Talk:Pan (genus)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.189.1 (talk)

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)

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.

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)

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)

It seems obvious to me the only reason we do make distinctions taxonomically over minor details is because of our own narcissism as a species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.183.203 (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

etymology

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

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

'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)

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 [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Good Grief! How would the chimps get drunk? Anyways, Today(2-17-09) On the news, a woman in conneticut was attacked by her friend's,(over 200 pound)chimpanzee. He was huge! HE ripped her apart and ate her face off. shouldn't chimp attacks be in the chimp article? BEcause i didn't see anywhere about chimps attacking humans 173.51.203.228 (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It won't be in the article because it is just a current news story, which will be forgotten in a week. Wikipedia isn't the news, it's an encyclopedia. Beach drifter (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the example of an individual adult male chimp being 200 pounds, would someone please verify the section which states that adult male chimps can grow "up to" 150 pounds? Was this just an aberrant individual, or is the article currently incorrect as to weight range?

Ummmmmm.... Listen. People have been attacked by chimps many times. And i'm pretty sure the lady who saw her friend get torn apart won't forget it!!! 173.51.203.228 (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That was the woman's fault not the chimpanzee. Since it was human error for keeping an non-human primate why would you blame the chimpanzee? -C6541 (T↔C) at 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chimp weight range/200# chimp - it appears that the chimp involved in this attack was kept as a pet and was overfed and under-excercized. I would suspect that the 150# figure is accurate for free-living chimpanzees under normal conditions. Bob98133 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

From my lay observations, chimpanzees are unique amongst non-human species for being the most treacherous, beguiling and brutal of animals. Humans would wish to keep chimps presumably because their human-like appearance and limited intelligence would make for helpless, innocent baby-like pets. Isn't it time students of apes - both amateurs and scientists - just spelt out clearly what these animals are like. Science is objective; it shouldn't be afraid of offending irrational animal love groups. [Mohammed Azeem; London, 5th August 2009]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.245.29 (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cannibalism

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

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)

I made the two species into a bullet-list. That should make it very clear that this is genus-level article.--Spellage (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fifi

Fifi, the matriarch of the chimpanzees at Sydney's Taronga Zoo, died Thu July 19, 2007 after celebrating her 60th birthday in May [2], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Picking lice (?)

Couldn't find anything about the famous lice-picking routine. Is it lice, by the way? I've seen claims it isn't (only?) lice but dead skin. Or whatever one can find. Edible or not? (Unsure about that too.) Hexmaster (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Improved terminology

{{editsemiprotected}} it would be better to refer to Darwin's contribution under the section on the "History of human interaction" as "his theory of evolution by natural selection", although simply "On the Origin of Species" would fit here and suggest the same. Also, under the same heading, an example can be inserted for "the intelligence of chimpanzees was often significantly exaggerated" by appending "as immortalized in Hugo Rheinhold's Affe mit Schädel, where an apparently learned chimpanzee contemplates a human skull" 3Dwiki (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Done Partially done, anyway. I don't really see much reason for the first change. The second one seems reasonable.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Aervanath: Hi Aervanath, thanks for your edits. I propose "On the Origin of Species" in place of "theory of evolution" because there is already too much misunderstanding about Darwin's contributions. Wikipedia strives for accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Dwiki (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Possibility of Protection?

In the past month:
~25 vandalisms by 20 unregistered users
3 useful edits by 2 unregistered users
Vandalism to non vandalism ratio at least 1:2

Anyone disagree that the page qualifies for semi-protection? Hadrian89 (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately 25 instances of vandalism in one month isn't really that high of a number. Beach drifter (talk)

I reiterate that the ratio of vandalistic (if that's a word) edits to GF edits is very high, which is one of the criteria on the Wikipedia policy page - then again i don't have a great deal of experience with protection issues. If anyone can second your opinion I'll happily and humbly drop the idea. Hadrian89 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your close mindedness is disturbing. You automatically assume any edit without a bulletproof source is vandalism regardless of whether it is correct or not. A count based on this assumption is useless.

