Talk:Chimpanzee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Tree of Life
Biology Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Primates Chimpanzee is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Chimpanzee is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


Contents

[edit] Meaning of Pan

Does the god Pan have anything to do with the genus Pan?--Jondel 07:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hrm..... That's a very good question, and I don't know. I'm also on vacation and my literature is at home.... so I'll check when I'm back in about 2 wweeks. - UtherSRG 04:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think it comes from the meaning all, or all encompassing, e.g., panorama, pantheistic, pandemic, etc. Although I could be completely off base. Pan is a very common word in many languages. Dustin Asby 01:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


'Pan' indeed means 'all'; it is indeed a very common greek rootuages, as Dustin Asby pointed out.

lerdna

— The above post was made by User:Lerdna at 14:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article reorganizations

UtherSRG:

Begging your pardon, I don't understand the nature of your reorganization of Chimpanzee and Common Chimpanzee. The section on Basic Facts is clearly relevant only to common chimpanzees; if you look at the page on Bonobos, you will note that their dietary habits, habitat, and social structure are quite different from that which is described in this section. Similarly, the section on the Chimpanzee Genome Project deals only with Pan troglodytes; it is their genome which is being sequenced, so the section is far more relevant to common chimpanzees than the entire genus. The proper place of the article comparing and contrasting common chimps and bonobos is more debatable, but I think it makes sense to put it in the chimpanzee article, as it deals with both common chimps and bonobos, rather than the common chimp article, in which the part of it relevant to common chimps is elaborated upon anyway. Would you care to explain your reasoning for changing this?

Didactohedron 17:38, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yup I see that now. I think it's best to make clarifications wherever they may be needed. That seems to be on both the chimpanzee and Common Chimpanzee pages. I've made adjustments to the pages that hopefully reflect our common understandings. - UtherSRG 05:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. Still, I think that my last revisions are clearer than the current version. Quoting both versions of the first paragraph of Common Chimpanzee:
  • Current revision: The Common Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) is a great ape. It is often called the chimpanzee (or more colloquially chimp), a term which can also be used in a broader sense to refer to both the Common Chimpanzee and the closely-related Bonobo, or Pygmy Chimpanzee, which was not recognized as an independent species until quite recently.
  • My last revision: The word "chimpanzee" properly refers to both species of the genus Pan; in colloquial usage, however, "chimpanzee" (or "chimp") often refers to the Common Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, while "Bonobo" refers to the other member of the genus, Pan Paniscus, the "pygmy chimpanzee". In the interest of brevity, this article will use "chimpanzee" to refer only to the common chimpanzee.
My revision then sticks to this usage of "chimpanzee" consistently throughout the entire article, while the current revision is inconsistent. In my opinion, my version is more clear. What do you think? - Didactohedron 06:39, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life standard for species articles is to have the common name (in bold) of the species in the first sentence, followed by the binomial name (in parenthesis and italics). Your version breaks from that standard. In fact, all articles should have the article name (in bold) in the first sentence and preferably close to te start of the sentence. I believe my verion keeps to the standard and gives adequate clarification. (I'm sure, though, that my version could still be tweaked for word choice and smoothness.) Also, it's better in scientific articles to keep to the scientific or official common names, while in colloquial articles it is more acceptable to use the more colloquial names. Hence my edits of "chimpanzee" to "Common Chimpanzee". I will endeavor to add some smoothness to my version of the text. - UtherSRG 20:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining- I wasn't aware of the standard. Still, might it not be better to use "chimpanzee" to refer to the common common chimpanzee in the Common Chimpanzee article? There is, after all, something to be said for brevity. I edited the article to use "common chimpanzee" in every instance where it was applicable, and the text came out sounding rather awkward. I would think that it would be sufficient to explain that "common chimpanzee" is the correct usage and that the article only uses "chimpanzee" in the interest of brevity, but if you disagree I will leave it as it is. - Didactohedron 02:18, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for bearing with me. I know I can be a little overbearing, especially when I'm dealing with standardization matters that have been settled and re-settled, etc. Also, I've fixed the capitalizations... common species names, especially for mammals and birds, get capitalized to avoid phrases like "... there is sometimes the rare common chimpanzee..." or "... the common chimpanzee in Xxxia is the bonobo." Otherwise, thanks for continuing to contribute! *grins* - UtherSRG 04:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I suspected that there was some standard concerning capitalization, but I was thrown off by the fact that the capitalization in the last revision prior to my first was inconsistent (not to mentioned used the highly-scientific "chimp" in some places). I suppose that if the final effect of my contributions is to enforce consistency by making everything consistently different from what I intended, then that's better than nothing. Heh, with all these standards one might almost think that this is a real encyclopedia... :) -Didactohedron 05:39, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly feel that the information in this article should be moved back to Pan (biology), and that the information currently at Common Chimpanzee should be moved back to Chimpanzee. A look at Onelook shows that the preferred definition of "chimpanzee" is Pan troglodytes. Mackerm 16:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why do you thihnk Onelook is a reference that should override scientific literature as to what the formal common name of an organism is? I based my reorganization on published scientific information. - UtherSRG 19:41, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Because I'd expect scientific literature to focus on scientific terminology, i.e. Latin. Since Wikipedia uses English common names for many animals, we should find out what professional Linguists say. Looking up "chimpanzee" in Onelook gets 21 different dictionary hits. Looking up "common chimpanzee" gets zero. This indicates to me that "common" is being used here as an adjective, not a part of the animal's name. Cf. "Black Widow" or "Red-tailed Hawk". Mackerm 02:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Cf. Common Buzzard, Common Pochard, Common Eider, etc. Just a smattering of other names where "Common" is not simply an adjective. Your follow up to this would be that those names get hits. And on that you would be correct. However, names start someplace. The split of the name "Common Chimpanzee" is definitely a recent split, reflecting the acknowledgement that Bonobos and Common Chimpanzees and distinct species, while also recognizing that both species are chimpanzees. Unfortunately I can't make a more pressing case, as Groves doesn't mention anything about common naming, he only lists the common names.
The obvious problem is that since perhaps the mid-1700s, people have been writing about the characteristics of "chimpanzees" with one certain species in mind. If the primary definition of "chimpanzee" is made to refer to two species, it will cause confusion. Mackerm 01:38, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
People adjust. The Bonobo has only been identified since 1929. This was primarily in the scientific literature only. More recently it has moved into the more public arena of discourse. Certainly it takes time for everything to catch up. UtherSRG 02:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Many people don't take the effort to adjust. What is the harm in uniting this with Pan and having "chimp" and "chimpanzee" redirect to pan? Dustin Asby 01:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Should the page Chimpanzee describe the species Pan troglodytes or should it describe the genus Pan? Poll ends August 1.

