Talk:Bonobo

bonobo

This article probably needs fact-checking.

response: it's current as of the most recent National Geographic specials, "Social Climbers". As bonobo numbers are down 50% in the past 5 years, it seems unwise to wait for the researchers profiled to return from the woods to write papers.

Fact Checking Needed, %s Off...

If I recall correctly, Frans de Waal is highly supportive of figures greater than 95% DNA match between humans and Bonobos. Infact, the latest tests show that Bonobos are 99-99.6% identical to humans. The "originally 98.5%" figure refers to common *Chimpanzees*, not Bonobos. And it isn't "originally", it's been recently verified. I'm not sure why my edit that suggested this potentiality was so quickly dismissed...I left the 95% (however wrong it is, I felt it was up to original author to remove it).

Summary of Recent Study: http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/5640.html

Wiki Article on aforementioned Study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Project

I think it's time for one hand of wiki to reestablish communication with the other. :)

Etherealstrife 16:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Those numbers don't make sense. Pan and Homo split before any of the three extant species came into existence. P. troglodytes and P. paniscus are more closely related to each other than either is to H. sapiens. Why would the numbers show otherwise? Perhaps the difference is in what those numbers represent. If I understand things correctly, the bigger numbers often quoted (98.5, 99, 99.6) represent percentage of useful genomic information is the same, while the smaller number (95, 96) represent percentage of total genomic information that is the same. Other differences I believe come from other different ways the numbers are calculated.

If Bonobos are more closely related to Humans than either is to the Common Chimpanzee, then I think we'd see a much bigger push to put all three species into the same genus. While there is somewhat of a movement to do so (and has been for many generations now!) there isn't the strong evidence to support it. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You obviously know little about primatology. :) One of the most interesting concepts is that non-human primates are more genetically diverse than the most genetically similar primates are from humans, if that makes any sense. Read up on it, it's fascinating stuff. Your argument for the debunked 95% is both completely true and completely wrong because of this vast genetic drift that occurs within the same species. The 99.6% represents the MOST SIMILAR to Homo sapiens, not the average. The widely accepted numbers are as follows: 99-99.6 Bonobos, 98.4-98.5 chimps, 94.7 gibbons (that's off the top of my head so they might be slightly off, but I'm pretty sure that's how it goes). And those numbers are from karyotype, amino acid sequencing, DNA hybridization (DNA comparison, for the layman).

Etherealstrife 18:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW: The recent genome study would probably be a better estimate of the "average" (since as I understand it it compares the 'average' chimp and human, showing 2.7% variance) - Etherealstrife 19:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand (or sit) corrected. I know much about primate taxonomy, but little about DNA hybridization and genomic comparison. But I ask, if there's a 99-99.6% similarity between us and Bonobos, and a 98.4-98.5% similarity between us and Common Chimpanzees, what's the similarity % between Bonobos and Common Chimpanzees? Also, is this just nuclear genetic material comparison, or is this including mitochondrial? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK there's no information on how similar bonobos and common chimpanzees are, as we've been using ourselves as reference points (if there is, I've never seen/heard anything on it). As you mentioned previously the research dealing with bonobos is fairly limited (despite their importance), and we've only just recently been able to compare chimpanzee and human genomes (heck, we've only had our own for 2-3 years...). As for the hybridization, it does use mitochondrial. Just heat it up to ~200F (to separate bonds), and swap one half with 'donor'.

Etherealstrife 22:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

On the name 'bonobo': I "read somewhere" (a respectable popular science book but I'm blowed if I can remember what) that the reason for the name 'bonobo' is unclear, and might have been an error from the name of a town on a packing crate used to export a specimen. The writer suggested that the correct name in a local Bantu language was elya, plural bilya. This is fascinating to me as a linguist (I'd love to import some Bantu plurals into English), and elya reminds me of Eloi -- but I can't justify putting it into the article without finding that book again. No confirmation on Web search. Has anyone else seen this and can add it and the source? Gritchka 09:58 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

The percentage of DNA in common between humans and bonobos now says "98.6%" because it can be CITED: "More than 98% of bonobo DNA is like that of human's and it is a fraction of a percent closer to human DNA than that of the common chimpanzee." The source is popular but reliable: (http://www.colszoo.org/animalareas/aforest/bonobo.html). Notice that bonobos are closer to humans than are chimps. Haldrik 01:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Haldrik

---

I've heard that adult bonobos have sex with child ones as well. Could somebody talk about age in sex? Things like several kinds of sex relations are limited to certain types of partners,... What about incest? -- Error

