Talk:Chimpanzee

Dates

Hmmm. Where did the 4-7 million years come from? Best guesses I'd read (though they were a decade ago) were ~10 million at least. --Robert Merkel

Is there really no reason to differentiate hominids and the apes? I think that humans, and our ancestors, designate a distinct break from the apes. --James

Agreed that chimpanzees are hominids, but putting them in Homo seems questionable: it would require reclassifying all human ancestors back to the human/chimp split as Homo (instead of Australopithecus, etc.). Part of the problem is that we don't yet have a clear family tree for H. sapiens; another part is that few if any fossils of chimpanzee ancestors have been found. --Vicki Rosenzweig

Robert, I can give you three relatively recent references:Jared Diamond (1992) speaks of 6-8 million years; Frans de Waal (1997) proposes a split off at 6 million years; Juan Luis Arsuaga, from the Atapuerca research group (1998) suggests between 4.5 and 7 million years. The gap has been getting smaller in recent years, as you can see. James, are you sure you can say objectively that humans are a distinct break from apes? technologically we've gone a long way of course, but biologically (and classifying species is after all about biology) the differences aren't that great. Vicki, youre absolutely right as to the difficulties involving a reclassification, but I'm not quite sure about the sentence you introduced referring to chimpanzees forming longer-lasting relationships than bonobos. Basically, bonobos use sex in different ways than chimpanzees, and more extensively.

As I said, I'm planning to expand on this article. In any case, I wanted to catch people's attention with my introduction and I think I've managed. -Calypso

Calypso, the sentence about chimpanzee and bonobo relationships wasn't my diff, and someone else will have to explain it. --Vicki Rosenzweig

---

Should humans be placed on the same branch with chimpanzees? The 99.4% figure for chimps expounded again. Usedbook 23:35 20 May 2003 (UTC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3042781.stm

It is still too controversial for us to say conclusively one way or the other (however my own POV is that chimps and humans are in the same genus). I would be more convinced if the 99.4% figure applied to all genes and not just the "functionally significant" very very small subset (which was chosen by the researchers, BTW, which raises the question of selection bias - however unintended). But the new data should be part of this article (properly framed per NPOV of course). --mav

I think it's a bunch of hooey, designed to get press attention. % gene identity is a meaningless statistic for measuring identity. For all we know a single gene mutation might be enough to cause speciation, and a half-dozen might result in a vastly different animal. I say, we should keep them out of genus Homo, because in a few weeks this 99.4% stuff will all be forgotten. Graft 23:48 20 May 2003 (UTC)

It really depends on if you are a lumper or divider. For example the dingo is considered to be a separate species from the common dog and yet wild bred dog-dingo hybrids have no noticeable reduction in reproductive success (as would be expected in a hybrid between even different subspecies within the same species). Then there are different strains of bacteria within the same species that have more genetic variation between them than do whales and horses. Oh I almost forgot hybrid plants with two, three or more sets of chromosomes from different species of plants (which causes a huge headache when trying to make a taxobox for the damn plant!). The point is that our classification of organisms is really an arbitrary method we use to categorize and try to make sense of the word. Therefore the dividing lines are somewhat fluid and can change over time (not that I'm arguing for a change in what we say in this and the homo article; I'm just saying that the most recent findings are interesting and could lead to something - or not). --mav

Don't dogs and wolves have that same reproductive success? Species names are pretty POV, aren't they? -- Zoe

Like I said the distinctions are often arbitrary and reflect a good deal of historical bias (wolves=bad, dogs=good ergo wolves and dogs must be different species!). However I'm only aware of dogs and dingos producing reproductively whole young under natural breeding conditions. I'm not aware of dog-wolf hybrids forming spontaneously in the wild (but they are bred by people and are just as furtile and have just as good reproductive success as any dog or wolf). And yet we still consider then to be separate species. --mav

Well, for species there are criteria that say what is one species and what is two species. Even though it may in some cases be difficult to apply those criteria in practice. But there are no such criteria for genera, apart from the fact that they should be monophyletic. How large or small a genus should be is completely a matter of convention and convenience. So it will really just cause a lot of confusion if people revise genera without a clear necessity. --Chl 16:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mystery Ape

What about the new mystery ape that has recently been photographed, captured and had its mitochondrial DNA analyzed? Seems to be a third species of chimp; a few people have suggested it may be descended from a weird Gorilla-chimp hybrid. It seems to be a previously unknown species of chimp. This topic should be discussed in our articles on Ape, Chimpanzee and Cryptozoology. (Of course, the text should not be identical in each article.) RK 04:20, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Bondo Mystery Ape

CNN article: Seeking answers to big 'mystery ape'

Leaky Foundation intro on Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species?

