For chimpanzees, like humans, yawning can be contagious

And new research offers evidence that for these apes picking up a yawn is a sign of social connection.

The researchers showed chimpanzees a video of other chimpanzees and found they yawned more frequently after watching a chimpanzee from their own group yawn than a chimpanzee from another group — evidence that they were more influenced by others with whom they empathized.

Like chimpanzees, humans show more empathy — the ability to understand and share in another's feelings — for members of their own social group. No one has studied whether or not biases like this affect contagious yawning in humans, but the researchers believe we are like our closest living relatives in this regard.

"The idea is that yawns are contagious for the same reason that smiles, frowns and other facial expressions are contagious," the researchers, Matthew Campbell and Frans de Waal of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University in Georgia, wrote online Wednesday in the journal PLoS ONE. "The mechanism that allows someone to reflexively mimic a smile is thought to also allow for reflexive mimicry of yawns."

Campbell and de Waal showed 23 chimpanzees from two groups video clips of other chimpanzees yawning or doing something else. The chimps yawned 50 percent more frequently in response to video of members of their group yawning versus video of the other group members yawning. The researchers note that the chimps paid more attention to the video of unfamiliar chimps.

It's important to note that humans and chimpanzees have different parameters for determining the insider who elicits empathy and the outsider who doesn't.

Humans define their own social group more broadly than do chimpanzees. So, an unfamiliar person can be included within a human social group, but an unfamiliar chimpanzee is by definition an outsider, they write. (Chimps have also been shown to yawn in response to yawning animated characters ; however, this is likely because the artificial nature of the animation prevented the chimps from perceiving the character as an outsider, Campbell and de Waal write.)

Contagious yawning has been documented in five species, including dogs, which can catch yawns from people.
Information Credit here

Chimpanzees laugh with their playmates

Chimpanzees laugh alongside their playmates even if the situation is not seen as "funny" for them, just like humans do. New research from the University of Portsmouth, published in the journal Emotion, has produced the first evidence that apes do not just 'ape' the expressions of their social partners, but that their responses have a distinct social and emotional meaning. This shows that great apes have a more complex social use of expressions than previously thought.

Lead author, behavioural biologist Dr Marina Davila-Ross said:
"I didn't expect to find such prominent differences between responsive and spontaneous laughter in chimpanzees, but my biggest surprise was the results showing those in newer groups mimic their playmates more often than those in established groups where the chimpanzees know each other well. This suggests mimicking laughter might play a special role in strengthening social bonds."

The findings reveal important similarities with findings on humans, where both laugh cultures and mimicking cultures have been reported.

Dr Davila-Ross, of the University's Department of Psychology, said:
"Humans clearly use laughter as an important response in a wide range of social situations, but it is particularly interesting that chimpanzees seem to also use laughter to respond in such distinct ways. Great apes' ability to manage the sounds they make seems to be much more limited than humans and other animals, and even parrots. Nonetheless, their laughter might be partly managed and partly automatic. They do not just mimic the expressions of their playmates; they respond with their expressions in more complex ways than we were aware of before.

We found their responsive laughter shows a similarity to the conversational laughter of humans. Both are shorter than spontaneous laughter and both seem designed to promote social interaction.
These sorts of responses may lead to important advantages in cooperation and social communication - qualities that help explain why laughter and smiles have become integral tools of emotional intelligence in humans."

The researchers found that responsive laughter is also used differently across social groups of chimpanzees compared to their use of spontaneous laughter. It is not evident at such a young age as spontaneous laughter, it is shorter, and it seems to prolong play, which has a vital role in the physical, emotional, social and cognitive development of both chimpanzees and humans.
Dr Davila-Ross's study examined laughter in 59 chimpanzees living in four groups in the chimpanzee sanctuary Chimfunshi Wildlife Orphanage in Zambia. Two of the groups had been established for more than 14 years, and two groups had been living together for less than five years. All contained a mixture of ages and sexes. Nearly 500 play bouts were video recorded and in all cases, playing sessions lasted significantly longer when one playmate joined in the laughter of another.
Story Credit here

The life of a male Chimpanzee

…a male chimpanzee in his prime organizes his whole life around issues of rank. His attempts to maintain and achieve alpha status are cunning, persistent, energetic, and time-consuming. They affect whom he travels with, whom he grooms, where he glances, how often he scratches, where he goes, what times he gets up in the morning.

…all these behaviors come not from a drive to be violent for its own sake, but from a set of emotions that, when people show them, are labeled “pride” or, more negatively, “arrogance”.

The male chimpanzee behaves as if he is quite driven to reach the top of the community heap. But once he has been accepted as the alpha …his tendency for violence falls dramatically. …they can become benign leaders as easily as they became irritated challengers.

What most male chimpanzees strive for is being on top, the one position where they will never have to grovel. It is the difficulty of getting there that induces aggression.

I’ve been enjoying Demonic Males, a book by Richard Wrangam (Harvard professor of biological anthropology) and writer Dale Peterson.

