlein's short story "Jerry Was a Man" (1947) centers on a genetically enhanced chimpanzee suing for better treatment. The 1972 film Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, set in the near future, portrays a revolt of enslaved apes led by the only talking chimpanzee, Caesar, against their human masters.[54] Another short story "The Pope of the Chimps" by Robert Silverberg, set in the present day, shows the development of the first signs of religiosity in a group of chimpanzees, much to the surprise of the humans observing them. David Brin's Uplift novels present a future in which humans have "uplifted" chimpanzees (and certain other species) with human-level sapience.
Information Here

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Reproductive behaviors of Chimpanzees and Bonobos

The study of cooperation and competition is fundamental to the field of social behaviour (Harcourt, A.H., & de Waal, F., Eds., 1992, Oxford University Press). Many of these publications, particularly in the field of primatology, have addressed coalitions and alliances, especially among males who were assumed until relatively recently to be the strategic sex. A new report by Surbeck et al. provides additional insights into the costs and benefits of coalitions and other close associations for males. In particular, these authors studied polygynandrous bonobos (Pan paniscus) finding that maternal support increases a son's reproductive success with the potential to decrease the reproductive success of dominants. Presumably, mothers gain via indirect fitness. Another important aspect of the new report is the finding that males exhibit a steep, linear dominance hierarchy. Surbeck et al. suggest that bonobos are intermediary between chimpanzees (exhibiting coercive social traits) and polygynandrous muruquis (characterized in the literature as "egalitarian") on a putative continuum of aggression. Of further significance is the authors' insight that agonistic (and, possibly, other) support modifies spatial dynamics among males so that females are no longer defensible for the dominant. It seems, also, that support may decrease the benefits and/or increase the costs of aggression. It is widely known that dispersal in mammals is primarily male biased (i.e., in most species, males disperse from their natal groups before reproducing, often termed "female-philopatry"). In these species, support of daughters by mothers is known to enhance daughters' reproductive success. Surbeck et al. hypothesized that the same pattern would be found in species in which dispersal is female biased (e.g., bonobos), and their hypothesis was supported. In primates, dispersal in prosimians and cercopithecine monkeys is primarily male biased; in apes and many Neotropical monkeys, dispersal is female biased. Where kinship was known in studies of coalitions and alliances across the order, it is notable that, in polygynandrous chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), a congeneric of the bonobo, coalitions have been found to be independent of kinship. Unlike chimpanzees, bonobo females are dominant over males, a trait that may, in part, explain Surbeck et al.'s findings. Many other features of mammalian individuals and groups remain to be investigated before the differential benefits and costs of coalitionary behavior are understood. For example, few studies have reported alternative reproductive behaviors such as cryptic responses that might enhance male reproductive success. Related to this, few studies have tested Fisher's hypothesis that, over the long term, frequency-dependent selection should equalize fitness of alternative phenotypes. It would be helpful to view dominant and subordinate organisms and their differential traits as displays of alternate phenotypes (rather than "individuals" in use in the "social sciences") and to study these as products of condition-dependent genetic processes (e.g., switches). Phenotypes would, then, be amenable to mapping over space. Comparative studies might investigate the sociosexual and ecological causes for female-philopatry as an ancestral trait in mammals, including primates. For some of the many questions remaining, species exhibiting bisexual dispersal (e.g., mantled howler monkeys: Jones, C.B., 1980, Primates 21: 389-405, in which all age/sex combinations of coalitions were observed to occur) may yield interesting comparative data.

Surbeck, M., Mundry, R. & Hohmann, G. 2011. Mothers matter! Maternal support, dominance status, and mating success in male bonobos. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278: 590-598.
Story Credit Here

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Bonobo behavior

Primates have captured the hearts and imaginations of researchers and the general public alike. While the physical and behavioral similarities between primates and humans fascinate almost anyone, regardless of scientific background, researchers focus on the intriguing evolutionary importance of primates. Though both reasons represent entirely valid motives for interest in primate species, they are not with out their pitfalls. Because of their both charming nature and their genetic similarity to humans, it is often too easy for researchers to concentrate on certain aspects of primate behavior while ignoring others. Primate’s often comic and compelling similarities to humans can lead to scientifically damaging anthropomorphizing. Likewise, in using primates to study the mysterious nature of human evolution, researchers can overemphasize certain aspects of primate behavior while neglecting others.