National Geographic news: Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species?

Actually, those mitochondrial DNA analyses indicated that it's not a new species or subspecies, but falls into P. t. schweinfurthii. See New Scientist, 9 Oct 2004. --Chl 16:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have put some information on ape. Indeed, if it is a hybrid chimp and gorilla, it means that all great apes must be in the same genus! - UtherSRG 16:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inter-Tribal Violence

Can we get a para.or two on violence between tribes of (Pan troglodytes) chimps? Thanks. -- orthogonal 14:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Latin name citation

"binomial name = Pan troglodytes Blumenbach 1799"
Surely this is wrong? The species was first described by Linnaeus, as Homo troglodytes, in 1758. So the citation should be Pan troglodytes (Linnaeus, 1758). Blumenbach was just the revising author who changed the genus, not the person who made the first description of the species. - MPF 16:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It appears that this is one of the (very) few instances where either the authority process isn't follow, or where Linnaeus is discounted. Google shows well-known websites stating Blumenbach as the authority for P. troglodytes, not Linnaeus. Perhaps this is because what Linnaeus called Homo troglodytes was done without a type specimen? Perhaps Linnaeus meant some proto-human? But that can't be, as Linnaeus was pre-Darwin. - UtherSRG 18:46, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly Linnaeus lacked a type specimen for Homo troglodytes. He was relying on second- or third-hand accounts, so it isn't at all clear to what animal this name refers to. As Huxley says in his essay Man's Place in Nature,

"Linnaeus knew nothing, of his own observation, of the man-like Apes of either Africa or Asia".

So Linnaeus name is a nomen nudum and not available for scientific use. Blumenbach was the first to publish the name together with a description, so he gets the credit. Gdr 05:24:43, 2005-07-31 (UTC) P.S. However, we have the date wrong. Bluemnbach's description of the chimpanzee appeared in De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa, 1775. I will fix.

Chimpanzee Attacks

I added the small bit about chimps occasionally attacking and eating human infants. I just saw it on national geographic. I couldnt't see a reason why it couldn't be in the article. I'll try and find some more to sources back that up. Irresponsible Irresponsible 15:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I first thought this was a joke, so I Googled it. You are correct. - UtherSRG 18:35, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Photo

Okay, while I am NOT a fan of Duh-bya Bush, I think we need to find a photo of an ACTUAL chimp for this article. No monkeying around (har har).

Chimpanzee Genome spin-off

I'd like to suggest a spin-off of the section about the chimp genome. It's fascinating material, but it seems to have taken over the article, and it's almost as much about humans as it is about chimpanzees. Tverbeek 12:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a human genome article, so there is no reason there could not be a chimpanzee genome article. --JWSchmidt 13:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of animal species

Animal species are not normally capitalized. This article should be moved to common chimpanzee (and if that page did not have history that prevented me, I would have boldly moved it myself.) // habj 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And you would have been wrong to do so. This article is part of the Primates Wikiproject and the rule here is to capitalize species common names. I have reverted your changes. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

genetic relations

"though technically this term refers to both species in the genus Pan: the Common Chimpanzee and the closely-related Bonobo, or Pygmy Chimpanzee." Most Anthropologists do not consider bonobos to be chimps. It's notable that chimps and humans are as genetically similar as are chimps and bonobos. This paragraph should probably be cleaned up if this article wants to be taken seriously, as this is a horrible start. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.150.79 (talk • contribs).

You are incorrect. The Bonobo and the Common Chimpanzee are certainly more closely related to each other than either is the humans. Some folks (including some anthropologists) call the two species "chimpanzees" and "bonobos". However, this is technically incorrect and misleading. Both species are chimpanzees. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

HIV

I thought this started with the bonobo, not the Common Chimp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.40.198 (talk • contribs).

You are mistaken. But if you can find a scientific source that says otherwise, please feel free to update the article as appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

gestation about 230 days —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.198.178 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

chimpanzees are also known as silly billys because they do a lot of silly stuff like repeating the movements a human does. Chimpanzees are the first monkeys to live in space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.217.241.118 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Skin color variable?