Chimps are homo sapiens’ closest relative. I was surprised to learn chimps are genetically closer to us than they are to other great apes.

Perhaps this can explain my dreams where I hit Bill Easterly and Tyler Cowen over their heads with a big bone?

The basic idea behind Demonic males: most of the world’s problems can be attributed to our chimp-like heritage, most of all the violent instincts in males. (To which all of my female readers are likely to respond: “you needed to read a book to figure that out?”)
The authors play a little fast and loose with human political science and history, but I assume the chimp stuff is more thorough.

For an application of evolutionary biology to economics, a favorite book of mine is The Company of Strangers: A Natural History of Economic Life.
Story Credit Here

In Mental Time Travel a Scrub Jay wins over a Chimpanzee

IN A memory contest between a chimpanzee and a bird, most of us would bet on the chimp. But if the bird in question were a scrub jay - and the task involved mental time travel - the chimp might just find itself outmatched.
Episodic memories combine what happened, when and where. They are an essential part of visualising a different time, and were thought to be uniquely human until Nicola Clayton at the University of Cambridge proved that western scrub jays have simple episodic memories - allowing them to track how long it takes for food they have stashed to rot.

Chimps can remember where they hid food, but it's not clear whether they can track the amount of time that has passed since a memory was formed. To investigate, Marusha Dekleva of Utrecht University in the Netherlands tested nine captive chimps on a task similar to the one Clayton used with scrub jays. She showed each chimp four containers: two were empty; one contained either apple sauce or yoghurt, which the chimps like; and one held red peppers, which they like less.

Dekleva let the chimps pick a food container either 15 minutes, 1 hour or 5 hours later. But there was a twist: the apple sauce disappeared by the 1-hour mark, leaving the container empty, and by the 5-hour mark the yoghurt had gone, but the peppers were still available. Chimps are good learners and were expected to adjust their choice of containers over time.

They didn't. Instead, they remembered which containers held more food early in the study, and picked those no matter how much time had passed. This got them some food, but far less than they could have obtained by adapting their behaviour (PLoS One, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016593).

If chimps genuinely lack episodic memories, our ancestors must have evolved them after we diverged from chimps. "Episodic memory is linked to the ability to plan for future events and it could well be that this prospective ability gave humans advantages," says Dekleva.

In fairness to chimps, they may claim mitigating circumstances. As Daniel Povinelli at the University of Louisiana in Lafayette points out, chimps do not habitually store food as scrub jays do. He says they might have done better if asked to learn when different plants yield fruit - a point which Dekleva concedes. For now at least, the jury is still out on whether chimps can travel through time in their heads.
Story Credit Here

Are Chimpanzees in the open savannas or woodlands

While some chimpanzees historically inhabited open savannas, most modern surviving populations in Africa favor woodlands and forests. While they are comfortable on the ground, much of their lives are bound up in the treetops.

Chimpanzees split their time between trees and the ground.

Use of Trees

Chimpanzees may hunt certain species of red colobus monkey in the treetops.Chimpanzees spend much of their time traveling on the ground, walking on all fours. Nonetheless, they are much more arboreal than their bigger relatives the gorillas. In most habitats, they forage extensively on fruits, nuts and bark in the canopy, where they also occasionally hunt monkeys; retreat each night to build sleeping nests; and escape from some terrestrial predators by climbing.

Tree Species

 Chimps are familiar with the fruiting schedules of trees within their given forest.Across their historically large range in sub-Saharan Africa, chimps utilize many different species of trees. As part of the chimp discussion in "The Behavior Guide to African Mammals," Richard D. Estes mentions various kinds of figs, oil palms and other fruit- or nut-producing genera like Coula, Panda and Uapaca.

Chimps are familiar with the fruiting schedules of trees within their given forest.

Locomotion

Chimpanzees may swing through the canopy or carefully clamber over branches.A chimpanzee's long and enormously powerful arms reflect its swiftest kind of arboreal locomotion, the under-branch swinging movement called brachiation. But they also haul themselves up trunks by wrapping their arms around them and steadily move through the canopy on the backs of large branches.

Chimpanzees may swing through the canopy or carefully clamber over branches.
Information Here

Chimpanzees are capable of organization

While making decisions, we generally try to maximize outcomes, even if it means cooperating and sharing a reward with another person. But does this ability set humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom?

A recent study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that humans' closest living relatives -- non-human primates -- are also capable of this kind of organization. Though more research is needed, the findings contribute to scientists' understanding of the evolutionary origins of cooperation and weighing decisions in humans.

Monkeys More Calculating Around Money

The researchers, led by scientists at Georgia State University, tested the "Assurance Game" in pairs of college students, chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys. Each subject tested next to a member of the same species and was given two tokens -- one labeled "Stag," and the other "Hare" (more on that here).

In every trial, each subject had to return one of the tokens to the experimenter without knowing what the other subject planned to do. If the subjects turned in the same token, they received a reward -- money for humans and fruit for non-human primates.