In my college anthropology course, I was told that there are all varieties of sexual behaviors between all of the members of the species. I think there might be a few things that don't really happen, but I'm not sure what. —Mulad 14:28, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I remember seeing a BBC documentary about bonobos where it was stated that their only taboo was sex between a mother and a son below a certain age (4 years?) I wouldn't like to write it up without being more confident of what was said. Rls 00:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just got my books for a physical anthropology class and one of them has an article on bonobos and their sexual practices. It says that the young engage in sex play (sounded similar to Brave New World), and that the young rub their genitals against adults, but that the males probably don't insert their penis into young females. I don't see anything about sex within families, but it seems quite feasable.

---

On the news today that these should be moved into the "human family" (whatever that means, the BBC dumbs down a lot these days). anyone know more about this? -- Tarquin 18:27 20 May 2003 (UTC)

A proposal that's been around for a few years, boosted this month by new research showing that functional genes are something like 99.5% identical (as opposed to non-coding DNA, which has mutated more freely). This is said to be enough to justify calling humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos members of the same genus (what they meant by 'family' there). As the name Homo has date priority over Pan, they'd become Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus. It also throws out all the hominid names: genera Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Paranthropus necessarily become part of the same genus Homo. But others argue that the differences between humans and the rest justify such a division, humans forming one clade and the rest forming a paraphyletic grade. Gritchka 16:38 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Egalitarian vs Matriarchal

A society cannot be both matriarchal and egalitarian. Read the Wikipedia article on egalitarianism or check the dictionary definition of the term. For a society to be egalitarian all members must be equal. In a matriarchy, women are accorded higher status then men. This is the exact opposite of men and women being equal - and is the exact opposite of egalitarian. To use both the terms matriarchal and egalitarian to describe a society is a contradiction in terms. Even if a reference is provided that claims that Bonobos are both egalitarian and matriarchal, the fact that the two terms are mutually exclusive won't change. This is a simple matter of definitions, these two terms cannot both be used to describe the same society. Doing so simply doesn't make sense.

I read the discussion further down that touches on this same issue. I don't think the reply given by Wysdom makes any sense. Research into Bonobo behavior revelas that Bonobo society is not egalitarian. Read the references that this article links to. Specifically, read:

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/laird/Social%20Organization.htm

Bonobo females clearly organize to dominate their male counterparts. This is not egalitarian. Male and female Bonobo's are not of equal standing in Bonobo society, with females having higher rank than males. This is not egaletarian. Bonbo society is not egalitarian. To call Bonobo society egalitarian is to abuse the term.

Regarding the following illogical, weasel-worded and unsubstantiated (and uncited) statement: "It seems though, that bonobos are female centred, more peaceful than chimpanzees, more egalitarian, and do have a much larger sexual repertoire."

I am removing it from the main article until a citation is provided.70.83.175.116 (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think what the article means by bonobos are eglitarian is that bonobos have social equality (not gender equality)--Fang 23 (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mating with homo sapiens

I hear that this genus can mate with homo sapiens. Is that correct? Does anyone have more information? massa 07:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any genus can mate with any other genus, if they want to. You've heard about shepherds and sheep, right? Or do you mean successfully bear young? RickK 22:35, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, if it isn't fertile, it isn't mating, it's just sex. The real question would be whether they're fertile with humans. I don't know the answer, but I'd be very surprised if it were "yes".67.158.77.195 01:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is close to what I remember - the definition of the same species is being able to have a child together and for that child to be fertile. There are lots of examples in nature where different species have children, but because they are different species the child is infertile - for example horses and donkeys produce mules which are infertile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.146.12.239 (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

It mentions in the article that females experience "Estrous". however, the article about estrous excludes great apes, which is says experience a menstra cycle instead. in which case, which is correct this article, or the Estrous one?

Bonobos like Humans are unusual in that they both have "hidden estrus". The accuracy of the other article depends on how "great ape" is defined. --Haldrik 03:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Diet and numbers

Estimates suggest there are 10 000 to 100 000 bonobos left in the wild - numbers are pretty uncertain; but the occasionally quoted estimate of 5 000 derives from a miscalculation. 50 000 seems possible Reference: Thompson, J., Hohmann, G., Furuichi, T. (eds) (2003) Bonobo Workshop: Behaviour, Ecology and Conservation of Wild Bonobos. Inuyama, Japan.

Group size ('tribe' in the text): can be 30 to 100 or so.