Bonobos represent one of the primate species that most often fall victim to these mistakes. The rare apes intrigue the public and researchers alike with their “erotic” lifestyles, filled with seemingly inhibited sexuality. Attracted to their “lascivious” existence, humans project their own fantasies and notions about sexuality onto the ape species. This intense focus on the sexuality of the bonobo may overstate the importance of sexual relations in their behavior. In reducing the bonobos to “horny apes” the general public, as well as researchers, deemphasize other extremely important aspects of bonobo behavior.

Of course undeniable similarities exist between bonobos and humans which must not be ignored. Because of their close phylogentic relationship to humans, these similarities should be addressed. Like humans, bonobos are sexually receptive for extended periods, they exhibit a powerful sexual life that is strongly connected to food, and they appear to walk easily on two legs (de Waal, 1996). While many other parallels exist, the high degree of sexuality among both species receives the most attention. This tendency can be very positive in bonobo research as “it is impossible to understand the social life of this ape without attention to its sex life; the two are inseparable” (de Waal, 1997). The focus, however, can carry negative consequences. Animals should not be studied merely because the general public and researchers find them titillating. After reading several bonobo studies and any pop literature on the species, a researcher would find it difficult to avoid the impression that “a more puritanical ape would be less worthy of [their] attentions” (Zuk, 2002)

In focusing on sexual similarities between humans and bonobos, researchers can forget or downplay the many dissimilarities between the two species -one of the most important of which is ecological differences. Diet almost surely affects gender relations and social structures. Perhaps bonobos are “gentler apes” because they exhibit a more heavily herbaceous diet than either chimps or humans. This diet allows the bonobos to forage in groups and circumvents tensions that result from feeding on clumped resources such as fruits (Strier, 2003). Aside from subsistence strategies, other differences between humans and the apes exist- there are, for instance, no observations of male cooperations among the apes, females are as mobile as males, and pair bonding is unknown in bonobos (de Waal, 1996).

Due to human fascination with sex, researchers must remember to address interspecies differences and to consider that “while sex is central to bonobo life, that life and not the sex itself is the central focus to most scientific work” (Zuk, 2002). Because of their own culturally imbued reactions to bonobo behaviors, researchers might view bonobos as oversexed, salacious beings. Bonobos, however, lead their “erotic” lives without acknowledgement of taboo or prohibited actions. Because they articulate sexuality as a natural aspect of their behavior, “it would be a distortion to view their behavior as an expression of “sexual freedom” (de Waal 1996). Bonobos do not concern themselves with sexual morality- an issues that, even for humans represents a highly variant trait (de Waal, 1996).

Perhaps researchers fall victim to moralizing bonobo behavior because of how human-looking their sexual relations appear. Bonobo vaginas and clitorises are ventrally located, leading to greater ease of face to face copulations. Phone sex therapist Susan Block latched onto this trait and declared that “like tanctric sex practitioners or two people very much in love, bonobos often look deeply into each others eyes” (Zuk, 2002). Block has created a pseudo-psychological theory for better relationships based upon bonobo sexual relations. Her method, “Pleasure Eases Pain, Good Sex Defuses Tension, Love Lessens Violence” capitalizes on theories that bonobos use sex to reduce aggression and tension. While this may be true, it hardly seems appropriate to use a species without significant pair bonding as a role model for building strong relationships. Pseudo-theories such as this encourage the general public’s one-sided view of bonobos as “sexy apes.” Even respected researchers occasionally anthropomorphize bonobos into zealous lovers. In describing how bonobos use sex to diffuse tensions, Franz De Waal makes a passing comment about bonobos as the “original proponents of make love not war” (1996). “Love,” a culturally defined- as well as culturally variant concept, holds a tenuous place in the scientific study of primates.
While, probably more than any other researcher, Franz de Waal recognizes the pitfalls of over-focusing upon bonobo sexuality, he is not immune to it. Nor does he avoid taking advantage of the bonobo for feminist purposes. In a 1995 Scientific American article, he refers to the bonobos as a “gift to the feminist movment.” The movement had indeed combated early chauvinistic primatology models. Early primatology undoubtedly focused on male behavior, to the detriment of the field. Male researchers stressed male relations and dominances struggles while relegating females to the field of infant rearing (Strier, 2001; Zuk, 2002). This early approach led to several false conclusions such as incorrectly assuming that baboon society was male dominated (Strum, 2001). After the rise of the feminist movement, however, the field of primatology changed. Women now dominate the field and all primatologists are keenly aware of both genders of their subjects.