When both subjects gave back the "Stag" token, they received a larger reward than any other combination. A "Hare-Hare" match-up yielded a reward, but not as much as the "Stag-Stag" combo. Subjects were not rewarded when their tokens didn't match up.

To maximize the reward, participants had to cooperate and learn quickly which combinations yielded the largest reward.

Brain's 'Hardware' Key To Decision-Making

None of the human subjects received instructions for the game. The researchers focused on ways to make experimental conditions as similar as possible so one species didn't have an advantage.

After analyzing the results from each species, the scientists found that five of the 26 pairs of humans maximized their rewards by playing "Stag-Stag" 75 percent or more of the time. Humans cooperated and optimized their rewards more than chimpanzees and capuchins, but still did not perform as well as the researchers expected.

Eight of the chimp pairs cooperated to receive rewards but none of these groups chose "Stag-Stag" or "Hare-Hare" more than the other. Only one of the six capuchin pairs, however, chose the most fruitful combination ("Stag-Stag") as a nonrandom behavior, as opposed to just by chance.

In all species, subjects cooperated for a reward. Surprisingly, some non-human primate pairs cooperated more than some human pairs, although humans were generally better at maximizing rewards.

Based on these findings, it appears that chimpanzees, capuchins and other primates are able to understand the benefits of working together.
Story Credit Here

Chimpanzees observed disengaging snares meant for Cane Rats

Five male wild chimpanzees living in an African forest have figured out how to deactivate, and sometimes even destroy, snares set out by human hunters, according to scientists who watched the clever chimps in action.

The chimps' ability, documented in the latest issue of the journal Primates, demonstrates that these animals can learn without trial and error, since one mistake for them could be fatal.

The discovery also explains why wild chimpanzees living in Bossou, Guinea, suffer from very few snare-related injuries and deaths versus chimps living in other places.

"At Bossou, hunters are trying to catch cane rats," co-author Gaku Ohashi told Discovery News. "Sometimes duikers (a type of antelope) are trapped. Villagers at Bossou do not eat chimpanzees because they think of chimps as the reincarnation of their ancestors. However the snares cause indiscriminate damage, ensnaring any and all animals that come into contact with them."

Ohashi, a research fellow at the Japan Monkey Center, and colleague Tetsuro Matsuzawa observed the Bossou chimpanzees from July 2002 to March 2003 and then again from April to Sept. 2004. During those times, the researchers recorded six instances where five different wild male chimps took steps to deactivate snares they encountered.

One adult male chimp heard a female chimp, accompanied by her one-year-old infant, whimpering next to a duiker carcass in a snare. According to the researchers, the male chimp slapped the duiker, grimaced and then jumped away. He then grasped the snare with his hands and vigorously shook it. This same male had previously shaken another snare, causing it to break.

On another day, this male was with a few other adult chimps and a six-year-old juvenile male. When the group encountered a snare, the juvenile managed to completely deactivate the snare by causing ropes attached to it to become untied.

These, and the other documented instances, suggest the snare deactivation techniques may "have been passed down through the generations and carried on in the group as culture," Ohashi and Matsuzawa wrote.

"Some time in the past, an individual that had been ensnared might have started this behavior," explained Ohashi, who added that "young chimpanzees acquired this technique without any injuries."

In other locations, chimpanzees that survive snare injuries can be maimed for life. In Kalinzu Forest, Uganda, for example, 10 out of 16 identified males had injuries on their limbs. In Budongo Forest, also in Uganda, one-fifth of all chimps exhibited limb deformities due to snares.

Vernon Reynolds, a primate expert who serves as an adviser at the Budongo Forest Research Project, told Discovery News that the observations made at Bossou are "exceptional, not having been reported from any other site."

Reynolds isn't sure why the male chimpanzees at Bossou have the ability to deactivate snares, while chimps elsewhere do not. Wild chimpanzees in Africa, however, seem to often exhibit concern over the devices.

"Our chimps at Budongo make alarm calls at snares and also, on one occasion at least, our alpha male removed a snare from an adult female," Reynolds said.

Ohashi hopes better education at locations where the snares are used -- parts of East and West Africa -- could make hunters more aware of the unintended consequences of their actions. At Bossou, a local nongovernmental organization has also started farming cane rats in the village.

"If farming cane rats provides adequate subsistence for local people at Bossou," Ohashi and Matsuzawa conclude, "then snare hunting activity for bush meat may become less necessary and the risks facing chimpanzees should subsequently diminish."
Story credit here

What happened to the little chimp that mom mourned over

The infant had been observed behaving sickly ever since birth when, on May 18, 2010, researchers saw the chimpanzee mother, Masya, carrying the dead body of her offspring. Masya continued to carry her lifeless child until the following day when observers were present to record what they saw next. The infant was placed in a clearing while Masya sat a short distance away staring at the motionless form. Researchers recorded over the next hour as the mother approached her offspring 23 times to place her hands on the child. 21 of these contacts were directed toward her offspring’s face or neck. At the end of this display Masya once again picked up her infant and carried her to the center of the social group about 20 meters away. When she laid her infant down the other group members, eight in total, proceeded to gently touch, stroke the dead infants belly, and groom it with straw. After about twenty minutes Masya retrieved the body and walked off. The next day Masya was observed on her own, she had let go of her dead child.