Option 1: the page Chimpanzee describes the genus Pan.

  1. UtherSRG 02:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Didactohedron 02:59, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
  3. MNeutrality
  4. Tannin 07:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) Note: I'm very pushed for time these days and don't pretend to have read all the relevant discussion. Nevertheless, on the face of things, it would seem sensible to have one article about the genus, and two other articles about the species contained within in. That seems to be what we have at present. Is there any reason not to do it this way? A quick scan of the discussion above doesn't seem to offer one. (But I'm open to persuasion on this, and will change my vote if it seems appropriate.)

Option 2: the page Chimpanzee describes the species Pan troglodytes.

  1. Mackerm 02:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

GeneralStan (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC) In common usage, Chimpanzee nearly always refers to the species. Pan paniscus is called "Bonobo", and I don't see why the article about "Chimpanzee" should refer to a wider genus when the word refers to a single species.

[edit] Comments

I'd prefer to stick with the poll options as originally phrased. They have problems, but so does the rewrite. Pan (biology) admittedly isn't a very elegant title, but there are other possibilities. And while I dislike using the Chimpanzee page to describe the genus, I really disagree with the title Common Chimpanzee for the species. If this poll ends the way it's been going, my second choice would be to list Pan troglodytes under its scientific name. Comments, anyone? Mackerm 15:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If common usage is that Pan troglodytes is known as the Common Chimpanzee, then the first of these two poll options is what we should choose. I don't really see how this is poll material-- it's about determining what's common usage and reflecting that here. Personally, I would far prefer the second option, but it isn't my (or anyone else's here) decision. In any case, I do not actually know what the common usage is, and will refrain from voting. Yath 04:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it's not a timed Wikipedia agregate that should decide these things. I think a simple search on Google comparing hits will work fine. Dustin Asby 01:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clarification for Tannin, et al - There were 3 articles (1 genus, 2 species) before: "Pan (biology)", "Chimpanzee", and "Bonobo". I moved them around to be (in the same order): "Chimpanzee", "Common Chimpanzee", and "Bonobo". - UtherSRG 15:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why did you move Pan to Chimpanzee instead of Chimpanzee to Pan? Wouldn't it make sense for Wikipedia to have information on every Genus based off of the scientific name? Uniformity is key. Dustin Asby 01:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Welcome! Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life comes into play here. One of the standards the project sets out (in accordance with other Wikipolicy) is that, when possible, article names should be the common name for the grouping of creatures. So since Pan is the genus for both species of "chimpanzee", the article is at Chimpanzee. This is because one is more likely to search for "chimpanzee" than one is to search for "Pan", Greek mythology not withstanding. - UtherSRG 02:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Results