Some may argue, however, against using apes and monkeys as mascots for the feminist movement. The female alliances of bonobos present an attractive and easily co-optable argument for the movement. Unlike baboons, female bonobos cooperate without being genetically related (Zuk, 2002). They are a female transfer species with close female bonds. These close bonds have been demonstrated to create coalitions which “keep the males in place” (Wrangham, 1996). Such a take on female behavior presents an attractive model for the feminist movement to capitalize upon- one in which women band together to rise up against male oppression. While feminists should undoubtedly continue to struggle for women’s equality, adopting an animal as movement symbol presents significant scientific challenges. Overemphasizing the females of a species engenders that species as a whole.

With this view, animals such as chimpanzees become “male” species while bonobos are “females” (de Waal, 1997). The bonobo/chimp divide thus begins to represent human gender issues. This simplification of behavior ignores important data and imbues species with unempirical quality statements that lead to favoring one species over another. Bonobos and chimpanzees have been demonstrated as phylogentically equidistant from humans, yet many researchers debate about which species best represents human origins. This debate should be replaced with views that acknowledge the parallels among humans and both species. It should also focus upon the behaviors of both genders of a species.

Both bonobos and humans demonstrate an active interest in sex as well as a colorful sexlife. When studying primate behavior, however, the human fascination with bonobo sexuality should be carefully monitored. Bonobo sexuality represents a vital area of the ape’s life but researchers should be careful not to overstress the sexuality of the species. This extreme emphasis upon sexuality can lead to ignoring differences between the bonobo and human species and disregarding important ecological and behavioral data. Too much focus upon the erotic lives of the bonobos anthropomorphizes them into lusty animals, denying them existence as beings acting in a manner most natural to them. This focus can be abused by those without scientific intentions. Sex therapists and some in the feminist movement have already manipulated the bonobo for their own causes. Their actions transform the bonobo from a complex species into a caricature. For many years, researchers have been aware of the detrimental effects of anthropomorphizing their subjects. With further study of the bonobo, primatologists should be ever vigilant to the extreme sexualization with which the ape has been painted. Sexuality represents a central part of the bonobo’s life but researchers must not let it define the species.

Citations
De Waal F, 1995. Bonobo Sex and Society: The Behavior of a Close Relative Challenges Assumptions about Male Supremacy in Human Evolution. Scientific American March: 82-88.

De Waal F, 1997. Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape. Los Angeles: Berkeley and Los Angeles University of California Press.

De Waal F, 1996. Bonobos. In: Peacemaking among Primates. Cambrigde, MA: Harvard University Press; 171-227.

Strier K, 2003. Female Strategies. In: Primate Behavioral Ecology (Hanson K, ed). New York: Allyn and Bacon; 200-231.

Strum C, 2001. Starting Out. In: Almost Human: A Journey into the World of Baboons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 6-22

Wrangham R, Peterson D, 1996. The Gentle Ape. In: Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (. New York: Mariner Books; 200-219.

Zuk M, 2002. Bonobos: Dolphins of the New Millennium. Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can’t Learn About Sex From Animals. Los Angeles: Berkeley and Los Angeles University of California Press; 107-120.
Story Credit here

Bonobos like apples

Ryan explained that the group sex we’d just been watching had been prompted by someone throwing some apples into the midst of the group. The part about the apples didn’t make any sense, until he explained to us more about bonobo society.

Bonobos like apples. They like them a lot. As a matter of fact, it’s difficult to do bonobo research without a supply of green apples to motivate them to do the experiments. But they like group harmony most of all. And the sudden appearance of the apples in their midst immediately raises the threat of discord. Who will get to eat the apples?
If these were chimpanzees, the strongest males would immediately claim the fruit. There would be a fair amount of shoving, and possibly some bloodshed. But bonobos are so communal that the tension produced by something so precious as an apple in their midst must be dispelled by a gesture of community. In this case, everyone gets to cool off with a little sexual comfort from their neighbor. Then, self-interest replaced by a certain yummy group feeling, they settle down to share the apple.
Story Credit Here

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Bonobos at Lola ya Bonobo find Palm Wine

Suzy wrote to us to tell us about the latest bonobo antics:

Our bonobos got all caught up on the local’s most valuable activity… extracting wine from the palm trees scattered through the reserve. These palm trees are often left with containers in them in order to collect the drink, up until now they had been in zones which the bonobos haven’t really frequented, particularly right on the river bank.








Jug for collecting palm wine.

But then the other day, walking through the forest, we were surprised to see Lomela, the youngest in the female alliance, spot a jug hanging up high in a palm tree. Curious as she is, she climbed up and began sipping the wine, in a proclamation of joy at the sweet drink she began vocalising, attracting the attention of the whole group who each helped themselves in turn.









