Talk:Gorilla

Discovery

The first real account of the gorilla appears to be the one given by an English sailor, Andrew Battel, who spent some time in the wilds of West Africa during and about the year 1590; his account being presented in Purchas's Pilgrimage, published in the year 1613. From this appears that Battel was familiar with both the chimpanzee and the gorilla, the former of which he terms engeco and the latter pongo - names which ought apparently to be adopted for these two species in place of those now in use. Between Battel's time and 1846 nothing appears to have been heard of the gorilla or pongo, but in that year a missionary at the Gabun accidentally discovered a skull of the huge ape; and in 1847 a sketch of that specimen, together with two others, came into the hands of Sir R. Owen, by whom the name Gorilla savagei was proposed for the new ape in 1848. Dr Thomas Savage, a missionary at the Gabun, who sent Owen information with regard to the original skull, had, however, himself proposed the name Troglodytes gorilla in 1847. The first complete skeleton of a gorilla sent to Europe was received at the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1851, and the first complete skin appears to have reached the British Museum in 1858. Paul B. du Chaillu's account (1861) of his journeys in the Gabun region popularized the knowledge of the existence of the gorilla.

Enemies

There should be a section on what kind of animals, if any, prey on gorillas. 63.26.213.175 (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)eric

See the Endangerment section. Bob98133 (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Theory of Mind

This sentence in the section 'Laughter in Primates' :"self-awareness of one's situation, or the ability to identify with somebody else's predicament, are prerequisites for laughter, so animals are not really laughing in the same way that we do" makes it seem that no animal has the ability of self-awareness. Goodall and others have proven (to an extent) that chimpanzees have self awareness, and thus awareness of others. Arges86 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Laughter

The laughter section in the gorilla article really has little to do with gorillas. It doesn't really belong. --68.72.109.117 01:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Diet

In the article "Looking at Ape Diets," it says that gorillas - including the mountain gorilla - are folivores, not omnivores. The article says that the fact that they eat insects, even deliberately eat insects, does not mean they aren't still considered folivores. 70.50.54.112 02:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on whether you are talking about physiology or behavior. Classifying them as foliovores is correct behaviorally because they primarily eat leaves, but classifying them as omnivores is also correct because their physiology allows them to eat both plants and animals. And you even point out that they intentionally eat insects, so their behavior is not strictly foliovorous. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Classifying them as omnivores is not correct. I won't bother arguing about it, though, because I can see from the article history that is pointless. 70.53.109.23 13:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, they are not really omnivores. They are herbivores that eat insects. It should be changed, as it is misleading to the casual visitor. (Satwa)

Calling gorillas omnivores is splitting hairs to the point of being incorrect. The fact that they eat a few bugs does not really make them omnivores anymore than horses are omnivores because of all the insects they eat while they graze. The physiology argument is not relevant as calling something a frugivore, carnivore, folivore, etc refers to what they eat, not what they could eat. 66.90.144.92 (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with UTC and Satwa, they are strictly vegetarians, it is misleading the many guests of Wikipedia. However, I see that it might be acceptable to edit that while they are strictly herbivorous, their physiology allows them to eat plants and animals, as UtherSRG stated. The Winged Yoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Winged Yoshi (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this discussion has gone stale. Since Dec 21 (the last comment), no changes have been made here. I just visited this article and was surprised to see Gorillas being labeled omnivores. They are vegetarians, and herbivores or foliovores would be a much better description. All the arguments above stand. Let's see if we get any more input on this in the coming week, if not, then I will update the article with a note about the insect eating. Abhishekbh (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just do it already. ThuranX (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, done! For those who still don't agree: regardless of what the beyondveg site says, I am sure as a categorization, we can take UMichigan to be a more reliable source. Check out the refs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekbh (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Tools

Though the 2005 article did indeed imply tool use was newly discovered in gorillas, the fact is that gorilla tool use has been recognized in the wild since at least the 1950s. See Beck, B. 1980. Animal Tool Behavior. Garland Publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.197.18 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe they are omnivores because on the rare occasion they eat meat. They will not hunt though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.117.94 (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Textbox image

I think this image would be better for the textbox since the gorilla is facing the camera and we get a front view. A side view image would be better for a four legged ungulate. Bobisbob 03:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the gorilla image as it is now, in profile. ThuranX 06:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Groves citation

UtherSRG, reverting my change for the second time, this time thankfully with an actual reason: "If you are going to edit a cited text, polese provide another citation that supports your edit. Read Groves to see that my revert more closely reflects what Groves wrote."

I checked the Groves citation the first time. I based the improved text on it! I just checked it again. It says the following:

Were they really gorillas? Or chimpanzees? Or baboons? or even Neanderthalers? What language was this word 'gorillas' and who were these interpreters? ... There seems little hope of ever establishing what those so mercilessly slaughtered "gorillas" actually were, or where they lived."