It would appear that we keep things as they are. - UtherSRG 13:06, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jared Diamond argues pretty convincingly for Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus. :-) Evertype 23:09, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
True. :) - UtherSRG 22:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
If he believes Homo = Pan, then logically he ought also to believe Homo = Australopithecus = Parathropus = Sahelanthropus = Ardipithecus = ... This seems like the suppression of a lot of detail. Gdr 21:51, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
Perhaps, or perhaps those need to be subgenera or species groups. *shrugs* All taxa rnkings are somewhat arbitrary to begin with. - UtherSRG 22:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Species

I reverted your assertion that at 97% similarity of DNA, two organisms are regarded as the same species. This is not true and appears nowhere in the species article. - UtherSRG 02:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] chimpanzee cultures

I am not an expert, but I have heard of a study published in Nature, which recognized about 40 different chimpanzee cultures (classified by various behavior, use of tools etc.) It should be mentioned, because it's exceptional among animals.

Find the source and metion it. - UtherSRG 15:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Some recent work on chimp culture [1],[2] JWSchmidt 16:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Be bold and edit the article! - UtherSRG 17:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
the Nature article: http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/ChimpCultures/Nature_Culture%20in%20Chimpanzees.pdf#search=%22culture%20in%20chimpanzees%20nature%20pdf%22

I belive it said same GENUS, not species...

[edit] taxonomic relationship

Removed from article (added by an anon):

"In addition, humans and chimps cannot form offspring, as would be expected if they really were in the same genus, like horses and donkeys, or lions and tigers."

This is a fallacious argument. If it were so that chimps and humans could interbreed, that would be a strong indication that they are in the same genus. However, there are plenty of species assigned properly to the same genus that can not interbreed. An equivalent is: "If it rains, then the grass is wet. The grass is wet, therefor it must have rained." This is fallacious. Someone may have turned on a sprinkler, causing the grass to be wet. - UtherSRG 20:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The native chimp of America

Chimpanzee, often abbreviated to chimp, is the common name for two species in the genus Pan. The best known chimpanzee is Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, living in West and Central Africa. Its cousin, the Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee (Pan paniscus), is found in the forests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The boundary between the two species is formed by the Congo River.

Another variant of chimp is found in the White House. Someone please include a photo of his american subspecie on this page!

Har har. - UtherSRG 12:16, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] length

does anyone else feel that this page is extraordinarily short, considering the importance of the species? i mean, isnt antarctic krill a featured article?--Gozar 15:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there could be more, even taking into account the pages for Bonobos and Common Chimpanzees. Part of the problem is that the natural habitat for chimps has historically made field studies difficult. Still, what has been learned during the past 20 years from such observations should be outlined here. Currently, human destruction of chimp habitat is probably the major concern for chimps in the wild. The history of zoo/laboratory study of chimps is also problematical, with many people now feeling that it is unethical to keep these animals in cages and use them for experiments. --JWSchmidt 19:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] chimp/common/bonobos

i have a ton of info. on chimpanzees but aside from the history of interaction, it's almost exclusively about Common chimpanzees. anyone have recommendations on how to break up the page so that it clearly links to the different species' articles, because the two are so different that in the end the main "chimpanzee" page will be by far the shortest of the three articles. should "chimpanzee" searches just go to a disambiguation page?--Gozar 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diet