Er, no, I automatically assume that people using the rollback facility or otherwise labelling their use of the undo function as due to prior vandalism are doing so in GF. That's not closemindedness, that's trust (even if in the odd case they were wrong to label it as vandalism) Plus I looked at the diffs for a lot of the edits and they were patently vandalism. Hadrian89 (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to wikipedia. But, as I was reading this article (and others about monkeys), someone deleted the article completely and wrote "tanya looks like one". This is very rude. I tried by best to undo the damage (I am 85....). I think this article should be protected so immature acts like this would be prevented. If someone wants to contribute, then they should get a log in. I am going to get one just as soon as I can take a class on how to edit wikipedia effectively. 13.05.2009 16:44 German Time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.124.175 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've protected the page against unregistered edits for one day. You're welcome to contribute, of course. The class you may be looking for is at WP:Tutorial.  Sandstein  14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Chimps vs humans

This article perpetuates the idea that a chimpanzee would have a significant advantage against a human in the case of interspecies violence. This is highly debatable and impossible to normalize, since there is such a broad range of human strength and skill. Regardless of the chimpanzees strength advantage as well as its denser skull, the fact is chimpanzees are still susceptible to brain injury if their head is accelerated quickly enough. The mechanismsof brain injury are not fully understood. Some concussions may be due to damage to the axons at a molecular level from the rapid movement(diffuse axonal injury). A rotational acceleration of 1x10^5-2x10^5 rad/s through 60 degrees of motion would knock any chimp unconscious and caues some chimps to be permanently brain damaged. I'd certainly rather take my chances kicking a chimp in the face rather than have him rip my testicles nose and foot off without a fight. As far as the chimps ability to rip or mutilate, humans could also eye gouge, rip testicles and penises etc. And for those who say chimps are strong enough to rip a humans skin off, well humans are too;refer to the case of 10 yr old Chao Qun Zheng who had his cheek ripped off by his teacher.. Bottomline: isolated incidents involving chimps or groups of chimps mauling a human are CERTAINLY not enough for such a broad statement as "As a result virtually any angered chimpanzee can easily overpower and potentially kill even a fully grown man". at the very least tone it down to something like in some cases a chimp may be able to overpower and kill a fully grown man, not VIRTUALLY ANY, and EASILY overpowering... thats complete crap

Firstly, if you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), it makes you seem less like a random vandal. I fixed your references btw so the above post made a bit more sense. Secondly, further to your odd assertion in the above talk section that I fail to assume GF, I never reverted any of your edits, my only message to your talk page was friendly and your track record of seeming vandalism does not put you in good stead to moralise. Hadrian89 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

They should make an article about that chimp Travis that tore that woman's face off.66.195.36.133 (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Chimpanzee, sometimes colloquially known as a chimp, is the common name for the two extant species of ape in the genus Pan where the Congo River forms the boundary between the native habitat of the two species:[2]

Common Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes: the better known chimpanzee lives primarily in West and Central Africa. Bonobo, Pan paniscus: also known as the "Pygmy Chimpanzee", this species is found in the forests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Chimpanzees are members of the Hominidae family, along with gorillas, humans, and orangutans. Chimpanzee are thought to have split from human evolution about 6 million years ago and thus 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. Around 94% of human and chimpanzee DNA sequences are the same.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.31.240 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Chimpanzees

Chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, sharing more than 98 percent of our genetic blueprint. Humans and chimps are also thought to share a common ancestor who lived some four to eight million years ago.

Chimpanzees live in social communities of several dozen animals, and can habituate themselves to African rain forests, woodlands, and grasslands.

Although they normally walk on all fours (knuckle-walking), chimpanzees can stand and walk upright. By swinging from branch to branch they can also move quite efficiently in the trees, where they do most of their eating. Chimpanzees usually sleep in the trees as well, employing nests of leaves.

Chimps are generally fruit and plant eaters, but they also consume insects, eggs, and meat, including carrion. They have a tremendously varied diet that includes hundreds of known foods.

Line 403: 
Common Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes: the better known chimpanzee lives primarily in West and Central Africa.   Common Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes: the better known chimpanzee lives primarily in West and Central Africa.  
Bonobo, Pan paniscus: also known as the "Pygmy Chimpanzee", this species is found in the forests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.   Bonobo, Pan paniscus: also known as the "Pygmy Chimpanzee", this species is found in the forests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  

- Chimpanzees are members of the Hominidae family, along with gorillas, humans, and orangutans. Chimpanzee are thought to have split from human evolution about 6 million years ago and thus 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. Around 94% of human and chimpanzee DNA sequences are the same.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.31.240 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC) + Chimpanzees are members of the Hominidae family, along with gorillas, humans, and orangutans. Chimpanzee are thought to have split from human evolution about 6 million years ago and thus 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. Around 94% of human and chimpanzee DNA sequences are the same.[3]

Bili ape?