Diet: as the text implies, bonobos are primarily frugivores, not herbivores. Otherwise the page looks spot on.

Flit, 25 Nov 2004.

Yes right now it says there are 10000 bonobos and at the end of the paragraph it says there are only several thousand - it is inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.214.169 (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Primates and Oral Sex

Bonobos are NOT the only non-human apes to have been observed engaging in oral sex. Orangutan males routinely perform oral sex on females before engaging in sexual intercourse.

I forget the exact chapter, but this was noted in Carl Sagan's (coauthor: Ann Druyan) Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (ISBN 0345384725), in one of the middle chapters... Sagan also includes excellent references in the Notes section of the back of this book. I will attempt to locate the exact source of this observation.

UPDATE: I have located the exact reference:

In Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, page 281 (Chapter 15: Mortifying Reflections): ...cunnilingus is an almost invariable part of foreplay among the orangs... Sagan provides the following reference: B.M.F. Galdikas, "Orangutan Reproduction in the Wild," in C.E. Graham, editor, Reproductive Biology of the Great Apes (New York: Academic Press, 1981), PP. 281-300.

--260 21:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. I have Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (BE) (ISBN 1-86197-182-6). Bagemihl notes Orangs, Common Chimps and Gorillas generally doing about the same kinds of things, but in various degrees and variations, although Bonobos do a bit more and a bit more often, and in more variety. I'm trying to find a way to edit all of the species articles here that BE covers without overwhelming the articles. Also, I'm not sure the article was saying the Bonobos are the only apes other than humans to perform cunnilingus. I believe the point was that they are the only ones besides us to do all of the listed activities. However, I'm not sre how accurate that is. I might go through BE and make a spreadsheet documenting the sexual activities of the great apes. - UtherSRG 21:07, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Any update on this? The Jade Knight (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How many? Who separated?

Around 10,000 Bonobos are found only in the humid forests south of the Zaire River, in the Democratic Republic of Congo of central Africa. They are an endangered species, due to both habitat loss and hunting for bushmeat, the latter activity having waxed dramatically during the current civil war due to the presence of heavily armed militias even in remote "protected" areas such as Salonga National Park. Today, at most several thousand Bonobos remain. This is part of a more general trend of ape extinction.

So how many is it? When I hear "several thousand" I don't think "10000." I'm not going to edit this because I don't know.

Closeness to humanity

DNA evidence suggests that they have stayed apart for about 5 million years. The two groups seperated just 500,000 years after they diverged from the last common ancestor with humans. Since no species other than Homo sapiens has survived from the human line of that branching, Bonobos and Common Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans,

The only reason I'm not assuming this is Bonobos and the Common Chimpanzee is that the previous paragraph makes me think that it might be talking about two populations of Bonobo.

What's the deal?

- The statement, "Recent DNA evidence suggests the Bonobo and Common Chimpanzee species separated from each other less than one million years ago." is not in concurrence with other sources which state that DNA evidence indicates that common chimpanzees separated from our family tree somewhere around 5 mya, while bonobos went their separate way about half a million years after that. - - That timeline and order of descent places bonobos as having derived from common chimps several million years after said common chimps separated from our last common ancestor, and thus makes common chimps our closest living relative. Whereas other sources place the bonobo as being our closest living relative over common chimps by about half a million years. - - This is an important distinction. Because, if bonobos are the closest thing to our last common ancestor, the fact that they are more upright and bipedal than common chimps makes perfect sense and may explain a lot about the origins of bipedalism. But, if bonobos are merely a relatively recent branch from the common chimp line, you then have to explain why they, for some unknown reason(s) became more upright and bipedal than common chimps. And, more important, you also have to explain how our ancestors might have become more upright and bipedal, if in fact that last common ancestor was a qradupedal, knuckle-walking, common chimp-like ape...

- To date, there is a paucity of DNA studies that might clarify this distinction. The reason for the current confusion is that, depending on which source you read, and which genes were studied, and what type of DNA was studied, and the fact that our ancestors survived at least one "genetic bottleneck", whereas chimps and bonobos possess a much greater variety in their genetic codes, you can conclude that bonobos are much more closely related to common chimps than to us, or even that, in some ways, they are more closely related to us.

- Common sense should tell us that bonobos are, in fact, more closely related to common chimps. But, even if they are very closely related to common chimps, that does not mean that they must have separated as recently as only a million years ago. According to the punctuated equilibrium evolutionary model, just because two species exhibit only small differences, that does not mean that they must have separated only recently. Because if there was little opportunity or need for change over a long period of time, very little change would have been selected for. In other words, unlike our ancestors, who underwent enormous change, if chimps and bonobos were already well-adapted for their lifestyles, then, like crocodiles, there would have been no need for them to adapt and become something else.