This is not the first time that primates have been observed to pay special attention to a deceased member of their group. In April last year similar behaviors were observed by a chimpanzee mother in Bossou, Guinea who ended up carrying her infant’s body for a total of 27 days. The mother, Jire, regularly groomed and slept next to her infant’s body and showed distress whenever they became separated. In 2000 a chimpanzee mother in the Mahale Mountains of Tanzania carried her infants body for nearly four months and individuals throughout the community were heard making distinctive vocalizations that the researchers had come to associate with fear and agitation. Other cases have been observed in the mountain gorillas of Rwanda, baboons of Ethiopia, macaques in Japan, and ring-tailed lemurs of Madagascar.
Story Credit Here
Video here

Chimpanzee Moms Mourn for their babies... Stop the breeding and selling of Chimpanzee babies Missouri Primate Foundation

This is one of many reasons why Chimpanzees should not be bred or sold. The missouri Primate Foundation is the largest Chimpanzee breeder of pets in the US. They don't believe that the mother mourns for her baby when they are ripped away from them screaming.

Story;
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2011) —
 For the first time, researchers of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in the Netherlands report in detail how a chimpanzee mother responds to the death of her infant. The chimpanzee mother shows behaviours not typically seen directed toward live infants, such as placing her fingers against the neck and laying the infant's body on the ground to watch it from a distance. The observations of Katherine Cronin and her team provide unique insights into how chimpanzees, one of humans' closest primate relatives, learn about death.

Chimpanzee mothers' behaviour at her dead infant. (Credit: Image courtesy of Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics)


Their commentary appears online this week in the American Journal of Primatology.
The research team conducted their observations at Chimfunshi Wildlife Orphanage Trust in Zambia, where wild-born chimpanzees who have been rescued from illegal trade live in the largest social groups and enclosures in the world. Dr. Katherine Cronin and Edwin Van Leeuwen of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics collaborated with Innocent Chitalu Mulenga of Chimfunshi and Dr. Mark Bodamer, a professor of Psychology at Gonzaga University in Washington State, USA.

Close relationship

Chimpanzee mothers typically are in close contact with their offspring for several years, carrying them almost continuously for two years and nursing until they are four to six years old. The close relationship between the mother and offspring continues for several years after weaning, and is one of the most important relationships in chimpanzee life.
Premature death

Cronin and her colleagues observed the behaviour that a female chimpanzee expressed toward her 16-month-old infant who had recently died. After carrying the infant's dead body for more than a day, the mother laid the body out on the ground in a clearing and repeatedly approached the body and held her fingers against the infant's face and neck for multiple seconds. She remained near the body for nearly an hour, then carried it over to a group of chimpanzees and watched them investigate the body. The next day, the mother was no longer carrying the body of the infant.

Nearly nothing is known about how primates react to death of close individuals, what they understand about death, and whether they mourn. The MPI researchers therefore believe to have reported a unique transitional period as the mother learned about the death of her infant, a process never before reported in detail. But they largely refrain from interpretation, while providing extensive video to allow viewers the opportunity to judge for themselves what chimpanzees understand about death.

'The videos are extremely valuable, because they force one to stop and think about what might be happening in the minds of other primates', Cronin says. 'Whether a viewer ultimately decides that the chimpanzee is mourning, or simply curious about the corpse, is not nearly as important as people taking a moment to consider the possibilities.'

Mother-infant bond

Previous reports have documented chimpanzee mothers carrying their deceased young for days or weeks, demonstrating that the severing of the mother-infant bond is incredibly difficult for chimpanzees. The current research complements these observations and sheds new light on how chimpanzees might learn about death.
'These data contribute to a small but growing body of data on how nonhuman primates respond to death. We hope these objective accounts will continue to accumulate and eventually allow researchers to take a comprehensive look at the extent to which nonhuman primate understand death, and how they respond to it.'
Story Credit Here

A Chimps Face shows their personalities

In chimpanzees, as in humans, faces are personality billboards, a new study suggests.

A new study indicates that people can usually tell that a chimp is socially dominant, like the one shown here, by examining a picture of its expressionless face.

]People can usually tell whether or not a chimp acts dominantly and is physically active simply by looking at a picture of the ape’s expressionless mug, says a research team led by psychologist Robert Ward of Bangor University, Wales.

Consistent with earlier evidence from other researchers, Ward and his colleagues reported last year that volunteers can also accurately detect whether people are extroverted, emotionally stable, agreeable and imaginative by looking at pictures of their neutral-looking faces. Extroversion in people and dominance in chimps both relate to assertiveness and sociability, and both partly derive from an individual’s genetic makeup.