In the pictures you can see both light-faced and dark-faced chimpanzees. Do they have "races" like humans, or is this simply individual variation? -- 92.229.147.30 (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe it varies, but that they also get lighter (or is it darker?) as they age. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Cave-dweller

Should we point out in the lead that despite the name troglodytes, chimpanzees do not actually live in caves? - dcljr (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Chimp nutrition

The diet section states that most of the diet is fruit. It also cites leaves and buds, but then most of the rest of the section discusses hunting, as well as foraging for honey and insects. Is there data on the percentage of the diet due to fruit and plants, and that due to insects and meat? One fact I found recently was that 100% human vegan diets can be vitamin B12 deficient, but that termites are one of the highest sources of vitamin B12 in nature. It would be interesting to find research on the amount of termite consumption in chimps and their B12 dietary needs. What mass of fruit and plants do chimps eat in comparison to the meat mass? I would think that if a tribe kills and eats one monkey occasionally that the amount per chimp would be pretty low. — Parsa (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• I also found that section disjointed and poorly written. There's an obvious agenda to portray Chimpanzees as herbivores, being counteracted by all the hunting information. Actual data would be good. WilyD 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• I changed the language on 22 December 2012 very slightly to help clarify and make it easier to see the connection in eating habits. "Omnivorous Frugivore" is a more precise way to describe Chimpanzees. First and foremost they are a frugivore, all the rest is supplements to that basic diet. And Parsa, that is true, there may be a linkage that goes all the way back to the common ancestor to both humans and chimpanzees. Chimpanzees eat insects and leaves etc. daily and on average eat meat weekly. But still it is a small % of their diet because they don't eat leaves, shoots, bark, dirt, insects or meat in large quantities. So they eat these other plants and animals regularly and it is an important part of their diet, but it is always in small amounts. This would suggest they eat them for important nutrients like B-12, certain proteins, minerals (and maybe long chain Omega 3's like DHA) not commonly found in fruit. But all chimps prefer their MAIN diet (at least 80-90%)to be sweet ripe fruit, when they can find it.

A good source is http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html and I also put links to other wiki pages on "Omnivorous" "Frugivore" to help source those meanings. I hope this helped.

68.12.189.233 (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

cluebot

The last cluebot change might have overstepped the definition of vandalism. Monkee actually is a colloquial (and incorrect) term that was applied to chimpanzees for a very long time. It can still be seen too. Redddbaron (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect this page

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) 16:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Common chimpanzee. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/02/17/2009-02-17_911_tape_captures_chimpanzee_owners_horr-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

How does a male recognize his offspring?

In "Mating and Parenting," we read, "Male chimps practice infanticide on unrelated young to shorten the interbirth intervals in the females." But if females mate with several males, how does any male recognize that he has won the sperm competition, and that a female's offspring is his? And isn't "unrelated" quite unexplained? Its broadness suggests that a male can recognize not just the offspring of his sisters, but also of his brothers—which brings us back to the initial question. Finally, isn't "parenting" inaccurate? Nothing is said about what fathers do in helping to care for their offspring. Wordwright (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"Meat"

Chimpanzees don't eat "meat". The word 'meat' is a euphemism for the flesh of another animal. The reason the word 'meat' appears here is to give some kind of justification for the human consumption of animal flesh. For example, "chimpanzees eat "meat", therefore it's natural for humans to do so also." Please revert my changes stating that chimpanzees are largely herbivorous and a tiny fraction of their diet consists of the flesh of other animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.142.238.105 (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Your changes were correct insofar as the cited source does state that it is a tiny proportion; consequently, they have been incorporated. As to using "flesh" instead of "meat", that I suggest is your personal idiosyncrasy - "meat" is by far the more common and universal term, and not only used in regard to human consumption.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy

The taxonomy section stated: Chimpanzees are the closest relatives to humans (true), and humans are the closest relatives to chimpanzees (false). The latter statement is false because bonobos are closer. If anyone has evidence of the opposite i'll put it back. Meanwhile here is a reference supporting the claim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP6YxohKN28 Dryfee (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chimpanzee which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. -- Netoholic @ 22:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It does not affect this page, yet. Another discussion is assured to take place if the result is move. cygnis insignis 06:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Said I would open this immediately, happened to notice the other discussion closed as move to Pan (genus).

Requested move 22 January 2019

Common chimpanzee → Chimpanzee – This follows the discussion and requested move at the article on the genus, now moved to that title, and much discussion and analysis is at the talk page. Some wanted the set of articles discussed together, because of the knock on effect, and this discussion is intended to reach a consensus after that close. I favoured that move and opened the request, I don't have an opinion either way on this move. cygnis insignis 19:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