The article on Ape mentions the "newly discovered Bili ape as a possible third species of chimpanzee. The article on the Bili ape itself says "it may be a fifth sub-species" (I think of common chimpanzee). It appears to be strikingly different behaviorally from other common chimps, however. I am no expert in this area and do not know the rights and wrongs of any of this, but should there not at least be a mention of the Bili ape in this article (and a link). The article on Common Chimpanzee does not mention the Bili ape either. Treharne (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Massimo.silvetti (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC) At the best of my knowledge there is only one experimental test about chimpanzee strength, it was conduced in 1924 at Bronx zoo. It seems that the experiment was reported in the Guinness book of records (1975) (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=15888). In my opinion this latter cannot be considered a reliable scientific source, therefore, until a reliable scientific source (for instance a publication on a peer-reviewed journal, or a zoology handbook) is not available, I would suggest to avoid any statement about chimpanzee strength.

The reporting of the 1924 experiment on chimp strength may be in doubt, but it is obvious that chimps are far stronger than humans. According to Jane Goodall institute "By age five they are stronger than most human adults." [3] I have no problem with indicating that they are substantially stronger than humans but that, due to individual differences, it is hard to put a number on it. Avoiding any statement about this seems to be overlooking something quite obvious. Bob98133 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Trotatremula (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC) The fact that a mammal of 50 Kg could be n-times stronger than a mammal of 75 Kg is possible, but, in my opinion, not so obvious. Anyway, I would suggest to substitute references 31 and 32 with that of the Jane Goodall institute, which has much more scientific authority.

WHY are chimps so much stronger than humans? The answer to this question ought to be put in the main article. The only question is, where? 74.223.82.114 (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anthropithecus troglodytes

The word "anthropithecus" redirects to the chimpanzee page. Why is this? I've googled the word "anthropithecus" several times, but I can only find that the term is apparently synonomous with "chimpanzee". Is "anthropithecus" an older term that fell out of use, or was perhaps replaced by "pan"? Can someone elaborate or give some history here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.64.39.28 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, but I've seen it as anthropopithecus. —Umofomia (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

chimpanzee cultures

According to the PBS documentary NOVA -- The Last Great Ape (TV), Bonobo culture is dominated by the females, who form sophisticated alliances, whilst preventing the males from forming the same amongst themselves. Indeed, "matriarchal" literally means "Mother" (mater) "RULED" (archos). So, it is not only INNACURATE (according to said cited source), but a linguistic & logical ABSURDITY, to claim that a female DOMINATED matriarchy is "egalitarian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.48.24 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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 [4],[5] 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...

I suggest erasing the reference to Bonobos being non-violent: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2253/bonobos-have-violent-streak-too-study-says —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleygardner (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Pygmy chimp was a misnomer since they thought bonobos were simply malformed or baby chimps... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The distinction ought to be more clear at the top. This article is clearly about the common chimp, not the bonobo, which has its own article. Tmangray (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

diet?

I really think this article needs a section on diet. All it has on the issue at the moment are contains in other sections, including a comparison between the two types of chimpanzees.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection

If you look at the revision history, you can see that almost every fifth edit is vandalism, and it is all done by IPs. Can this page be semi-protected? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. In general, WP:RFPP is the place to request page-protection...admins don't watchlist every article's talk-page. DMacks (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had never heard of WP:RFPP. But I'll remember that. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How many chromosomes does a chimpanzee have?

I think an answer to this question should be added somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.159.189 (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Language Studies

The language section is heavily focused on the common chimpanzee. Given the large body of work coming out of language and lexigram studies with bonobos (in particular the work with Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and the Great Ape Trust), could someone with expertise in this area add a paragraph or two on modern bonobo language research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus77 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone explain why chimps seem more aggressive than gorillas?

That is my understanding, that the chimps are meaner animals.

If you have some references to prove this, it might be interesting, but I doubt that "mean" can even be defined for non-human great apes. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the topic. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

well your reply is appreciated but the article does have "aggression" as a category. the implication is that chimps are more aggressive than other animals but there is no explanation for why that might be. for example, are chimps more aggressive than goldfish? will every animal have a description of its aggressiveness?