That matches my reading of other analyses of the Periplus of Hanno. The text that was there before and to which you reverted once again is factually incorrect: the Periplus makes no mention whatsoever about a debate amongst the men of Hanno's voyage. Neither does the Groves citation. Perhaps this is a misinterpretation of the questions posited by Groves as questions asked by Hanno the navigator's men.

You can read the actual original source yourself: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Hanno.html

I'll quote the relevant part. That's everything that's in the Periplus on the topic of Gorillae. The Periplus is short, you can read it in a few minutes:

On the third day after our departure thence, having sailed by those streams of fire, we arrived at a bay called the Southern Horn[11]; at the bottom of which lay an island like the former, having a lake, and in this lake another island, full of savage people, the greater part of whom were women, whose bodies were hairy, and whom our interpreters called Gorillae. Though we pursued the men we could not seize any of them; but all fled from us, escaping over the precipices, and defending themselves with stones. Three women were however taken; but they attacked their conductors with their teeth and hands, and could not be prevailed upon to accompany us. Having killed them, we flayed them, and brought their skins with us to Carthage.

I've gone back to my version, edit it a bit further, and added in a citation to the source text. If you still don't agree, please don't just revert again and spell out your reasons on this page. Martijn Faassen (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides the point perhaps, but please also note that Groves itself isn't an infallible source. Groves writes the following:

"What languages was this word 'gorillas', and who were these interpreters"?

Not strictly wrong, and rhetorical, but we actually do have a clue about the interpreters. From the Periplus again:

Thence we came to the great river Lixus[6], which flows from Libya. On its banks the Lixitae, a shepherd tribe, were feeding flocks, amongst whom we continued some time on friendly terms. Beyond the Lixitae dwelt the inhospitable Ethiopians, who pasture a wild country intersected by large mountains, from which they say the river Lixus flows. In the neighbourhood of the mountains lived the Troglodytae, men of various appearances, whom the Lixitae described as swifter in running than horses. Having procured interpreters from them, we coasted along a desert country towards the south two days.

The interpreters are the Lixitae. This is confirmed later on:

Thence we sailed towards the south twelve days, coasting the shore, the whole of which is inhabited by Ethiopians, who would not wait our approach, but fled from us. Their language was not intelligible even to the Lixitae who were with us.

Of course we can't really identify the Lixitae or Lixites, but we at least have some clue about who they were. Quite a bit for the standards of the Periplus, which is rather sketchy overall. See the Hanno the Navigator article for more sources and analysis on the Periplus. Martijn Faassen (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

conservation status

we need this for the article. many other animals have it.--68.45.82.237 (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Conservation status is assigned to species and subspecies. There are two gorilla species, the Western Gorilla and the Eastern Gorilla. Both of those have the proper conservation status. Likewise, the four subspecies of gorilla also have the correct conservation status. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

This page is pretty short for an article on a popualr animal. I think a lot of the information in the Mountin Gorilla article can be used to describe all gorillas and should be moved to this article. I also think there shld be less gaps and the opening paragraph should be a little longer. Bobisbob (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find and cite verifable and reliable sources, then by all means expand the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad Bob. You are not citing sources. I've reverted. Please do not edit unless you are going to cite your sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add {{fact}} tags and give him (or others) the chance to find citations. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 06:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have if there were only a few edits that I could easily diff to see what was added, but since he moved several portions around as well as added and deleted some, I couldn't figure it out. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Videos on page?

I've discussed this with Bobisbob who posted the videos to the article. I think it would be better not to have the videos on the page, but that links to them as See Also might be appropriate. As well, all the gorilla videos depict a gorilla at an amusement park.Bob98133 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Purely from a personal point of view I don't like videos on articles, however that is my personal taste, I don't even know that the wikipedia policy is about them. However, if all the videos that are on the article are all of captive gorillas then it is hardly a true reflection of gorilla behaviour and if videos do stay (and I personally hope they do not, they should be linked to at most if anything IMO) then they should not be purely captive gorillas. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We have videos of captive tigers on the Tiger article. If you decide to reove the videos from there then why not remove the tiger videos? Bobisbob (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't really answer anything as this is discussing the gorilla article not the tiger article. I haven't even seen the tiger article. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And having looked at the tiger article now, the videos on there are also from Disney Animal Kingdom just as the videos on here are also from there. Having videos of captive animals all from one Disney park is hardly a wide reflection on video of either animal. All it does is show each animal at a Disney park and promote that park.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think the videos should be on the page. Not all 4 of them at least.Cryo921 03:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Gorillas are herbivores