  Randy Kryn, hi again, you mentioned notifying those involved, but I see at least some have already found it. I'm still on the fence about pinging other users, but expect this discussion would benefit from a broader input, maybe relisting as with Pan. If you can think of noticeboards I will add one on this discussion. cygnis insignis 07:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  All the previous discussion participants should be finding their way here. Usual practice should be (but usually isn't) to notify the wikiprojects listed on the talk page. Thanks for nominating this move discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  Randy Kryn, that seems like a reasonable means of discriminating where to notify, don't know why I didn't think of that. cygnis insignis 17:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. It would be absolutely absurd to have a disambiguation page where the two assertedly ambiguous terms on the page were one of the best-known species, and a little-known film. bd2412 T 20:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

  BD2412, purportedly* I'm thinking out loud a little here, and appending that to your comment. That is the current state of the disambiguation cum set article index (sia) chimpanzee, pending the outcome of this discussion, and that resembles many similar arrangements for ambiguous 'common names'. What would you prefer to see as the page, sia, or dab arrangements for one of the 'best-known genera', most commonly known as Pan, recently moved to the page name Pan (genus)? A general query on those links—names and labels—because they also need to accommodate the word 'chimpanzee' in a neutral and clear way. cygnis insignis 08:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  The common name of the widely known animal supersedes arcane technicalities about a related primate now known by a different name. However, if there is going to be something other than that animal at that title, it would have to be a broad concept article or an SIA, because there are no meanings of the term that are not derived from the animal. bd2412 T 23:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  If the technicality is arcane, we should be merging in the third species of chimpanzee? Confirm to me that you understand this situation, because you are having a big impact on the linking. You may wish to have a better grasp of the relationships between topics, and the words they use to convey meaning, and you may need to read up on this subject before using weighted terms to debate some matter. Chimpanzee may not mean what it suited you to mean when making thousands of changes at the rate of 10 per minute, sometime before or after voting here and announcing what the situation is with these monkeys and the absolute but unverifiable definition of whatchimpanzee means. None of this bothers me much, I know this is how you contribute, just making some points about how users are approaching this situation. The page gorilla was moved to Gorilla, by the way, I don't think anyone realised that also is an opportunity to top up an edit count. First thing you need to do is understand the "arcane technicalities about" the species of genus Gorilla, less like us (humans and chimps) but with a lot of similarities. cygnis insignis 02:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Support move Common Chimpanzee → Chimpanzee, because:

• The vast majority of readers searching for an article about the species would search for chimpanzee, not common chimpanzee, and conversely, by far most readers searching with the term chimpanzee would expect to be taken to an article about the species, not the genus.
• The term common chimpanzee was coined to distinguish this species from another closely related animal that was at the time most commonly referred to as pygmy chimpanzee, but which now is recognized as a separate species and almost exclusively called bonobo. Prior to the discovery of bonobos, chimpanzees as a species were just called chimpanzees (as they are once again today).
• Common chimpanzee is not incorrect, but now its use only makes sense either as a parallel term for pygmy chimpanzee or as a convenience for clarifying or emphasizing that some discourse is intended to apply to chimpanzees in contrast to bonobos (or vice versa). An article specifically about the single topic chimpanzee as a species has no need of the common preface, and should just be titled Chimpanzee.
• I agree it is worth telling readers that common chimpanzee is another name used for the animal, but it's not the name most commonly used by laypeople (obviously) nor by experts (I can provide evidence). Why use it as the title of the article if it's not more accurate and is not even the most common term anyone uses? Genesyz (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz

• Support. The current setup is awful. No poor soul should have to navigate that disambiguation page. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. When people think of "chimpanzee", they think of this species. LittleJerry (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same as last week. When people think of chimpanzees they don’t exclude one single subspecies. Put all the Chimpanzees together, and very few can tell them apart. There is a reason that reliable sources use “Common” when referring to the Common chimpanzee. The pygmy chimpanzee / dwarf chimpanzee / gracile chimpanzee is a chimpanzee and is not covered by this article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Chimpanzee redirecting to Common chimpanzee may be acceptable, wrong, but not very wrong, and often what the "Chimpanzee" downloader wants, but changing the title of this article "Common chimpanzee" to "Chimpanzee" is too-wrong. The title is the most important content of any document, and it frequently stands alone. Once accessed it is too late for hatnotes or the lede or the content to walk backwards from a wrong title. Titles are important. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTS are less important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I am not opposed to redirecting "chimpanzee" here and renaming the dab page as "chimpanzee (disambiguation)". At least in that case the title would alert people who are looking for the genus that this is not the page they are looking for, and can use the hatnote to go where they intend. Rlendog (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral Weak support. My only reason for not supporting strongly is Pan (genus). The film is secondary and pygmy chimpanzee is a PTM. I've checked hundreds of wikilinks and diverted a few dozen to Pan, but the primary topic still seems to be the common chimpanzee. However, it would be helpful if an expert could look at pages such as Paleoanthropology and fix any links that do refer to the genus. Certes (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  Certes, pardon, but could you clarify which links. Do you mean what was linking to Chimpanzee was changed to link here (which would be a good thing, no?) cygnis insignis 16:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  I edited pages which were linking to Chimpanzee meaning the genus; they now link to Pan (genus) instead. I did not edit pages which were linking to Chimpanzee meaning the species, because the best title for those links seemed unclear. However, BD2412 has since diverted many of those links to Common chimpanzee. Certes (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  Cheers for the reply, trying to follow what is happening to associated pages. cygnis insignis 17:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm becoming convinced by the opposing evidence and opinions added since I !voted. Making Chimpanzee a disambiguation would also make careless new links easier to find and fix. Certes (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'll repeat the chart I produced in the Pan (genus) move discussion. The table below shows the common names I was able to find for Pan, P. paniscus and P. troglodytes in relevant sources from the past 20 years. I included the three papers I referenced in the Pan discussion as samples of usage in scientific papers, although I have no idea if that is universal.