An ability to discern key personality traits via facial structure evolved more than 7 million years ago in a shared ancestor of people and chimps, the researchers propose in a paper published online January 14 in Evolution and Human Behavior.

“The fact that chimpanzee facial signals can be read by humans suggests that our ability to read others’ faces accurately is not solely acquired through culture, but is part of an evolved system,” Ward says.

That’s an intriguing hypothesis in need of testing with composite images that digitally combine many pictures of the same chimps into single mug shots, remarks psychologist and chimp researcher Lisa Parr of Emory University in Atlanta. Composites minimize slight variations from one photograph to another in lighting, skin hue, head angles and other factors that can create different personality impressions of the same individual, Parr says.

Ward and his colleagues had participants evaluate composite images of people, but technical difficulties stymied their attempts to create composite chimp faces. Anatomical landmarks used to create composite images, such as the jaw’s precise position, are difficult to measure on chimps’ hairy faces, Ward says. Also, composites smooth out facial textures, so chimps’ faces look blurry rather than hairy, he notes.

In the new study, Ward’s group conducted four experiments with a total of 139 college students. Volunteers viewed pairs of mug shots showing chimps previously identified in behavioral observations as high or low in dominance. Each photographed chimp looked straight ahead or at a slight angle, with no teeth showing and no strong shadowing over the eyes that might impart a menacing look.

Participants distinguished dominant from nondominant chimps more often than would have been expected by chance. Average accuracy rates ranged from about 60 percent to 70 percent, with higher scores for faces of male chimps than for female chimps.

The students accurately distinguished mug shots of extroverted women from those of introverted women about three-quarters of the time. Pairs of pictures came from women who reported many similar personality traits on a questionnaire, except for contrasting levels of extroversion.

Core facial characteristics of dominant chimps and extroverted people remain poorly understood, Ward says. A well-defined jawline and other outer features of the face aid in detecting extroverted women, but volunteers still do pretty well at distinguishing outgoing from shy females when shown only each person’s eyes, nose and mouth.

Ward suspects that chimps who look at other chimps’ expressionless faces can tell which ones act dominantly. His team plans to explore this possibility.
Story Credit Here

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

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

Chimpanzees do boundary patrolling

The Chimpanzees who live at the Ngogo site deep within Uganda’s Kibale National Park spend their days foraging and feeding, wrestling and playing, grooming and socializing. But every 10 to 14 days a group of males gathers and moves away from the rest of the group. They form a single-file line as they walk purposefully toward the edge of their territory, eventually striking out into the territory of a neighboring group of chimpanzees. They move in atypical silence, scanning the underbrush and listening for any sign of other chimps. If they encounter a large group of neighboring chimps, and are outnumbered, they flee back to their territory. But if they come across a single chimp from a neighboring group, they attack – surrounding, beating, and jumping on the victim. Some victims are killed outright, others manage to escape, broken, bleeding, and unlikely to survive. Infants are often torn away from female chimpanzees and are killed and cannibalized.

This behavior, known as boundary patrolling, was first observed by Jane Goodall in the 1970’s among chimpanzees at Gombe National Park in Tanzania and has since been observed in many chimpanzee groups that live side-by-side with others, including the Ngogo group. These border patrols have captured the interest of primatologists and the public, not only because of their shocking brutality, but also because they bear a striking resemblance to human warfare. Until recently, primatologists have been unable to definitively explain why chimpanzees participate in border patrols and lethal attacks against their neighbors. But after observing the Ngogo chimpanzee community for 10 years between 1999 and 2009, primatologist John Mitani and a group of researchers have discovered the answer: chimpanzees attack their neighbors in order to expand their territory.

During the 10-year observation period, researchers witnessed the killings of 18 neighboring chimpanzees at the hands of Ngogo males on patrol, and found circumstantial evidence for three more killings. The majority of the Ngogo border patrols, and 13 of the killings, occurred in an area to the northeast of Ngogo territory. These killings represented a staggering loss for the chimpanzee community living in this area. The death rate experienced by these chimpanzees during the 10-year observation period was 23 to 75 times higher than the median death rates experienced by nine other well-studied chimpanzee communities.

In 2009 the Ngogo chimpanzees incorporated this northeastern region into their territory. While they had previously only entered this region during boundary patrols, large parties of Ngogo chimps began to feed and socialize in the region, and neighboring chimps were no longer observed in the area. The newly acquired land represented a significant 22% increase in territory for the Ngogo community. This new land provided them with increased access to resources including food and safety, and may allow them to attract more female mates. Dr. Mitani, lead author of the Ngogo study, noted that these observations demonstrate that “patrolling seems to be part of a long-term strategy to dominate neighbors. If successful, chimpanzees can acquire more land. All chimpanzees will do this if they can. The Ngogo chimpanzees have been particularly successful because they have an in built competitive advantage. That advantage is due to the extremely large size of the community.”