I find part of the article confusing. The common chimpanzee article states, "Their diet is mainly vegetarian, consisting of fruits, leaves, nuts, seeds, tubers, and miscellaneous plantlife supplemented by insects and small prey; there are also instances of organized hunting. In some cases, such as the killing of leopard cubs, this seems to be primarily a protective effort...". However, the chimpanzee article states, "Common Chimpanzees have an omnivorous diet, a troop hunting culture based on beta males led by a relatively weak alpha, and highly complex social relationships." I guess this might technically not be contradictory, if an animal that eats mostly plants but occasionally animals can still be considered an omnivore. However, I still find it confusing for an animal to be called an omnivore in one place, then called mostly vegetarian somewhere else. Q0 22:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Chimpanzees have been known to hunt in carefully structured plans that vary depending on where they are. They are deffinatly not vegetarian. They have been known to kill all kinds of small animals in order to obtain meat, not because they need it but because they enjoy eating it.--Camblunt100 16:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Suppose: "I usually eat fruits and nuts (etc.), but once or twice a month I eat meat." Therefore: "I am mainly a vegetarian, but I'm omnivorous." The key is mainly. There's also a difference between "vegetarian" and "herbivorous". "Vegetarian" pertains to what is usually eaten, while "herbivorous" and "omnivorous" refer to what is eaten at all over the lifetime. Chimps (as well as humans) are omnivores. Some humans choose to live a vegetarian lifestyle - they choose a vegetarian diet; but they are not herbivores. Likewise, chimps are vegetarians due to a number of factors (including cost and availability of meat vs. vegetation), but their total overall diet is omnivorous. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no. In general, "vegetarian" is defined as one who lives a vegetarian lifestyle. It often connotes some ethical consideration around dietary choice. Consider that even those who say they are vegetarian for environmental reasons are making an ethical choice. Similarly, by extension, those who are vegetarian for religious reasons are also, in a broad sense, ethically motivated. Now, it is true that vegetarianism can, in a non-rigorous sense, be considered equivalent to herbivory but this "ethical" connotation becomes baggage that lingers about when we try to speak in rigorous terms. I'm a biologist by profession and, believe me, very few biologists would use the term "vegetarian" when describing a non-human animal.
On the other hand, herbivory is an entirely neutral term that indicates that an animal eats plants to the (near total) exclusion of all else. It's important to include the "near total" in that definition because herbivores often consume animal protein incidentally or, if they do deliberately eat meat, they may take it in amounts so small as to be essentially meaningless. Omnivores, on the other hand, are animals that feed more or less opportunistically. Their dentition and digestive sytem is intermediate between those of carnivores and those of herbivores. It is in evaluating the gut and dentition of a mammal that one classifies that animal into carnivore/omnivore/herbivore. Unfortunately, though, these things exist on a continuum and one should always state things, to the extent possible, in relative terms.
In summary, then, I think any comparative anatomist would place chimps and humans squarely in the category of omnivores. We have the gut and dentition of omnivores. Now, to address the question that was, essentially: "Isn't it contradictory to say that chimps are omnivores that eat mainly plants?" Well, simply, the answer is "no." Omnivores also occupy a wide spectrum. Humans are omnivores but if we look at traditional Inuit societies, the diet consists, in excess of 99%, of animal flesh. In spite of this, Inuit humans can not be called "carnivores" in any rigorous way. Similarly, chimps are omnivores who eat, in large measure, plant material (although they may eat a good amount of insects and other animal protein.) One must also remember that, in chimps, diet is both culturally and environmentally mediated. Some groups eat more meat than others, even when presented with the same opportunities. Some groups eat a not insubstantial amount of meat, especially if one (rightly) includes insects in the realm of animal flesh.
Simply put, from a biological perspective, vegetarianism is something that one does. Herbivory is something that one is. Chimps are omnivores that mainly eat plants. — Dave 01:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Your explanation doesn't contradict what I said. Chimps are vegetarian omivores - they eat mainly plants, but also sometimes feast on meat. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The use of the term "vegetarian" should not be applied in any way to any non-human animal. It strongly bears the connotation of being a reasoned lifestyle choice rather than a biological imperative. Rothic 23:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well said! — Dave 01:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chimpanzee

Someone has been mucking around with the lower part of the page, especially references.

Thanks to whomever fixed it.

It seems that the references are awfully trivial - all sorts of silly stuff about chimp attacks. Shouldn't that be changed?

[edit] Homo troglodytes

Chimps share 99.4% of our DNA, wich makes them human. I started changeing it, but desited I should leve it up to someone more quallyfied. So please do, we want wikipedia to be up to date.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744

The raw comparison of DNA does not define what is or isn't a species. There are several conflicting numbers, as your web link points out, as to the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA. Reclassifying Pan species into Homo would also mean that all extinct genera and species that are descended from the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps would also have to be reclassified as Homo species, including all of the australopithecines. Also, just because the DNA is the same does not mean that those genes are inherited from the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps. Nature often takes the simplest path; similar environmental conditions could have caused the same changes to chimp and human DNA over the 3-6 million years since their split.
Once someone publishes that humans and chimps are in the same genus, and not just that they should be, we will all work together to make those changes to our articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonobos are a separate species!