Chimps have higher levels of testosterone than humans and way more than gorillas. Aggressiveness is correlated to promiscuity/dong size which are the results of testosterone levels. Ever seen chimp nuts? Softballs. -Lurkmolsner (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chimpanzee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 22:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 22:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

First comment, after initial run-through for spelling etc: you need to decide whether the article is in English or American spelling. At present we have BrE "behaviour", "centre", "fibres", "localised", "neighbouring", "oestrus", "recognisable", "recognised", "specialised", "vocalising" alongside AmE "analyzing", "favorite", "gray", "maneuvering", "neighbors". Either is fine, of course, but it should be one or the other throughout. More tomorrow. – Tim riley talk 23:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed to UK English. LittleJerry (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Detailed comments

An impressive article. A few points on the prose and sourcing:

• "The English name 'chimpanzee' is first recorded in 1738" – this statement could do with a citation. (The OED confirms the date).
• "members of the Pan clade" – we haven't had the word "clade" before: a link or explanation would be helpful to the non-expert.
• "which likely evolved independently" – if the text is to be in BrE I'd replace "likely" with "probably": this is from The Guardian's style guide, which I find helpful: "In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as "they will likely win the game" sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well."
• "Among males is generally a dominance hierarchy" – I had to go back and read this again to get the meaning: a "there" before "is" would make it more immediately clear.
• "This is likely due to the chimp's fission-fusion society" – as for the earlier "likely"
• "During aggressive encounters, displays are preferred over attacks." – can one prefer over rather than prefer to?
• "However, other forms of mating exist" – This is the fourth "however" (of five) and one does begin to notice the repetition. More often than not one can lose the word, improving the flow of the prose without damaging the sense. I don't press the point, but you may like to consider.
• "When submitting to a conspecific" – another term the non-expert reader may need help with
• "the numbers 1 through 9" – 1 to 9 in BrE
• "Despite the lack of complexity, forethought and skill are seen in making these tools and should be considered such." – not sure quite what this means: what should be considered what?
• "Animal rights groups have urged a stop to such acts, considering it abusive." – plural noun with singular pronoun.
• "In 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classified all chimpanzees, both wild and captive, as endangered" – unclear why the national body of only one country is mentioned
• "While deforestation rates are low in western Central Africa, selective logging may take place" – I'd be careful with using "while" to mean "although": at first reading this seems to mean that logging may take place only while the rates are low, which isn't what you mean.

Fixed all the above. Chiswick Chap, can you deal with the references? LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The changes made address my comments completely and satisfactorily. Just the references to go and we can proceed to promotion to GA. Tim riley talk 22:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• References

• Citations 37 and 49 seem to be two separate, and slightly differently worded, references to the same source document: one would expect an "a" "b" type listing, as for ref 120.
• Citation 38 (to Goodall, pg. 232) isn't set out as all other references to Goodall are.
• Citations 39 and 45 point to the same source, like 37 and 49, mentioned above.
• St.Fleur – has a space after the full stop in the cited source
• Citation 91 – this unsubstantiated assertion is a pretty woolly reference, especially for a whole paragraph. Can nothing more verifiable be found?

All fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Those are all my quibbles. Tim riley talk 08:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

GA checklist

1. A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A top-notch article. A pleasure to read and to review. Clearly meets all the GA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 18:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks from the nominators, Tim! Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Chimp Intelligence vs Human Intelligence: Superior up to certain age

I believe it is well known that up to the age of 2 or so, a chimp is actually more intelligent than a human of the same age. This is perhaps not too surprising since once could argue that even a cat at say 6 months old is more intelligent than a human at that age.

In any event, I think this detail esp. at what age the superiority wanes is significant and should be in the article.--Jrm2007 (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Why not compare chimp intelligence to dogs, or cats, or living room furniture? It is not particularly relevant how chimpanzees compare in intelligence to humans. IQ testing of children under 2 or chimpanzees is highly suspect anyhow. Assuming chimps are smarter than kids of similar age, there should be a way to present their intelligence without the comparison. I guess the same thing is done in this article with chimp strength, however that is an easier thing to measure and compare. Nonetheless, it is still suspect, since we don't know if the chimps are being compared to the strongest or weakest humans. Note: I don't disagree that what you say is correct and could be referenced. Bob98133 (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If you believe it to be well known I suppose you can give some references. 124.149.37.56 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How many are there today?