Lomela after a refreshing beverage

The best part was for the females of the alliance, who obviously had first dibs…and of course the wine tasting was followed by a sex orgy to celebrate such a great finding!!! Poor Kubulu was the only one to not get a taste, not easy when you’re not allowed to get in the big guys gang. Fortunately, fresh palm wine has no alcohol in it being that it hasn’t yet fermented… so no drunk bonobos and the day went on as usual!

Story Credit Here

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Bonobos and Chimpanzees have different Behaviours

Bonobos are the new darlings of the noble savage crowd. They were bitterly disappointed by the rest of the great apes that, as recently as the 1970’s, were all supposed to be peaceful, vegetarian, and inoffensive. When Jane Goodall and others started actually observing great apes in the wild and, as chronicled in books such as Wrangham and Peterson’s Demonic Males, found that they occasionally displayed a few less endearing traits, such as hunting and eating meat, rape, infanticide, and the use of weapons in violent border warfare and raiding, true believers in the innate “goodness” of mankind demonstrated their own nobility by subjecting the messengers to furious ad hominem attacks. It didn’t work. Too many observers were reporting the same thing, and the evidence was too compelling.

Enter the Bonobo. They supposedly possess all the “good” traits their close relatives, the chimpanzees, so notably lack. Occasionally their halo will slip. For example, they compete for status, just like the other great apes. Then, too, their hagiographers will occasionally slip up. I was at a lecture about them once at which the speaker sought to emphasize their “feminist” nature. It seems the females in bonobo groups tend to form alliances for self-protection, and to maintain decorum among the males. The speaker recounted how, in one of the groups, an unruly male had attempted some aggressive behavior towards one of the females. She and her pals ganged up on the evil-doer, giving him a thorough drubbing and, in the words of the speaker, nearly tearing his scrotum completely off. Feminism was certainly vindicated by the incident, but the bonobo’s supposedly non-violent nature less so.

Be that as it may, apart from a few such rare lapses, bonobos do seem to be a great deal less violent and generally “demonic” than their close relatives, the chimpanzees. If estimates that they shared a common ancestor as recently as 1.5 to 3 million years ago are correct, it would seem to demonstrate a high degree of flexibility in the evolutionary toolkit pertaining to the innate behavioral traits that characterize humans as well as other animals. On the other hand, it may be that all these observed traits are subject to greater cultural variation within species that previously imagined. Perhaps bonobo groups can be more “demonic” than their observed behavior to date would indicate, and chimps have taken a bum rap and are really capable of more placid behavior under the right conditions.
Story Credit Here and to read about the Langurs

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Bonobos are more likely to make eye contact if there was no third individual observing

COLLABORATORS:
Kate Branson, Aista Sobouti, Alison Cook, Cindy Lawrence
RESEARCH SITE:
San Diego Zoo
ABSTRACT:
This study used videotape of naturally-occurring behavior in a triad of adolescent bonobos (2 females and 1 male) on exhibit at the San Diego Zoo. Segments in which all three animals were clearly visible were analyzed, frame-by-frame, for events that began with one animal turning its head toward another. The relative head position of all animals was then tracked until at least one subsequent head turn occurred. Head position for each animal toward every other was scored (1-9) according to the access to eye contact that that head position afforded. These scores were also summed across dyads, and across the triad as a whole, to determine if pairwise or triadic states of access were predictive of subsequent head turns.

We scored each animal's orientation to each other animal, on a scale of 1-9, per the access to eye contact the orientation afforded.




 
 
 
 
 


Results of interest include the significant tendency, in events in which the initial head turn brought about a very high level of triadic access, for one of the triad to effect an extremely rapid (Mean = 256 ms) shift away from the others. Furthermore, the triadic sum predicted this outcome better than the dyadic or individual access scores did. Similarly, in randomly sampled events (the first in each two-minute interval of video), the best predictor of whether an animal turned toward another and maintained that position, or turned away before any other head turn occurred, was not that individual's access, nor the access of the animal toward which it turned, but rather the access of the third party to that event. That is, if the third party was monitoring the event, the first animal was significantly more likely to turn away from the second than if the third party was not monitoring the event.

In this frame, the animal on the left has just turned her head toward the others, so that now all three bonobos have a high level of access to each other.