- In order to determine the timeline of speciation, you must have some sort of "genetic clock". And we in fact have such a clock in the form of mitochondrial DNA. Because mitochondrial DNA changes only slowly over time due to the more or less constant rate of mutation. Thus, unlike merely looking at the overall amount of genetic variation to try to interpolate when two species might have separated, mitochondrial DNA can tell you when that separation must have taken place regardless of the overall degree of variation.

- And, if you read the various sources carefully, at least one states that the evidence so far would seem to indicate that bonobos are, indeed, our closest relative over common chimps by about a half million years. And, if you look at bonobo physiology vs. common chimp physiology vs. proto-human physiology, common sense will tell you that the bonobo must be very close to what that last common ancestor - the forerunner to Au. afarensis, must have been like. Because, if that last progression of common ancestor was an upright, semi-bipedal ape very much like a bonobo, you can easily explain why our ancestors might have become fully bipedal. But if that last common ancestor was a quadrupedal common chimp-like ape, you then have to not only explain why we became bipedal, you also have to explain why bonobos become more bipedal than common chimps. And none of those theories about having to see over tall grass, or needing to carry tools, or carry babies explains in the least why bonobos might have become more bipedal.

Alan Barber: alan_b25@yahoo.com

You misunderstand the science. There are many different ways of viewing and interpretting the data, but the one you are proposing. The line that became Pan split off about 5 million years ago, with that line splitting into two species about a half million years after that. Neither of those two lines gave rise to humanity - only the line that Pan split off from did. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't claim to understand the science, but I did not say that either of the Pan lines gave rise to humanity. And, it may be 'splitting hairs'. But, IF the mitochondrial DNA evidence indicates for instance that, we share a common ancestor with bonobos about 4.5 mya, and we share a common link with common chimps around 5 mya, then that means that proto-chimps separated from common ancestor 'A1' about 5mya, then proto-bonobos and proto-humans separated from ancestor 'A2' about 4.5 mya. It does not mean that proto-chimp separated from proto-human, then proto-bonobo separated from chimps sometime after that... Alan Barber: alan_b25@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.50.64 (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

No. There are many estimates for the various splits, but Pan split away from Homo before Pan itself split into P. troglodytes and P. paniscus. See the diagram below... - UtherSRG (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Homininae	Gorillini Gorilla Gorilla gorilla Gorilla beringei Hominini Panina Pan Pan troglodytes Pan paniscus Hominina various proto-humans Homo other Homo sp. Homo sapiens

The mitochondrial clock is a rough estimate. Perhaps the Bonobo was under less genetic pressure to change, and so their clock was slowed down, in comparison to the Common Chimpanzee's mitochondrial clock. This would give a difference in the relative times when compared to our own DNA. But there is no doubt that the two Pan species are more closely related to each other than either is the H. sapiens. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I have just checked some sources. One gives bonobo & C. chimp divergence as around 2.3-2.5 mya. Another gives apx .9 mya. I recently read something that put human & C. chimp divergence at apx 5 mya, and bonobo divergence around half a million years after that, but I cannot find any such source now. Does anyone know where these dates might have come from?

Also, would it be in bad form to delete all of the above since I started it?--Alan B25 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it would be bad form. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Link

This link doesn't seem to work: CNN: Congo's 'forest hippies' dying out (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/09/06/congo.bonobos.reut/index.html)

Bonobo lifespan?

An information that should be incorporated here... --Arny 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Incest

The incest page mentions bonobos briefly. It also mentions that the only known unobserved behaviour appears to be mothers with immature sons. Is there a better reference other then the some BBC documentary mentions above? Nil Einne 14:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As a follow up, does anyone know if inbreeding frequently occurs? Given the diverse nature of bonobo sexual practices, it is easily possible to assume they may still avoid inbreeding even if they have no qualms about 'incest' Nil Einne 14:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Name

Copied from the article: Can Homo Sapiens and members of the Pan genus interbreed? That's one of the requirements of being of the same genus. Members of the same species produce fertile offspring, members of the same genus produce infertile offstring (male children are called mules, female are cald Jennies). —This unsigned comment was added by 208.54.15.1 (talk • contribs) .

rivers and population clarifications

This should be easy to clarify and / or correct. The name of the Bonobo mentions a town on the Congo. Later, the Bonobos are said to be separated by the "great rivers" from the Chimpanzees, and then in population, they are said to reside on the Zaire river. So, is the Congo river adjacent to an existing or future population of Bonobo's, if the great rivers is supposed to a defined term, define it here or reference another article.