Is there any good estimate on the total number of chimpanzees alive today? If so, please add it. -- 217.190.218.229 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology?

What is the etymology of the name 'chimpanzee'? 86.142.104.222 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

According to wiktionary 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. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Social Structure

This section really surprised me about how advanced chimp social structures are. I am not sure if I can believe everything written here though as it sounds like personification and there are no citation reference throughout. 99.73.188.133 (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pan Paniscus split from Pan Troglodytes

"The two Pan species split only about one million years ago." But Time Tree says that the two species split about 3.1 million years ago. http://www.timetree.org/time_query.php?taxon_a=9598%7CPan%20troglodytes&taxon_b=9597%7CPan%20paniscus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.75.166 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bili Ape

{{expand}} This article needs to point out the Bili Ape somewhere. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected

Please add Bili Ape to the see also section, as:

• Bili Ape, giant chimpanzee of the Bili Forest

65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The See also section is not the place a list all the chimpanzees. There is a link to List of apes that does list different chimpanzees. I would recommend that you add Bili Ape there. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not an individual ape, it is a subspecies. List of apes is a list of individual apes, so is the wrong place to list it. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Sorry about that I mis-read, probably due to it being quick, what the Bili Ape was. Now added in. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with the requestor that List of apes is completely inappropriate; however, Bili Ape is believed to be a type or close relative of the Eastern chimpanzee, which are a subspecies of Common chimpanzee. This article is not about the species Pan troglodytes, it is about the genus Pan, commonly known simply as Chimpanzees but actually including another species (Bonobos); thus discussing a subspecies or lower taxonomic group here would be inappropriate. The Bili Ape should be mentioned on both the Common chimpanzee and Eastern chimpanzee articles (especially since it's precise relationship to the Eastern chimpanzee isn't clear), either of which you can edit yourself.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but my comment was a minute too late, I have reverted Jnorton7558's change. See my comment above.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ancestory

I was wondering if anyone has found paninans that are not living today in fossils. If so, may I please have some information? Taylor Reints (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if this is what you were looking for. AshLin (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Taylor Reints (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Alicewins, 9 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Could you please add the details of the range of the size and weights of the male and female chimps . From this source :http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/apes/chimp/ I have found that the range in height for the male chimp is 3-4 feet or 0.9.metres -1.2 metres and male weight range is 90-115 pounds or 35-70 kgs and the female height range is 2 feet to 3.5 feet with the weight range of 57-110 pounds or 26-50 kgs .

The wiki entry says that '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. ' however I have found plenty of websites which say the male and female height cross over is much greater than the wiki entry implies.

Here are a couple :http://chimpanzeesite.webs.com/aboutchimps.htm http://www.oregonzoo.org/Cards/Primates/chimpanzee.htm. You will that the oregon zoo site actually says the females can be taller than the males. Alicewins (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: The only source that you have provided that I would consider particularly reliable is the one from the Oregon Zoo. However, the numbers reported there do not correspond to what you have listed here for the change. Perhaps someone else may have an opinion on these sources. Topher385 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Not a clear, objective claim with source - discuss here  Chzz  ►  05:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Article name is 'Pan'

Well, I find it strange to find the article about the genus 'Pan' called 'Chimpanzee'; the latter term is the name of a species, and has been for a long time. Since the genus has been defined, we need another proper term for it: 'Pan' is perfect for this and is commonly used in scientific articles about about chimps and/or bonobos.
Sure, many people use 'chimpanzee' to denote the genus, but this introduces confusion & errors, such as that chimpanzee alone, not bonobo, is human's closest relative. Taking part to diffusion of such scientific errors as we do it here is in my opinion bad; even more as it is now widely acknowledged that studying bonobos is especially important for humans (chimps are still far better known). Especially sionce our favorite encyclopedia is so popular. What do you think?

One may object that 'Pan' is no common word, as opposed to 'Chimpanzee'. Sure, and precisely:

1. The common sens of 'chimpanzee' is the species.
2. Speaking about the genus is no everyday thing.
3. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: it must be correct (about naming too).
4. Articles about numerous taxa are given their latin name.
   

Since there is ambiguity, we may create a disambiguation page for 'Chimpanzee' pointing both to the species and the species. --denis "spir" (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 November 2011

Chimp brains are less than one-third human size, not half. Chimp brains average 390cc, while a human brain averages 1400cc. My math says one-third to one-quarter is closer to the mark than one-half.