These and related results indicate that the animals in this triad were sensitive to one another's attentional states, and responded not just on the basis of individual tendencies or pairwise relationships, but in terms of the triadic field of attention they co-created.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The bonobos (left to right): Lolita, Congo and Lavern
DISCUSSION:
A variety of converging evidence indicates the importance to primates of detecting and responding to the head orientation of conspecifics. From the field, researchers have described primates' use of threatening stares, the recruitment of eye contact as a prelude to collaborative interactions, and "gaze avoidance" as a means of rejecting a solicitation or otherwise precluding engagement. In the lab, researchers have documented that eye contact elicits strong physiological responses (such as increased heart-rate and pupil dilation), that eyes are the feature of the face most often examined by primate subjects and that specialized cells in the cerebral cortex differentially respond to head orientation and/or gaze directed at, versus from, the subject.

Cells in monkey cortex respond differentially to the sight of faces at different orientations



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

From Gross, Desimore, Albright & Schwartz (1985)

Researchers interested in the evolution of cognition in primates have argued that the evolution of social intelligence in primates may be related to the occurrence of triadic (or polyadic) interactions. That is, such interactions are probably more cognitively demanding than are the more common dyadic ones. Animals that engage in only dyadic dominance interactions, for example, need only keep track their own relative position to each other animal in the group. In contrast, when coalitions and other polyadic negotiations are possible, an individual must know not only about its own relationships, but also about the relationships that exist between others.
Immediately following (within 3 frames of) the situation on the left, one of the animals in this triad turned away from the others. Such rapid adjustments were observed in 94% of such "high access" contexts.











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
San Diego Zoological Society / CRES
Dept of Cognitive Science, UCSD
Dept of Anthropology, UCSD
Christine M. Johnson
Story credit Here

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Bonobos are more prolific kissers than many human beings

There’s no such thing as a simple kiss.
The strange ritual between two sets of pursed lips has more meanings than a Pynchon novel and is worth more than a thousand words.

The passionate embrace of a sailor and nurse in Times Square, Madonna and Britney’s mouth-to-mouth moment, the betrayal kiss between Judas and Jesus — no matter how different — all fall under the definition of “kiss.” They can be deadly (the mobster kiss), creepy (Al and Tipper Gore at the 2000 Democratic National Convention), or life-giving (Snow White and her prince).

Anthropologists estimate that kissing is practiced by more than 90% of cultures in the world. Sure, it feels nice when it’s right, but what is so important about the sharing of saliva? Scientist Sheril Kirshenbaum sets out to answer the question in her pithy new book “The Science of Kissing.”

Kirshenbaum shows us that the famous words of Don Juan, “each kiss a heart-quake,” is far more accurate than intended — as she traces kissing from its infancy in ancient humans to its complex anatomy and its importance in the development of the human species.

Even animals do it

Kissing, broadly defined as the coming together of two individuals in exchange of sensory information, is not limited to human beings. Many kinds of animals neck, too.

The sex-crazed bonobo apes from the Congo — who often use sex to resolve conflicts rather than aggression — are more prolific kissers than many human beings. In fact, one scientist witnessed bonobos nibbling and kissing each other for 12 minutes straight. They kiss for reassurance, out of excitement or fear, and to firm-up relationships with others.

Other chimpanzees also kiss without tongue, which the author says is more akin to a human hug than a passionate make-out session.

Moose and squirrels brush noses, moles rub snouts and turtles tap heads. Manatees nibble their partners, and giraffes intertwine their necks. One fish from Thailand, called the kissing gourami, touches its lips with others, during feeding or fighting, or as a sign of courtship.

Strangely enough, snails “may be the most sensual critters of all, locking together while massaging each other all over.”
These “kisses” might be for affection, greeting, feeding or a bond between mother and offspring. And although the author warns against anthropomorphizing these critters, it sounds a lot like what humans do.
Man’s first kisses

Like many animals, ancient man’s first kisses weren’t relegated to the lips. In fact, Kirshenbaum theorizes that our earliest kisses were delivered via the nose, the kind of “nuzzle-sniff” popular in Eskimo culture. Nose kisses were used to “recognize and reconnect with relatives and friends and perhaps even provide clues about a person’s health,” she writes.

So when did the kiss move from the nose to the mouth? Well, it seems to be somewhat hardwired, she writes. Human mouths are more “everted,” meaning they stick out further than our ape ancestors. Our red lips are actually the most exposed erogenous zone on our body. But this didn’t happen overnight.

Our ancestors evolved a superior ability to detect the color red, which would give them an advantage in finding ripe fruits when on the lookout for food. This “red equals reward” may have become ingrained, making men more interested in women with redder lips, which would signify a more youthful and fertile mate. Even current studies show that looking at red objects quickens the pulse and makes us feel excited. It’s no wonder women still turn to lipstick, which they have done since ancient Egypt, when women used dyes and strong wines to dye their pouts.

The history of the kiss Here