Is the population named the only population in the wild. Is there any captive or preserved population of any significant size any where in the world?

Can we add information listing the size, nature, goals, or successes of any preservation groups or government entities?

I'm sure some of you can correct this info of the top of your heads. thanks

Radrad 08:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

typo in introduction

"The other species in genus Pan is Pan troglodytes, or the Common Chimpanzee. Both species are chimpanzees, though that term is now frequently used to refer only to the larger of the two species, Pan troglodytes. To avoid confusion, this article follows the growing trend to use "chimpanzee" only to refer to both members of the genus."

It appears the author meant to write "only to refer to the Common Chimpanzee," and the article seems to conform to that description. I have made the change, but please change it back if I am mistaken.

Incomplete or half deleted sentence about social structure

"This may be because at any one time certain females of a group will be in estrus, and since food is relatively ample."

This sentence seems half deleted. I don't know what fact (if any) would follow it so for the time being I'm going to delete it. If some one can fill in the blank feel free to and then repost but as of now it seems choppy and serves only to confuse.

sex

Are there actually any sources for the comments that Bonobos engage in adult-child sex? The article used as a reference does not make any statements to that effect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.140.253.65 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, Bagemihl's book is a good reference on Bonobo adult-child sex. Bruce Bagemihl: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. St. Martin's Press, 1999. ISBN 0312192398 - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps that should be cited, then. I'll check it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.140.253.65 (talk • contribs) .

I'm curious as to how common std's are with bonobo's. This would be good information to add to this page.

Misconceptions about Bonobo genetics

Please remove the line "Moreover, while chimpanzees and H. sapiens obviously evolved from the same DNA, they are distinct." This line makes no sense, and does not logically follow the discussion on chromosomes. All life on earth appears to have evolved by common descent, not just chimps and humans (we can debate viruses elsewhere).

Also, the statement about chromosomes did not connect well with taxonomy. I would suggest a more formal "genetic variation" section.

The statements, "The Bonobo remains a slightly closer relative. Bonobo DNA has preserved more in common with Human DNA, whereas that of the Common Chimpanzee has drifted slightly further away" are misguided. Bonobo's are not a closer relative. This is a misconception frequently stated by some primatologists and anthropologists, but is clarified by phylogenetics. Chimps and Bonobos have a common ancestor with eachother long before they have a common ancestor with humans. Thus, neither the bonobo nor the chimp can be a "closer relative" to humans. In phylogenetics, one might observe a shorter branch length (genetic distance) between humans and bonobos than humans and chimps. This may indicated that humans and bonobos have retained greater homology. But for these species, this shorter genetic distance is not robust; it is highly dependant on the genetic loci examined and methods used, and no analyses has yet to determine whether there is greater homology, and more importantly, whether that homology is significant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthdna (talk • contribs) .

The Conservation Status section reads like it was written by a European Anthropologist in the 1860s... "The locals" this and "Civil War" that... Tagging.Shahar Goldin 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Chimpanzees or not?

This first paragraph of the article is confusing. It says, The other species in genus Pan is Pan troglodytes, or the Common Chimpanzee. Both species are chimpanzees, although that term is now frequently used to refer only to the larger of the two species, Pan troglodytes. To avoid confusion, this article follows the growing trend to use "chimpanzee" to refer to both members of the genus. Why would the term "chimpanzee" only refer now to one of the two species if the growing trend is for it to refer to both? Are bonobos classed as chimpanzees or not? Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 15:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope my edit clarifies things. However, these are just common terms, not classification terms. Of course both of thee species are classified in the genus Pan. Wikipedia uses the term "chimpanzee" to refer to the genus, and "Common Chimpanzee" and "Bonobo" to refer to the two species. (Note the capitalization.) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe it is either standard English language or scientific style to capitalize common terms such as bonobo, chimpanzee, common chimpanzee, etc. Aleta 05:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a standard. For the rationale on why we often us it in Wikipedia, see WP:BIRD. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I read the reference you gave, and I understand the rationale. It still irritates my sensibilities, but that's my own problem. Aleta 18:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

The genetic closeness of Bonobos, their relative rarity, and their self-awareness compel a moral and scientific imperative to preserve them and protect them from both abuse and extinction.