128.164.121.64 (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems about right. I'll go ahead and make the change. Sebastian Garth (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

80 year old chimp? --Not likely

The recent addition to the article that Cheetah the chimp from the Tarzan films lived to be 80 seems to be entirely bogus--there's no documentation (it conviently "burned up" in a fire) and the reference is just Hollywood gossip. It's like saying humans live to be 140. 63.192.100.101 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Where Section on Distribution?

Where is the section discussing distribution?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory information in the article

The article says:

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.

It also says:

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.

Could someone please fix it?

LuxNevada (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Edits

The first section "Evolutionary relationship" should be edited, it appears someone removed a sentence, but didn't modify the next one to compensate:

The 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 about four to six million years ago.

Which two species? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.63.100 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The two species of chimpanzees: the common chimpanzee and the bonobo. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "More research yet has been done suggesting 86% or less." should be removed from the first section on "Evolutionary relationship". A careful reading of the cited paper shows that the researchers were referring to the sequence similarity in one specific gene region, not the entire genome as the sentence suggests.

Done Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" mentioned, but not Planet of the Apes. PotA protrayed Apes as individuals. It was the first in the series that included Conquest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.96.190 (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In the Agression paragraph, please add to "a woman in Stamford, Connecticut after being given Xanax by his owner, a drug which can cause aggression and violent behavior." Omitting that the animal was under the influence of a drug which can cause violent behavior makes it appear that chimpanzees are more violent and dangerous than they are naturally. There are numerous citations, among others, a New York Times article described her giving him Xanax in tea, and a google search will bring up the research on Xanax and other benzodiazepines causing aggression and violent behavior. Also modify to "the U.S. House of Representatives approved a primate pet ban in the United States which was rejected by the Senate.[49]"Thoralor (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The alternative could be to delete the Travis reference entirely as an act of violence committed while under the influence of Xanax is not indicative of chimpanzee behavior, and the reference to the bill before congress is irrelevant because the bill was rejected.93.167.247.22 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Numbers Left

What happened to the mention of how many were left, or any (that I found) mention of their current endangered status? Claycrete (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 June 2012

In the first paragraph of the "Altruism and other "human like" behaviors" section, where it talks about adult chimps adopting young that are not their own or from a different group, or in the "In popular culture" section you could say "As shown in the Disney Nature movie Chimpanzee.", so if people want to know more about the topic, they could think about watching the movie.(The main focus in "Chimpanzee" is a baby chimp named Oscar that was abandoned in the forest when his mother was killed by rival chimps, then adopted by the leader of his group), And for the source you could use the Wiki page on the movie, here's the link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_%28film%29. Thanks for your time!

99.62.232.53 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done First Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a reliable source, so should never be cited in references. Second, articles should not mention or promote commercial ventures outside of their scope. Articles on actors discuss their movies; List of films about animals should mention Chimpanzee (film), and I am adding it there. Dru of Id (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-classification needed

Current consensus on the classification of the genus Pan suggests that it no longer belongs under the tribe Hominini (see Talk:Hominidae). Rather, the chimps are classified under their own tribe Panini, while the subtribes Australopithecina (Australopithecines) and Hominina (humans) are left under the tribe Hominini. Revision of the taxonomy in this article is needed. -Ano-User (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Closest relative?

I certainly hate to be a pain in the ass (oh, who am I kidding, I love it) but aren't humans' closest living evolutionary relatives...other humans? Applejuicefool (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Bonobos are, followed by common chimps, then gorillas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.138.162 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Diet - *Suggestion for improvement*

Many pages about an animal will list it's diet. This one does not, other than to say that there are social impacts to who gets to eat first and whatnot. I was interested in this topic, and this article did not satiate my hunger for knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.16 (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes i agree. What Chimpanzees eat in their natural state is of utmost importance to the human diet, what humans eat now is quite devastating to their health. Jane Goodall got sorry for her chimps and decided to feed them bananas which has no vitamin C in them necessary for the immune system. She then got upset when they started dying of polio. To this day poor Jane probably does not realize the havoc was of her own cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.254.225 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Anthropomorphizing