This artical is misleading! Bonobos are NOT a type of chimpanzee. Thee great apes are: Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Bonobos.

You are right, but you are also incorrect. There are two species of orangutans (Bornean Orangutan with 3 subspecies and Sumatran Orangutan), two species of gorillas (Western Gorilla with 2 subspecies and Eastern Gorilla with 2 subspecies), and two species of chimpanzees (Common Chimpanzee with 4 subspecies and Pygmy Chimpanzee, known better as the Bonobo). The Bonobo is a species of chimpanzee, but a differet species than the Common Chimpanzee. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed, I think the confusing structure of this article has limited its length and number of contributors

I agree that the mentioning of bonobos as chimpanzees is completely erroneous as they are certainly a different species that have had the misfortune of being categorized and classified before being properly studied and understood, and over time we will likely see a re-classification/correction away from such a horribly mis-leading moniker as "pygmy chimpanzee".

I don't think that bonobo's deserve any more than a passing reference, and that this article need focus specifically on the common chimpanzee since there has been a good deal of research in the last twenty years on chimpanzees that have not even been mentioned. I think this is due to potential contributors being confused to the near equal treatment given to bonobos in this article that should be strictly about chimpanzees.

Anyone want to do the honors to change the structure of this article to reflect as such and open the floodgates to a half respectable article on chimpanzees? I will happily contribute should the consensus agree and no one else feels up to doing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ydef (talk • contribs) .

Yes, the Bonobo is a distinct species of chimpanzee. There are two species of chimpanzee: the Bonobo (Pan paniscus) and the Common Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). They each, as with any species, deserve their own article, as does the genus Pan, which is this article. If you are looking for an article that deal specifically with the Common Chimpanzee, you are reading the wrong article. That's why there is a link to Common Chimpanzee in this article. If you are looking for an article about the Bonobo, you are reading the wrong article. That's why there is a link to Bonobo inthis article. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] etymology

May I point out a mistake in the etymology given in the chimpanzee article:

derived from an Angolan Bantu language term "Tshiluba kivili-chimpenze",

'Tshiluba' is the name of a language related to the one that the word comes from, not part of the word itself.

It's probably a misreading of the online etymology dictionary at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=c&p=11 which has:

1738, from a Bantu language of Angola (cf. Tshiluba kivili-chimpenze "ape"). - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.166.157.77 (talk • contribs) .

Nice catch, I'll make the edit. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheeta and Stuff

As noted on the Cheeta page, radio reports stated that he died in the spring of 2006, age 74.

Also note a recent National Geographic documentary vividly illustrating homocide among wild chimps.

I can find no evidence Cheeta died from a quick search. The fact that the [3] page doesn't mention it suggests to me that Cheeta is still alive. It would seem better advertising to raise the cost and mention that these are now limited as Cheeta is dead. This anonymous radio report was probably either wrong or misunderstood. You'll notice that some people on the cheeta talk misunderstood the article and thought cheeta was dead because it said he'd passed his 74th birthday? Well perhaps it was the same thing. Of course, some may come up with the conspiracy theory that Cheeta has in fact died and the paintings being sold now are made by humans so the death has been covered up but... Nil Einne 13:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It would make more sense to fake Cheetah's death and let him continue painting. Dead artists command more money for their paintings. Look at Bob Ross, his paintings sold for $10 a piece when he was alive, $10,000,000 a piece when he died. 24.254.163.104 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crossbreed with humans

It may seem a bit disgusting, but ive heard rumours that it is possible to cross humans with chimpanzees. About 1.7% of our genome differ, which is less that the differance between horses and zeebras. Does anyone have any idea about this? Could it perhaps be included in this article? --- My argument for why it is important is because of the religious and ethical aspect. If it IS possible, then some of the arguments will dissolve. if it is in deed NOT possible, then at least we have the answer to a rather common question. And besides, it is really really boggling my mind, this theory. Thanks!