Please elaborate on how *anything* compels a moral imperative to do anything! A sentence like the above does not belong in an encyclopedia, and in fact the entire paragraph to which it belongs is very far from having a neutral point of view. Somebody should change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.83.126.86 (talk • contribs).

So be bold and change it. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I had the same reaction to that intro as unsigned, above--I've changed it, and done a bit of other POV tweaking in this section (Conservation) besides. I'm responsible for the edits on 28 Mar 2007 from IP 68.82.71.249 (oops, helps to sign in before editing, doesn't it? *lol*) Wysdom 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

I don't know if anyone has noticed, especially since probably very few people know about bonobos or care enough to study them, but there are several lines describing the writer's sexucal orientation. Which of course would only need mention if the writer was gay. Some lines describing what the writer likes to do to express this gayness. It's kind of funny, but it's probably a prank that needs fixing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.69.65.54 (talk)

Could you point out where, or fix it? - UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Matriarchal and Egalitarian

The second paragraph of this article states that Bonobos are matriarchal and egalitarian. Since matriarchies are ruled by the females (or at least the older females) and egalitarianism is equality, I'm curious if anyone can explain how they can be both. - ComradeAF 07:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think in this case, ComradeAF, matriarchal is being used to describe the societal structure, not a state of "rulership" or, perhaps more to the point, oppression. People like to consider many human societies egalitarian--and in some ways they are----but the many are simultaneously patriarchal--men are traditionally considered the heads of households, the family name of children is that of the father, etc. However, suggest to someone in the U.S. (for example) that these traditional "values" mean our society isn't "egalitarian"--well, okay, the education system being what it is, they probably wouldn't know what the hell you were even saying. But that's beside the point ;) Wysdom 22:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Either/or vs "only/and"

Both species are chimpanzees, and the term "chimpanzee" can be used either to refer to the larger of the two species, Pan troglodytes, or to both species together.

vs.

Both species are chimpanzees, and the term "chimpanzee" can be used both to refer only to the larger of the two species, Pan troglodytes, and to both species together.

I believe the meaning is the same in both cases, but the first version shown here (either/or) is a bit clearer/more correct, grammatically. When one reads the word "only" it signals an absolute--there should, logically, be no 'and' following an 'only'. Wysdom 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can bonobos and chimpanzees breed

If so what is the hybrid likeMuntuwandi 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are known hybrids. Source is an unpublished thesis from Belgium. Severum

Penis Fencing?

In scientific literature, the female-female sex is often referred to as GG rubbing or genital-genital rubbing, while male-male sex is sometimes referred to as penis fencing.[16]

Despite having the citation of [16] in there, its still a very un-encyclopedia like line. B.H.M. (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)B.H.M.

Agreed. It doesn't really contribute to the article. Removed - Voden (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored. It's the terminology that is used in the scientific literature. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it? A single reference is cited, and the line itself says "sometimes" which implies that it is not standard terminology. The linked article on penis fencing is specific to flatworms, which is confusing. Assuming for the sake of discussion that "penis fencing" is in widespread usage regarding bonobos, the line in question still does not add content to the article. Genital-Genital rubbing is self-explanatory, and there is no information conveyed by this line that is not made redundant by the reference to "penis fencing" a couple lines down. Unlike the second reference, which fits well in the article and conveys more information, this line seems out of place, devoid of content, and gratuitous. What justifies its inclusion? - Voden (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be removed, so I'm removing it. Before including the term, I would really like to see just what scientific literature makes use of it; one writer doesn't bring a term into common usage. Harkenbane (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you search Gooogle Scholar for "penis fencing bonobo", you will find references. I'm going to restore the sentence with a ref or two. Aleta (Sing) 22:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pongids Not Capable of Language

In the subsection about bonobo closeness to humans, it states that Kanzi and another bonobo can respond to spoken sentences.

This is false: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-10-31.html

No pongid has ever been shown to be able to fully comprehend sentences using grammar.

Encrypted Soldier (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement. Good thing the Bonobo isn't a pongid. the only extant pongids are the two species of orangutans. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy - First paragraph -- last sentence

An argument that needs substantiation appears as the following sentence:

"While many of these genetic analyses have been performed on the Common Chimpanzee rather than the Bonobo, the differences between the[se] two chimpanzee species are unlikely to be substantial enough to affect the Pan-Homo comparative data significantly."