James W. Harrod's study of spirituality in chimps is difficult to prove. How can we know he's not anthropomorphizing? It's easy to see what you want to see, after all. I'm not saying chimps AREN'T spiritual, but how can we know Harrod's method of determining this is completely foolproof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.252.56 (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

forests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Does that mean Congolian forests? Or a more specific ecoregion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.146.205 (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Tool Use

Looks like somebody is pranking the page, so I've removed this line: "Chimpanzee kill tortoises by thrusting a stick into their rectum but do not eat them.[32]" If you read the article cited (Carpaneto, Giuseppe M, Germi and Francesco P | title = THE MAMMALS IN THE ZOOLOGICAL CULTURE OF THE MBUTI PYGMIES IN NORTH-EASTERN ZAIRE | url = http://www.italian-journal-of-mammalogy.it/article/download/3888/3824 | publisher = Hystrix – Italian Journal of Mammalogy, Vol 1, No 1 (1989) p.21) you will see that it is just a compilation of colorful stories told by the pygmy tribesmen. Other gems include: "They kill the leopards by beating them with a stick and thrashing their paws with wood or stones. When ever they meet a man, they run away, though sometimes they follow him, take him by the feet and beat him to death. Sometimes Budu people keep a baby chimp in the village, which learns to behave in a human manner. Meeting a man they run away, but they can kill people by biting and fighting with their hands and sticks. They never attack man but, given chase, become aggressive fighting like men with hands and sticks. They are afraid of reddish dogs and run away, if however the dog is black, they wait for it and kill it by pulling off its legs and tail."

Use of Sticks as Spears

This is written here as if it were fact: "A recent study revealed the use of such advanced tools as spears, which common chimpanzees in Senegal sharpen with their teeth and use to spear Senegal bushbabies out of small holes in trees.[32][33]"

Anyone who has seen the video evidence accompanying this paper knows that it only shows the chimp holding a stick in one scene, then eating a bushbaby in another. We have to take the author's word that the chimp used the stick as a spear. I have changed it to

"There have been occasional unsubstantiated or controversial reports of Chimpanzees using rocks or sticks as weapons.[32 See van Lawick-Goodall, Jane. below.] A recent study claimed to reveal the use of spears, which common chimpanzees in Senegal sharpen with their teeth and use to stab and pry Senegal bushbabies out of small holes in trees.[33][34]"

A more objective review of evidence reported for spear or weapon use was given in van Lawick-Goodall, Jane. 1970. "Tool-using in Primates and other Vertebrates." Advances in the Study of Behavior, vol. 3, edited by David S. Lehrman, Robert A. Hinde, and Evelyn Shaw. New York: Academic Press.

Genepoz (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

unmatched parens

I tried to fix the minor typo in the unmatched parens around "David Premack" in the "Studies of Language" section, but alas semi-protected page. I tend to edit anonymously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.69.108 (talk • contribs)

Fixed! Thanks for catching this. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Reference in infobox

Hi. What is the meaning/ purpose of the reference [1] in the infobox? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

References

I'm still learning WP formatting, but shouldn't the "Notes" section of this article be "References" and vice versa? Biolprof (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Diet?

Hello. All I see about their food intake is "omnivorous diet". It does mention how they get food, e.g. "troop hunting culture blah blah blah", but it doesn't have any information about what they actually eat. Well there is a thing about bugs but it's not the point (the point there is the tool usage, not the food).

An example of what I mean is the Lion page. It gives all kinds of examples of stuff eaten by lions. There are like 15 examples spanning around SIX paragraphs for lions, whereas chimps only get two words: "omnivorous diet".

I don't know, I just thought there would be a "diet" section that says all the kinds of things they eat. I thought it would have a lot of information about chimpanzees since I keep hearing how they are our closest relative or whatnot (maybe it's closest living, but you know what I mean). I just thought I'd see more info.

Anyone updating this diet info. would be greatly appreciated.