The violent boundary patrols and annexation of neighboring territory observed at Ngogo may sound a lot like human warfare. After all, humans have fought over access to land and resources for centuries. But what can this research tell us about the origins of human warfare? Some scientists, most notably primatologist Richard Wrangham, see this chimpanzee behavior as evidence that a propensity for warfare stretches deep into our evolutionary past. He reasons that similarities between human and chimpanzee warfare indicate that warfare has been shaped by evolution in both cases, arguing that, “there has been selection for a male psyche that, in certain circumstances, seeks opportunities to carry out low-cost attacks on unsuspecting neighbors.” And perhaps this psychological disposition gives rise to warfare among chimps and humans.

But Dr. Mitani, lead author of the Ngogo study, urges caution, emphasizing “that human warfare is quite variable. Fighting others for land is only one reason humans go to war today.” The problem is that human warfare is so incredibly complex – there are as many reasons for war as there have been wars. The chimpanzee warfare observed at Ngogo most closely parallels the territorial raiding seen among contemporary humans living in traditional hunter-gatherer groups. But did our ancient ancestors practice this kind of warfare? Did this type of warfare give rise to the way we fight wars today? In this case it’s difficult to make direct comparisons between human warfare and the behavior of the Ngogo chimps, and Dr. Mitani warns that answering these questions may be based largely on speculation.
Original Research:

Mitani, J., Watts, D., & Amsler, S. (2010). Lethal intergroup aggression leads to territorial expansion in wild chimpanzees Current Biology, 20 (12) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.04.021
Story Credit here and to read the Q&A with primatologist John Mitani that accompanies this post.

When Chimpanzees groom each other it releases a mild narcotics in the primate brain

Primates spend huge amounts of their day—between 10 and 20 percent—grooming each other. Like other grooming animals, they have to fend off an endless assault of lice and other skin parasites. Simply picking off these parasites is soothing, because touch releases mild narcotics in the primate brain. According to Robin Dunbar of the University of Liverpool, this parasite-driven pleasure took on a new importance when the common ancestor of monkeys and apes and humans moved into habitats with lots of predators about 20 million years ago. These primates had to huddle together in order not to be killed, but they then had to compete with one another for food. As social stresses emerged, the primates began to depend on the soothing sensation that comes from grooming, not for its previous function—getting rid of parasites—but as a kind of currency to buy the alliance of other monkeys. Grooming became political, in other words, and in order to keep track of the larger and larger groups, apes evolved larger brains and had to dedicate more of their time to grooming. Hominids eventually reached the point, at about one hundred fifty members to a band, where there wasn’t enough time in the day to groom one another to keep the band intact. And it was then, Dunbar claims, that language arose and took grooming’s place.

Defending against parasites could have played a part in the evolution of human intelligence in another way—an even more speculative one, but one that might be more significant. Perhaps medicine played a role. When a woolly bear is attacked by a parasitic fly and switches its diet from lupine to hemlock, it does so purely by instinct. It doesn’t pause on its leaf and think to itself, “I seem to have a maggot growing inside me, and it will leave me a hollow shell if I don’t do something.” Its tastes presumably just shift from one kind of plant to another. For most animals that engage in this protomedicine, the process is probably the same. But something different seems to be going on in primates, particularly chimpanzees, our closest relatives. Sick chimps will sometimes search for strange food. They will swallow certain kinds of leaves whole; they will strip the bark of other plants and eat the bitter pith inside. The plants have almost no nutrition in them, but they have another value. The leaves seem to be able to clear out worms from the intestines, and the bitter pith is used as medicine by people who share the forests with the chimps. When scientists have analyzed the plants in laboratories, they’ve discovered that they can kill many parasites.

Chimps, in other words, may be medicating themselves. As the years go by, more evidence accrues to the chimp-doctor theory, but it is slow to gain acceptance. It demands far more proof than a typical idea in biology, since scientists need to demonstrate that chimps are sick with particular parasites when they choose their plants, and they need to show how the plants fight the parasites. Proving this as you run to keep up with chimps racing along rainforest ridges makes for slow scientific progress. But Michael Huffman, the primatologist who has done most of the running, has indeed shown that after chimps eat certain plants, their parasite load drops and their health improves. He argues that the chimps are a lot more sophisticated in their medicine than instinct-driven woolly bears. When they select only the pith of the plant Vernonia amydalina, casting aside the bark and leaves, they are avoiding the poisonous part of the plant and taking only the part of the plant that has steroid glucosides that kill nematodes and other parasites. A hungry goat will eat too much of the plant and sometimes die.

If Huffman is right, the chimps must accrue medical lore and carry the information through time by teaching and observing one another. Huffman once watched a male chimp eat some Vernonia and throw it to the ground; a baby chimp tried to pick it up, but his mother stopped him, put her foot on the pith, and carried him away. Chimps must have some remarkable cognitive sophistication if Huffman is right. They can recognize the symptoms of particular parasites and associate eating plants with their cure. They may even eat some plants preventively, which would put the association on an even more abstract plane.