Gorillas are herbivores, not omnivores, do I have permission to edit that? The Winged Yoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Winged Yoshi (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not true, so no. They eat beetles as well, thus, not herbivores. ThuranX (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Hyperlinks

I have deleted one of the repeated "Ability to swim" links to "Apes" at the last See Also section. The person whosoever finds a fault in the deletion kindly correct me and the page. Thanks. :-)--Ankithreya (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for my recent edit, which I have now reverted. My browser keeps getting stuck. Thundermaster^{Thundermaster's Talk} 12:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cannibal

People are contending that Gorillas are herbivores!! I am no expert, but I have seen a primate (either gorilla or chimpanzee, I am not sure now) hunting in groups on TV (a program on National Geographic Channel). There was a huge group of these primates (more than 100, it was said to be biggest group) which attacked another smaller group of the same species very violently. Then they killed a young one of the smaller group and ate it. Who says Gorillas are herbivore? 198.62.10.11 (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a group of Common Chimpanzees. They will sometimes hunt Western Red Colobus monkeys, and sometimes chimps from other tribes. The question is, is a species herbivorous or omnivorous if it eats mostly plant products, but gets some protein from insects and grubs that are on the plants? I know that chimps will reject fruit until it is overly ripe and has some insects on it, making them omnivorous (even before considering their meat hunts for the monkeys). Do gorillas do the same, eating insects intentionally or unintentionally? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Gorillas do eat insects intentionally --Ns1180 (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources for gorillas known in second hand accounts

JasonAQuest, you write Before explorer Paul du Chaillu brought specimens to Europe in the 1861, gorillas were known outside of Africa only from legends and second-hand accounts and make a citation. While the citation shows that Paul du Chaillu brought specimens to Europe, it doesn't confirm that gorillas were only known from legends and second-hand accounts. In fact your reference has (as well as the article) has them (at least the skull) described by Savage. I've moved the citation bit around and added in a for the statement that theyh were known by legends and second-hand accounts (I'd like to see something more than the Carthaginian "account"). Martijn Faassen (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be asking for further examples of them not being known, which is difficult to document. Savage had a skull and the accounts of local Africans, but no first-hand experience with them. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article currently claims they were known only from legends and second-hand accounts, not that they were unknown. Which way is it? Do we have examples of gorillas in legend? Whether having access to a skull is a first-hand or a second-hand account I'm not sure about. I'm inclined towards first-hand: it's first-hand scientific evidence of the existence of gorillas, just like finding a fossil may be first-hand evidence of the existence of an extinct animal. Whatever it may be, my main point is that this statement is rather vague. As an unrelated point, I think we should put the "discovery of the gorilla" information into its own section. I'll try to make a start with that. Martijn Faassen (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reorganized the 'studies' section and integrated Paul du Chaillu in there (moving it out of the popular culture section). I unbulleted the text in studies. I think the bullets were hindering its expansion as a narrative. Martijn Faassen (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There were "legends" from Carthage. The "second-hand accounts" were from local Africans to Savage. There may have been others... I don't know, which is why I left it a little vague. I do know that du Chaillu claimed to be the first to see (and kill) one, and I've seen no contradiction of that claim. Savage's skull certainly gave him proof that they existed, but there's a fundamental difference between that and the knowledge that comes from observation of a living (or complete) organism. I can go dig up proof that my grandfather existed, but I don't know him. :) The point is that gorillas were new and remarkable to the rest of the world until the 1860s; however you want to phrase that information is fine with me. - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not rated by "WikiProject Primates"!?!?

Of all things shoudnt they have rated this? If they dont take any sort of action soon I may just read the criteria and attempt to classify it myself. Please somebody, explain why this has not been rated. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRIM has only just recently adopted the rating system. Please do feel free to rate this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Its not that I dislike it its just that I thought they would have rated it. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyways I dont know how to rate it so if someone else could that would be nice. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

An odd sentence at the end of a pararaph...

I bolded the offending sentence in the copy of the paragraph below. Just thought I should tell you about it, since the page is protected. 141.133.154.27 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If challenged by a younger or even by an outsider male, a silverback will scream, beat his chest, break branches, bare his teeth, then charge forward. Sometimes a younger male in the group can take over leadership from an old male. If the leader is killed by disease, accident, fighting or poachers, the group will split up, as the animals disperse to look for a new protective male. Very occasionally, a group might be taken over in its entirety by another male. There is a strong risk that the new male may kill the infants of the dead silverback.silverbacks are know to have the biggest weiners of all gorillas and put it in the lady

btw, A quick look through the history tells me that the ip 76.181.158.218 added the sentence before the article was protected. If any admins want to ban the ip or whatever would be appropriate here, feel free. 141.133.154.27 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the sentence has been removed. I have issued a warning to the IP. Keith D (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Rated B class- Nomination as a good article?