Bryan (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Pan vs Homo

Morphological, DNA, and fossil evidence suggest that humans and chimpanzees diverged 6-7 million years ago. Suggestions that the genus homo and pan should be merged seem to be mostly coming from social activists (Jared Diamond is an historian/anthropologist) rather than hard science...the kind that comes from things like actual research and testing. Clearly, if even autralopithecus is considered a separate genus and only diverged 2 million years ago, chimps really aren't all that close to humans. Rather, it seems that an emotional longing to find a closely-related species is behind this unscientific proposal.96.25.189.9 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

All proposals related to subjective taxonomy, e.g. where a genus should begin or end, are unscientific. Unless or until Homo and Pan are defined as clades under a PhyloCode, i.e. a testable concept, what does or does not belong to the "genus" (whatever that means) Homo is totally a matter of opinion. One could sink all vertebrates into Homo and there would be no rational reason to argue against it, because the term "genus" lacks a definition other than "a ranked taxon above Species and below Family". Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014

please change "and are built in trees with a minimum diameter of 5 metres (16 ft)" to something else... There aren't that many trees that big, I think it is an error. 75.103.229.178 (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Trunks are rarely that wide, but branches can result in the whole tree being that large. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Should bonobo be included?

I'm not an expert - but to say that chimpanzees are two species .... common chimpanzee and that other funny one that nobody's heard of, confuses the reader and demeans the status of bonobos. It's not the same as saying that there are two types of Orang Utan - they are the same species. This is like saying - there are two species of dog ... the wolf and the domestic dog (that's how it appears to be conveyed - I know that's not correct). Bonobo are a different species, albeit the same genus, and shouldn't be included in the same article. I see there are at least four sub-divisions of pan troglodytes - surely that should fill the page. The reason I'm making this point, is that it makes the bonobo seem ... as they used to say ...just like a pygmy, or gracile style of essentially the same animal. Its whole way of existence differs markedly from chimpanzees and because of this, shouldn't be treated alongside them. Francis Hannaway (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Chimpanzee is the common term for the genus, not the species. They are classified as two distinct species, pan paniscus and pan troglodytes. Changing the article would require a ton of reliable sources demonstrating that those cited in this article, Bonobo, and Common chimpanzee are in an extreme minority in the zoological community. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that they are the same genus - not for one minute. What I'm suggesting is that by having an article about "Chimpanzees" in general will lead the reader to dismiss the bonobo as "just a little type of chimpanzee". Yes - it's the same genus ... but no, it's not the same species. This article confuses the issue. I know that there is a separate page for Common chimpanzee, and a separate page for Bonobo - but people looking for the common chimpanzee will come here first and progress no further.Francis Hannaway (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What about the Bili ape?--Jondel (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are 2 living species of orangutans, and 2 living species of gorillas. It's simply a myth that the great ape species are: human, bonobo, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, it simply isn't. Editor abcdef (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarify that "Social structure" discussion is about common chimpanzee, not bonobo

Please insert clarifying sentence at the start of the Social structure discussion.

While the Behavior section starts by distinguishing the significant behavioral differences between common chimpanzees and bonobos, the distinction seems to be quickly forgotten. The Social structure discussion uses the term "chimpanzee" in a description of the social structure of the common chimpanzee.

Probably the simplest way to fix this would be to state that the social structure described is that of the common chimpanzee, and then refer the reader to the Bonobo article for info on the bonobo social structure.

I agree with Francis Hannaway that there should be a separate article about only the common chimpanzee. Any discussion here about the genus Pan in general should be in a new article about the genus Pan. But that fix would be complicated. The most glaring part of the problem is the misleading Social structure discussion, which can be patched up with one or two clarifying sentences.

73.202.43.214 (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What separate article? There is already common chimpanzee and bonobo. Editor abcdef (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Tribe contradiction

There's a contradiction within the article about the chimpanzees taxonomic tribe. In the second paragraph of the article introduction is mentioned that chimpanzees are members of the tribe hominini, while in the box at the right they are mentioned as members of the tribe panini. Is the article reflecting an ongoing taxonomic debate about in which tribe the genus pan should be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.165.141.97 (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What about Cheetah?

To write a section on chimpanzees in popular culture and not mention one of the most famous animals in film history is bizarre.

DaveMackay41 (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)DaveMackay41

Confusing/erroneous second paragraph

The second paragraph includes the sentence: "Fruit is the most important component of an orangutan's diet; however, the apes will also eat vegetation, bark, insects and even other chimps."

Shouldn't this say "a chimpanzee's diet" instead? 76.106.190.24 (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Corrected. Peaceray (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2015

Chimps not only eat eat other chimps but will eat animals such as red colubus monkeys, bushbabies or galagos, baboons, antelopes such as bushbuck, duikers such as zebra duikers or blue duikers or forest duikers or even red flanked duikers, even wild pigs such as red river hogs and bushpigs. 72.241.156.177 (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)