You usually hear this sort of talk—abstraction, an awareness of the potential uses of things in nature—when people are discussing one of the most important steps in human evolution: the ability to make tools. Chimpanzees can strip sticks to use them to fish out termites from nests; they can smash shells between rocks; they can even fashion themselves sandals to cross expanses of low thorny bushes. As our closest primate relatives, they may embody some of the abilities of the earliest hominids 5 million years ago. Later, as our ancestors moved out of dense forests, they evolved the ability to make more sophisticated tools by flaking stones to butcher meat. The ability to connect the shape of a tool to the job it could do brought a reward of more food. This abstract thought made it possible to make better tools, and survival became even easier. Tools, in other words, may have made our brains swell.

Conceivably, that same argument could apply to medicine as well. Could the ability to recognize how plants could fight various parasites have given hominids longer lives and more children? And could that success have driven more powerful brains in order to find better cures against parasites?
Story Credit Here

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

Chimpanzees don't have the patience, Gorillas don't have the motivation, but Orangutans can problem solve

If you give an orangutan a screwdriver, chances are he will open up his cage and walk away.

Orangutans are the largest living arboreal animals and live in the rainforests of Borneo and Sumatra. They are well adapted to living in trees, with long arms, long fingers, opposable thumbs/big toes set lower down their hands/feet so that they can better grasp branches, with fully rotational hip joints that allow them to swing in all directions.
The orangutan is probably the most intelligent of all of the great apes, especially if intelligence is measured by the ability to problem-solve. “A chimpanzee doesn’t have the patience,” Michelle Desilets says, “and a gorilla doesn't seem to have the motivation to problem solve. But the orangutan tends to have the incentive to determine the problem and sit and work at it until it's solved.”

The orangutan is probably the most intelligent of all of the great apes, especially if intelligence is measured by the ability to problem solve. (Credit: Michelle Desilets)
She sums up their differing approaches, noting that “if you give a chimpanzee a screwdriver, he'll break it; if you give a gorilla a screwdriver, he'll toss it over his shoulder; but if you give an orangutan a screwdriver, he'll open up his cage and walk away.” She also provides examples of orangutan innovation, such as their tactic for staying dry. Because orangutans detest rain, they’ll often use leaves to craft umbrellas or construct roofs over their nests.
Desilets has worked on orangutan conservation alongside Lone Dröscher Nielsen, the internationally well-known champion of these apes, for over 15 years.

Laurel Neme: What does the name, orangutan, mean?

Michelle Desilets: The name “orangutan” comes from the Malay language. It’s two words: “or-ang” meaning person or people; and “u-tan” is forest. So, quite literally, person of the forest. The natives believed that orangutans were at one time a form of humans that took to the trees and pretended not to be able to speak in order to avoid being put to work. They could just play in the trees if they pretended they couldn't talk.

There are still some amongst the many different Dyak tribes who have a remnant feeling that there is something about orangutans that makes them human, or at least almost seem it, and that they deserve a certain level of respect.

Laurel Neme: What's special about orangutans?

Michelle Desilets: We know that, evolutionarily speaking, the orangutan is not quite as close to us as the chimpanzee, and probably the gorilla on the evolutionary tree. If we look at the DNA, [chimpanzees are] almost 99% identical to human, whereas orangutans aren't quite that much but it is still quite close. So, orangutans share a lot of the features of human beings. They’re one of the great apes. They have no tail.

Laurel Neme: How intelligent are orangutans compared to other apes?
Michelle Desilets: There are lots of ways of measuring intelligence of species. Scientists have done different tests, but most recently, about a year or two ago, some scientists came together and said "if intelligence is measured in the ability to problem-solve, then the orangutan wins hands down. It just blows the chimpanzee right off the block". Orangutans just have this tenacity. They are motivated to focus on the problem until they solve it. They stick with it.

Laurel Neme: How does that compare to chimpanzees and gorillas?
Michelle Desilets: A chimpanzee doesn’t have the patience, and a gorilla doesn't seem to have the motivation to problem solve, but the orangutan tends to have the incentive to determine the problem and sit and work at it until it's solved.
They say that if you give a chimpanzee a screwdriver, he'll break it; if you give a gorilla a screwdriver, he'll toss it over his shoulder; but if you give an orangutan a screwdriver, he'll open up his cage and walk away. I do believe the orangutan is the most intelligent species [of great ape].

Laurel Neme: What are the main threats to orangutans? It seems there are three main ones: the pet trade; the logging industry destroying their habitat; and the palm oil industry.

Michelle Desilets: That’s right, and they're all inter-connected. Basically, Sumatra and Borneo are like “the new frontiers”. They are not highly populated because they are quite wild and uninhabitable for humans. But neighboring islands, such as Java, are overpopulated. The Indonesian government has transmigration projects that move communities into these areas and use them as the work force to exploit the natural resources that are found on these two islands. So, population growth, and the need for these countries to economically grow and have products they can sell, drives a lot. We can’t deny them that development opportunity. We can hope that it’s developed in the most sustainable way possible.