Ok I rated it B class. It had appropriate citations and facts and is pretty well organized, though there are some citation needed spots. Anyways I Thought it was higher than start class, so I am wondering if someone else could review it or maybe try to get it nominated for GA status? Yojimbo501 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

BUT REMEMBER WHAT EVER THIS SENTENCE ABOVE SAYS ABOUT EVOLOUTION IS NOT TRUE!!!

This junk was placed in the article, please remove it (it's in the Studies section). I can't since I don't have an account. 156.34.237.125 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Please don't use all caps - that is interpretted as shouting.
2. Although it is preferred that editors get an account, it is not required to edit articles.
3. I do not see anything in the Studies section that is junk or needs to be removed. Can you be more specific?

- UtherSRG (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New Record 55 years old

I added this since it destroyed the dead gorilla's record of 54: ====Oldest gorilla==== Jenny, the world's oldest gorilla in captivity celebrated 55th birthday at the Dallas Zoo. Todd Bowsher, curator of the zoo's Wilds of Africa exhibit calls the birthday "a special milestone." The International Species Information System stated that Jenny is the oldest gorilla in its database. Kristen Lukas, curator of conservation and science, Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, Ohio stated that "gorillas in the wild normally would live to age 30 or 35; Of the roughly 360 gorillas in North American zoos, only 4 are over the age of 50. All of them are female.".tv3.co.nz, World's oldest gorilla celebrates 55th birthdaygmanews.tv/story, Gorilla celebrates 55th birthday with frozen cake --Florentino floro (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I pared it down. no need for the fluff story, just the facts. Plus, since it supercedes the info in the previous paragraph, I merged it into there. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not Herbivores

They are not. They eat insects, and not by the by as humans do when they eat salads in Tunisia, they use sticks to get them out of holes. They eat grubs snails and lizards. There is even a picture on the page of a Gorilla using a stick to fish.

Up to 5% of their diet is meat, they are not herbivores this is simply an error and the "sources" do not say it.

This is claptrap and completely unscientific —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonobonobo (talk • contribs) 01:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Three species?

Could someone please explain this revert? When and by whom were gorillas considered to be three species? Until about 2000 it was one species (Gorilla gorilla) with three main subspecies (Western lowland, G. g. gorilla; eastern lowland, G. g. graueri; mountain, G. g. beringei). Where does the notion of three species come from?

SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have checked thoroughly, and have reinstated my amendment to the article, with two references. Apart from 19th- and early 20th-century splitters, the agreement until recently was clearly one species, three subspecies. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Silverback confusion

Just reading the article from the point of view of someone who is interested in learning something about gorillas - early on i read "Adult females are often half the size of a silverback" - yet no explanation of what a silverback actually is. 83.67.5.220 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reversed the order of two sections to help out, hope that helps. It was in the article,but only explained long after first being used. ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

anatomy

anyone have anything on gorillas anatomy, i was wondering how much one can lift

Theory? No Criticism?

This seems mostly POV and accepting scientific theory as science fact. Calling a beast a "relative" of humans, implies that we come from the same source. There is no evidence, and it is only guesses and hypotheses. Why isn't there anything saying this is theory or a section for criticism? MPA 22:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Er, Gorrillas are relatives of human beings, it's called DNA, look it up. I suppose "God created the heavens and the Earth" is a better theory??? Sorry, but 95% of rational, intelligent people would probably argue that evolution is a lot more scientifically sound than the magic man in the sky did it concept. Sorry, but religious beliefs are contentious. You're more than entitled to hold yours, but please don't force them onto other people - bible creationism (call it intelligent design if you will) does not use the scientific method and it has no place here or in any scientific debate for that matter. Besides, the evolution page has its own criticism section and that particular debate belongs there.--83.23.105.190 (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of a better explanation is never considered proof in the scientific community.69.229.199.8 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Size?

The article states that gorillas are the largest living primates with adult males having heights of 165-175 cm (5 ft 5 in – 5 ft 9 in), and in weight from 140–204.5 kg. Since humans are usually taller and can weight a lot more, why are gorillas classified as the biggest, and not humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.149.101 (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To quote Rreagan007 (talk · contribs), "Morbid obesity on that scale is a disease/disorder in humans. That would be like finding a gorilla with a huge brain tumor and saying because of that discovery humans don't have the langest brain of any primate." Jack (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gorilla's

Gorilla's are known to be the closest animal to a human. In fact, there is a gorilla that knows 500 words in sign language and enjoys reaing magazines! Can you imagine talking to a gorilla in sign language?!