You might want to read Humanzee Nil Einne 13:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alternative taxonomy

It's already mentioned in the taxonomy section. Any more prominent placement makes it sound official. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment. Until the genus is officially changed by broad consensus, I think the treatment in the taxonomy section is about right. The correct thing to do, at this stage, would be to add references to the alternative taxonomy in that section. — Dave 01:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chimps eating humans

from the current article:

"This is largely due to the fact that chimpanzees mistake human children for the Western Red Colobus: one of their favorite meals"

Whoever wrote this: how blind and/or stupid must you suppose chimps to be, that they would think that a human child is actually a colobus? Is it really so horrendous to comprehend that a succulent, well-fed young human would make a good meal for a chimp? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjwright79 (talk • contribs) .

First, please sign your talk edits with 4 tildes (~). Second, please do not engage in personal attacks. Have you read the reference article about the chimps being drunk when they attack humans? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added expert tag

I'm not sure about this quote:

These attacks are presumed to be due to chimpanzees being drunk and mistaking human children.

I don't believe this is true in all cases, and the way this is stated is misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.47.198.228 (talk • contribs) .

Modified the text. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panini / Panina

Panina redirects here and the Panini (disambiguation) page states that the Panina are "a zoological tribe containing chimpanzees and their relatives (usually considered obsolete)". But I noticed that there is nothing really explaining the exact links/similarities/differences between a Panini and a Chimpanzee within the article. -- hibou 19:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the image at Chimpanzee#Taxonomic_relationships to get a better idea, as well as the series of images it came from on ape. "Panina" and "Hominina" are the two subtribes of "Hominini". The only living species in this tribe are humans and chimpanzees. Under older classification, Panina was a tribe called Panini. Either way, the only extant species Panina or Panini contain are the two species of chimpanzees. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! It would be great if this information could be integrated into the article. -- hibou 13:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laughing and Mirror self recognition

In the article it says: Self-awareness of one's situation such as the monkey-mirror experiments below, or the ability to identify with another's predicament, are prerequisites for laughter, so animals may be laughing in the same way that we do.

Really ?
Rats emit super-sonic sounds (when tickled) linked to laughter ~ as far as I know, they don't pass the mirror experiments.

Linked to laughter how? Niubrad 10:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


On the contrary, elephants behave as if they recognise themselves in mirrors, however as of yet, I have not seen any experiments suggesting that they laugh.
Furthermore, the phrase "self-awereness of one's situation such as the monkey-mirror experimentes" sounds like the writer is essentially writing about 'the human condition'. The mirror experiments suggest nothing of the kind. All that we can conclude for certain is that they suggest that the animals have an awarenes of their own bodies (not situation, whatever that is meant to imply). Varga Mila 10:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] apes in the Bible

Here's two quotes from the Bible.

1. 1 Kings 10:22 (Whole Chapter)

For [1 Kin 9:26-28; 22:48; 2 Chr 20:36] the king had at sea the ships of Tarshish with the ships of Hiram; once every three years the ships of Tarshish came bringing gold and silver, ivory and apes and peacocks.

2. 2 Chronicles 9:21 (Whole Chapter)

[2 Chr 20:36, 37] For the king had ships which went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram; once every three years the ships of Tarshish came bringing gold and silver, ivory and apes and peacocks.

- UtherSRG (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I found another quote: For the king had ships which went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram; once every three years the ships of Tarshish came bringing gold and silver, ivory and apes and peacocks. Jeez we are racking them up. Niubrad 10:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've got it all wrong there. The first quote was regarding the ships of Hiram, the second was the servants of Huram. Now are we talking about Hiram who bagat Horam who bagat Zamaharazafanagaz or Huram who begat Zelab who begat Shelob who begat Novocaine who begat.....--MichaelGG 07:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] metric weight not correct??

"Measurements A full grown adult male chimpanzee can weigh from 1-2 kilograms (75-155 pounds) and stand 0.9-1.2 meters (3-4 feet) tall, while females usually weigh 26-50 kg (57-110 pounds) and stand 0.66-1 meters (2.0-3.5 feet) tall."

it seems to me that 1kg = approx 2.2 pounds, so this 1-2 kilograms (75-155 pounds) can't be correct. is the 75-150 pounds correct?? need to know before editing the metric. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.218.156.98 (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

It was vandalism. I corrected it. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relatively weak alpha male chimpanzee?

I don't know what exactly the editor meant when he wrote that alpha male chimpanzees are relatively weak. I assume what is being implied is that the alpha is not always the strongest male in the troupe, but is often the one who is most skilled at making strategic alliances with other males. However, this is not always the case, quite frequently an alpha actually can lead because he is the strongest and most intimidating.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basic life cycle info?