Perhaps this may be true, but it should have at least one refereed reference directly pertinent to the above statement. Vonkje (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Patriarchal or matriarchal, love making hippys or the same as other chimps

Patriarchal or matriarchal, love making hippys or the same as other chimps

Is de Waal’s study claiming them to be uniquely passive, love making, non aggressive, matriarchal, female dominant species still relevant?

Or are the later in the wild studies by Hohmann and Craig Stanford claiming them to be just the same as other chimps more relevant?

I am no expert on this matter, a total amateur, but have become embroiled in a debate between some feminists and students.

many thanks.

Slford (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Why are the words "bonobo", "chimpanzee" and "human" frequently capitalised in this article? These words are not proper nouns. I've gone through the article and corrected them.

GM Pink Elephant —Preceding comment was added at 19:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the way we roll here in primate land. Read WP:PRIM. We adopted the strategy from WP:BIRD. Common names are often in the form of <adjective-phrase> <noun>, such as "Common Chimpanzee". Without the capitalization it is very difficult to distinguish between a species and a larger grouping. See WP:BIRD for examples. I've reverted your change. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

OK then. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexual social behavior source

A source to http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html was removed, because the source that proceeded it is of the same article of Scientific America. Both sources were "Bonobo Sex and Society" pages 82-88 by Frans B. M. de Waal. ndyguy (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

physical characteristics clarity

"The Bonobo is more gracile (slight in form) than the Common Chimpanzee."

In anthropology and primatology the word gracile is generally used to describe a hominidae with a flat face, relatively small molars, and a lack of large occipital and sagittial crests. The other major category is "robust." The bonobo is not gracile in this respect. Why not just say slender or slight in form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.63.47 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2008

That is not my understanding of the word. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the use of 'gracile' with respect to Australopithecus but the term has been used in relation to Bonobos often to draw parallels between the Australopithecus robust/gracile split and the common/bonobo chimp split , try searching google books to see a few examples. GameKeeper (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution in female bonobos is disputeable

In the section called "Sexual social behavior" the article says that female bonobos engage in prostitution for food. (Specifically: "...favors traded by the females in exchange for food." where "favors traded" links to prostitution.) This is highly disputed because the science behind it is very reliant on 1. subjective interpretation of the motives of the bonobo (and the inability to quantitativly determine the "thoughts" of the bonobo) and 2. the projection of human behaviors onto observed subjects. Unfortunately I do not know what the article was called but I read specifically about this assertion of prostitution and the flawed basis for it for the above mentioned reasons as well as the additional reason that male sujects exibited nearly identical behavior to female sujects which might be called prostitution, but in male subjects this was attributed to "impulsiveness." Specifically, the study involved a single food delivery chute which was the source from which subjects recived food. Different subjects would "control" the chute at different times, and one of the observed behaviors was for one subject "seducing" (for lack of a better work) another subject who would then abandon the chute. When females were the seducers, this behavior was called prostitution, but when the male was a seducer, it was called "impulseiveness," as mentioned earlier. This is obviously flawed because of the gender bias, but also because there is no way to determine the motivation of the subject. Instead of prostitution, seduction could be a method of distraction or even simple arousal for the sake of sex that also involved a food exchange. Alternatively, the gift exchange could also simply be a gift as given between human couples but which we do not normally consider a prostitution transaction (though in the interest of fairness it could be argued that that scenario should, in fact, be considered a societally acceptable form of prostitution.) The biggest flaw, however, is that it is difficult, and perhaps even impossible, to determine the internal motivation for the behavior of a subject that cannot even be communicated with easily. Indeed, we often question attempts to determine internal motivations in humans. Finally, it does not look like the particular section I am speaking of is cited (including the section immediatly before the part on prostitution) and even if it were for the reasons mentioned above it should be carefully considered as far as validity goes. I am not inheranty against any interperatation (personally I think that both males and females use sex in a "tactical" way) but if someone who knows more could find a better citation or modify the section it think it would be beneficial, because there is evidence that studies showing (exclusively) female prostitution in simians may have been influenced by human gender sterotypes. Oniamien (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Phsychology, violence