So, [governments are] moving people into these areas, and bringing in large multinational companies, often Chinese, Malaysian and others, into areas such as Kalimantan and other areas first of all to [extract] hard wood – that is, the timber used to make your patio furniture and door frames – which will be sold in the West at a premium. It’s a very strong, beautiful wood that comes out of the forest of Southeast Asia. At the same time, there’s a huge amount of illegal logging that goes on in both of these areas, in Sumatra and Borneo, and that’s costing the Indonesian government quite a lot of money in lost revenue.
This is an excerpt from Laurel Neme’s podcast.
Story Credit Here

Chimpanzees in Guinea have figured out how to deactivate poachers snares

Wow this is a great discovery! I wish there were someway for people to teach the other Ape Species how to do this. This actually could be the way to solve a lot of problems with Apes being killed. um. If the caretakers of the overseas sanctuaries could demonstrate what these snares do by using say food, the Apes would be so afraid of them that perhaps they would avoid them. They could also teach them perhaps to throw something in one to activate it. The ones that have learned this could then in turn teach the others,  just as they have taught their young, generation after generation the plants to eat if they are sick and the plants not to eat at all. It could become a red flag for them. Give that project to me, I could teach them and would love the challenge.

Story;
Chimpanzees in Bossou, Guinea, have figured out how to deactivate poachers snares, two researchers from the Primate Research Institute of Kyoto University discovered. In a paper out today from Primates (which, unfortunately, you have to buy to read), Gaku Ohashi and Tetsuro Matsuzawa say they documented five chimps, from young to adult, disabling the snares.

The trick may explain why the chimps of Guinea don’t suffer as many snare injuries and deaths as chimps in other parts of Africa, the reasearchers says. Snares are a huge problem to chimps in East, Central and West Africa, where studies have shown 20-80% of chimps have deformities caused by snares set by bushmeat poachers. Bushmeat is called the biggest threat to biodiversity, so it’s great to hear the chimps are undermining it.

The chimps aren’t always successful (they only disabled one-third of the traps they messed with), but they know to avoid the steel ring that can hurt them. And, even more impressive, they seem to pass the knowledge on from generation to generation; one adult showed a youngster. Now if they could make some educational videos for the East Africa chimps.
Story Credit Here

Chimpanzee Sanctaury Northwest video of New Years goodies

By watching this video you can see at the beginning how excited the Chimpanzees are to be getting their New Years goodies. Chimpanzees do love toys, it's enrichment for them same as it would be for a human child. I love these Chimps.
Great Video here

Chimpanzee Babies more advanced than Human babies

Human babies are, relative to the size of their mothers, about twice as big as chimpanzee babies. Our evolutionary growth spurt might have forced mothers to give up living in the trees, changing human social dynamics forever.
Human babies are very different from most animal infants. When we're born, we're completely helpless, and it's several years before a child can realistically take care of itself. Very few animals are born in such a useless condition, and almost all become independent in a much shorter period of time. Our larger size and helpless condition places unique strains on human caregivers, and it may have sent our species along an evolutionary course that explains where we are today.

Boston University researcher Jeremy DeSilva compared the masses of newborn brains and bodies from a range of extinct hominids, including a 4.4 million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus and the 3.2 million-year-old Australopithecus. These are very ancient descendants of modern humans, as they predate the emergence of the homo genus.

In the million years between Ardipithecus and Australopithecus, our evolutionary ancestors took a major step towards a more human-like appearance. Ardipithecus newborns were only about 2 or 3% the size of their mothers, similar to the relative size of chimpanzee newborns. Australopithecus babies, on the other hand, were 5 to 6% the size of their mothers, which is only slightly smaller than human infants are today.
Ardipithecus mothers were well-suited for taking their kids with them when they went climbing through the trees, as they had long hair all over their bodies that their small babies could cling onto. By the time of Australopithecus, mothers had lost this hair and the strong toes needed to climb properly, meaning they would have to either actively carry their infants or leave them on the ground - either way, an arboreal lifestyle suddenly seemed like a real challenge.
Indeed, now that their children wouldn't start walking until 6 or 7 months, as researchers have estimated would likely be the case, Australopithecus mothers needed to enlist others to help ease the burden of child-rearing, bringing in males and juveniles to help out. That's a huge change from more chimp-like primates, who are fiercely protective of their young.

This new arrangement probably didn't get fully woven into the social structure until the emergence of the Homo genus, but Australopithecus probably provided the foundations for this shift towards a more cooperative, group-oriented approach to child-rearing. That would have been a crucial first step towards the emergence of more complex social interactions, which could mean a bunch of big babies are responsible for all civilization. The implications of that are best left up to the individual reader.

[Proceedings of the National Academy of Science via Scientific American]
Story Credit here