I found it odd that a 17 April 2006 Live Science article, "Chimps More Evolved Than Humans", failed to consider the differences (if any) between human and chimp reproductive cycles as part of the examination of its central thesis — the differing evolution rates of the species — even over the 6-million-year divergence. So I did as I always do and ran to Wikipedia as a starting point for gaining more information. I must say that I was surprised not to find any life-cycle information about chimpanzees in this article except for lifespan. In fact, this article seems to be much more about human/chimpanzee interactions and position in Hominoidea than it is a general article on an animal species, with all the basics (like maturation, reprodution and gestation, communal behavior, etc.). Although the former is obviously of intense interest, we should also have the latter. Can anyone dig up this information for the article? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonobo Nomenclature

I don't think that the name 'pygmy chimp' should be used interchangable for Bonobo, since the Bonobo is the same size as the smallest sub-species of the Common Chimpanzee. This nomenclature is misleading. Arges86 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's historical and is very common in primatolgy. Indeed, pygmy chimp was used before Bonobo, which I think was an accidental misreading of a cargo crate, but I don't have a source for that. --Cody.Pope 15:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannibalism

Might be a good idea to add a section on it.--Mr. Erik 05:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why this article?

I was going to complain that this article is full of evolutionary phylogenetic ramblings and very little information about actual chimpanzees: Are chimps primarily arboreal or terrestrial? Are they migratory or do they live in fixed locations? etc. But then I found the common chimpanzee page, and much of that information is on there. I think that these two pages should be merged, under the heading "Chimpanzee", since this is what most people will search on. --70.244.217.55 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why we have the two species in the intro paragraph. This article is for the entire genus, and both species are chimpanzees. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I added an "other uses" tag to the top, I hope this will avoid the confusion in the future. --Cody.Pope 10:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
And I've removed it. The distinction is made in the intro paragraph. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that it is somewhat redundant. If you read through the talk page, there are many questions that could be avoided if people did read that intro paragraph and understood it. However, they clearly are not. I won't re-added it, but I think it is useful. --Cody.Pope 13:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fifi

Fifi, the matriarch of the chimpanzees at Sydney's Taronga Zoo, died Thu July 19, 2007 after celebrating her 60th birthday in May [4], making her one of the oldest recorded chimpanzees (but still not outliving Cheeta). I've added her name to the List of apes article. — Loadmaster 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long Arms or Legs?

The chimpanzee article says that bonobos have longer upper limbs than common chimps, which i would assume means arms. The bonobo article says that bonobo have comparitavely longer legs. Which is right? the other should be corrected. NZNicholas 22:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Chimps have longer arms and short legs relative to bonobos. Thus, bonobos limp proportions are sometimes called "more human like", letting them more easily walk bipedially (longer legs comparatively). This however, varies a little tiny bit between populations. --Cody.Pope 09:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relative strength/ fitness to humans

Has anyone ever gotten chimps to do weight-lifting or running or anything? It'd be interesting to know how they compare to people. I heard they're like, 6 times stronger. Merlin1981 06:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Narrator on National Geographic the other day said adult male Chimpanzee's are at least three times stronger than the strongest human. Lepidlizard (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Gallery

Started a Picture Gallery on this page but it was removed. If my pic was unsuitable that's fine but a gallery on this page would be tremendous. Lepidlizard (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Galleries are better suited for Commons, not for the encyclopedia articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've uploaded it there. My first encounter with Wikipedia Commons - what a marvellous thing! Lepidlizard (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contact with Europeans

"The first recorded contact of Europeans with chimps took place in present-day Angola during the 1600s. 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." Either it's 1600s or it's recorded by a Portuguese explorere in the early 1500s... not both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.71.224 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] chimps and humans

I find it fairly weird that this article appears to bury the fact that chimp species are the most closely related to humans. It may have been a matter of wording or something else, but UtherSRG removed this without comment from the intro. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] external links

I think there are far too many EL's in this article particularly since they point to items, such as linking to spear use or facial expressions. If these things are important, it seems like they should be incorporated into the article and the EL's left for background info or more depth info, not just for every new bit of info that pops up about chimps.Bob98133 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been meaning to incorporate most of those links into the main article for a while ago and haven't gotten around to it. I suggest we keep them around until someone (could be you) incorporates those details into the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)