The Psychological characteristics section, second paragraph, talks about observed instances of lethal aggression towards outsiders by patrols of Bonobo males. The article states in several other places that there has been no observed instances of lethal aggression, although fights and maiming are fairly common. I could not find the Horizon episode listed as a source for these aggressive episodes, but reading through the transcript on the horizon website it seems to be talking about common chimpanzees, not bonobos. I have not made changes as I am not certain what is called for without more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewGSmith (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "ancestor" :
  • {{cite book |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Dawkins |title=The Ancestor's Tale |year=2004 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin |chapter=Chimpanzees}}
  • {{cite book |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Dawkins |title=The Ancestor's Tale |year=2004 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin |chapter=Chimpanzees }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was the same content, with a (marginally) different format. I think the 'bot needs to be upgraded. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Any objections to renaming this article Pygmy Chimpanzee? --The High Commander (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! It is known as the Bonobo now; "Pygmy Chimpanzee" is an earlier term. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I second the objection. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I third the objection. Pygmy Chimpanzee redirects here. That should be adequate. Bonobo is a more widely accepted name at this point. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Eating Monkeys

According to this source (Reuters) bonobos do eat monkeys: http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre49m567-us-bonobos-hunting/

Maybe someone wants to edit that part out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.21.75 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sex Mad or Not

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/08/03/bonobo-promiscuity-another-myth-bites-the-dust

Not an authoratative link - but needs investigation. [quote] The July 30 issue of the New Yorker has a fascinating article on the work of the German anthropologist Gottfried Hohmann, who is considered the world's leading authority on bonobos in the wild. The key term here is "in the wild." Most of the research on bonobos to date has been done by the Dutch anthropologist Frans de Waal. Studying bonobos in cages, de Waal discovered that bonobos seem to have sex a lot: oral sex, anal sex, all kinds of sex. In de Waal's famous portrait, the bonobo emerges as a creature much more interested in sex than in work or power or anything else. In other words, de Waal's bonobos bore a startling similarity to the Dutch. Hohmann's work shows that de Waal got it mostly wrong. Yes, bonobos act a bit weird in captivity, but what would you do if you were stuck in a cage? [/quote] Qixil (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Location

Consider moving "termite fishing" image away from the "Social sexual behavior" section. That's a slightly disturbing link to make. 68.62.210.172 (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem a big deal to me, but I moved it up a bit. LadyofShalott ^Weave 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexual relations in Bonobos as compared to Chimpanzees

They are far more common than in the Common Chimpanzee.

That is what all the sources cited say.

The surprise is that their rate of copulation with opposite gender bonobos may be the same. Anonywiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC).

Setting up additional Bonobo reserves

I think it would be wonderful to set up an additional Bonobo reserve not only in Indonesia as suggested in the article but also in the Amazon rain forest. Let's get these wonderful creatures as widely distributed aa possible! If only humans could become more like them, there would be fewer wars and maybe eventually no more wars. Maybe we can learn from them. They can be our teachers to help us get along better with each other. The more of them there are, the better! Keraunos (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Article talk pages are for discussing editing the article, not for discussions about the subject.
2. Letting a species from one continent loose on another continent has been done many times before. It has nearly always been a disaster.
3. Bonobos are not as nice and hippie happy as Franz de Waal describes them - his descriptions are based almost purely on captive individuals and not upon field studies of animals in the wild. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-contradictory on male or female dominated society question

This article is self-contradictory on the question of whether bonobo society is female or male dominated, possibly reflecting some sort of fundamental disagreement among bonobo researchers, or possibly Wikipedia authors working with obsolete primary sources. If the matter is controversial, it should be presented in NPOV terms, rather than randomly adopting one or the other viewpoint. For example, we have although, it had been reported that Bonobos were a matriarchal species, more recent research on wild bonobos and accounts reported in the Smithsonian magazine indicate that Bonobo troops are led by a dominant alpha male who plays an active role in defending the troop from predators versus The bonding among females allows them to dominate Bonobo society—although male Bonobos are individually stronger, they cannot stand alone against a united group of females. This is a clear self-contradiction, among many other such examples. Can someone knowledgeable about the state of this research please address the matter? Kwertii (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Font size

The font size of the main text in the current version of this article is considerably smaller than that of the table of contents, the sidebar, the warning label currently at the top, and other textual page elements that are not part of the main article text. For users who must "zoom" (enlarge) either the text or the entire page in a graphical browser because of accessibility issues, the result becomes difficult to view (the necessity of a horizontal scroll bar because the page becomes too wide to fit within the browser viewport on a non-widescreen monitor is not the least reason). The main text is also smaller than in many (most?) other Wikipedia articles, which means browsers that remember per-site zoom settings (eg. Firefox with the NoSquint extension) must be reset just for this page. Wiki markup is opaque to me (especially with a page of this complexity), and the article is tagged for revision, otherwise I would attempt an edit myself.--96.251.93.152 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)