This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Does the god Pan have anything to do with the genus Pan?-- Jondel 07:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
'Pan' indeed means 'all'; it is indeed a very common greek rootuages, as Dustin Asby pointed out.
lerdna
Does the god Pan have anything to do with the genus Pan?-- Jondel 07:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
'Pan' indeed means 'all'; it is indeed a very common greek rootuages, as Dustin Asby pointed out.
lerdna
Does the god Pan have anything to do with the genus Pan?-- Jondel 07:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
'Pan' indeed means 'all'; it is indeed a very common greek rootuages, as Dustin Asby pointed out.
lerdna
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)
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)
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.
Option 2: the page Chimpanzee describes the species Pan troglodytes.
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.
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)
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)
It would appear that we keep things as they are. - UtherSRG 13:06, 2 Aug 2004 (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)
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)
Removed from article (added by an anon):
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)
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 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)
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)
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
This artical is misleading! Bonobos are NOT a type of chimpanzee. Thee great apes are: Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Bonobos.
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) .
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) .
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.
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!
It's already mentioned in the taxonomy section. Any more prominent placement makes it sound official. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
from the current article:
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) .
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)
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)
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) .
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)
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.
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)
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)
"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).
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)
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)
Might be a good idea to add a section on it.-- Mr. Erik 05:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks, I've uploaded it there. My first encounter with Wikipedia Commons - what a marvellous thing! Lepidlizard ( talk) 14:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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. [2] 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. [3]. 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
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 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]
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Pygmy chimp was a misnomer since they thought bonobos were simply malformed or baby chimps... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 23:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That is my understanding, that the chimps are meaner animals.
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?
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
An impressive article. A few points on the prose and sourcing:
Those are all my quibbles. Tim riley talk 08:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What is the etymology of the name 'chimpanzee'? 86.142.104.222 ( talk) 14:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
"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)
{{
expand}}
This article needs to point out the
Bili Ape somewhere.
65.93.15.213 (
talk)
06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Bili Ape to the see also section, as:
65.93.15.213 ( talk) 06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Not done Not a clear, objective claim with source - discuss here Chzz ► 05:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
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:
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 is the section discussing distribution?-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 13:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
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
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)
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)
Hi. What is the meaning/ purpose of the reference [1] in the infobox? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 00:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Chimpanzee has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
This
edit request to
Chimpanzee has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Does the god Pan have anything to do with the genus Pan?-- Jondel 07:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
'Pan' indeed means 'all'; it is indeed a very common greek rootuages, as Dustin Asby pointed out.
lerdna
Does the god Pan have anything to do with the genus Pan?-- Jondel 07:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
'Pan' indeed means 'all'; it is indeed a very common greek rootuages, as Dustin Asby pointed out.
lerdna
Does the god Pan have anything to do with the genus Pan?-- Jondel 07:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
'Pan' indeed means 'all'; it is indeed a very common greek rootuages, as Dustin Asby pointed out.
lerdna
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)
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)
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.
Option 2: the page Chimpanzee describes the species Pan troglodytes.
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.
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)
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)
It would appear that we keep things as they are. - UtherSRG 13:06, 2 Aug 2004 (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)
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)
Removed from article (added by an anon):
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)
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 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)
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)
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
This artical is misleading! Bonobos are NOT a type of chimpanzee. Thee great apes are: Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Bonobos.
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) .
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) .
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.
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!
It's already mentioned in the taxonomy section. Any more prominent placement makes it sound official. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
from the current article:
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) .
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)
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)
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) .
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)
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.
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)
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)
"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).
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)
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)
Might be a good idea to add a section on it.-- Mr. Erik 05:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks, I've uploaded it there. My first encounter with Wikipedia Commons - what a marvellous thing! Lepidlizard ( talk) 14:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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. [2] 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. [3]. 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
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 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]
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Pygmy chimp was a misnomer since they thought bonobos were simply malformed or baby chimps... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 23:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That is my understanding, that the chimps are meaner animals.
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?
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
An impressive article. A few points on the prose and sourcing:
Those are all my quibbles. Tim riley talk 08:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What is the etymology of the name 'chimpanzee'? 86.142.104.222 ( talk) 14:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
"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)
{{
expand}}
This article needs to point out the
Bili Ape somewhere.
65.93.15.213 (
talk)
06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Bili Ape to the see also section, as:
65.93.15.213 ( talk) 06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Not done Not a clear, objective claim with source - discuss here Chzz ► 05:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
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:
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 is the section discussing distribution?-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 13:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
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
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)
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)
Hi. What is the meaning/ purpose of the reference [1] in the infobox? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 00:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Chimpanzee has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
This
edit request to
Chimpanzee has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)