Source	Pan	Pan paniscus	Pan troglodytes
Mammal Species of the World 3rd ed. (2005)	none	Bonobo	Common Chimpanzee
ITIS	chimpanzees	pygmy chimpanzee, Bonobo	Chimpanzee, Common Chimpanzee
IUCN	none	Bonobo, Dwarf Chimpazee, Gracile Chimpanzee, Pygmy Chimpanzee (under title "Bonobo")	Chimpanzee, Common Chimpanzee, Robust Chimpanzee (under title "Chimpanzee")
Mammal Diversity Database	none	Bonobo	Chimpanzee
All the World's Primates (2016)	Chimpanzees and bonobos	Bonobo or Gracile Chimpanzee (uses "bonobo" in the discussion)	N/A - skips to subspecies of P. troglodytes without an entry for the species itself
Handbook of the Mammals of the World (2013)	Chimpanzees	Bonobo	Chimpanzee
Primates in Perspective (2007)	Chimpanzees and bonobos	Bonobo	Chimpanzee
Walker's Primates of the World (1999)	Chimpanzees	Pygmy chimpanzee, bonobo	Chimpanzee
Hey, 2010	title refers to "Divergence of Chimpanzee Species and Subspecies" covering both Pan species	bonobo or gracile chimpanzee (bonobo used throughout the paper)	common chimpanzee or robust chimpanzee (common chimpanzee used throughout the paper)
Caswell et al, 2008	refers to "at least four distinct populations of chimpanzees" including bonobo and 3 common chimpanzee subspecies	bonobo	common chimpanzee
Becquet & Przeworski, 2007	refers to both Pan species as chimpanzees	bonobo	common chimpanzee
Allen (1939) Checklist of African Mammals	refers to genus Pan as chimpanzees	lesser chimpanzee	three subspecies: chimpanzee, western chimpanzee and long-haired chimpanzee
Simpson (1945) The principles of classification and a classification of mammals	uses as chimpanzee to refer to genus Pan	presumably considered a subspecies of chimpanzee

So the term "chimpanzee" is commonly used - both in books produced for general readership and by specialists in scientific journals - to refer to both the genus Pan and the species P. troglodytes, and even the bonobo is sometimes referenced as a type of "chimpanzee." As such, the term "chimpanzee" does not meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this article, and this move would reinstate the ambiguity that was just resolved in the Pan (genus) article. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposal is to move an article from an unambiguous name to an ambiguous name. There is no question that chimpanzee is used in both senses. I could add a couple of classic works to the table (Allen's mammals of Africa and Simpson' classification of mammales). The argument that most people expect to find an article on the common chimpanzee is misleading, as I suspect most of those people are unaware that there are two species. Few would see a picture of a bonobo and be surprised that they weren't seeing a picture of a common chimpanzee. They might even learn something if confronted with the two chimpanzees. Surely that is what an encylopedia should do — guide people to new knowledge, rather than pander to their incomplete knowledge.   Jts1882 | talk  15:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding the table and comments. There is a recent similar situation at Cat. The Cat article is about the domestic cat, even though Big cats such as Tigers, Lions, and other felidae's are cats as well. But the word "cat" commonly means the small, furry, domestic variety, and that's where it should stay. The solution I came up with there (which is oddly being opposed tooth and nail, to coin a cat phrase) is to add and link Big cats in the lede paragraph. At this page "chimpanzee" is by far the common name. The mentions in the first lead paragraph of, and links to, Bonobo and the genus Pan, explain and clear up any confusion while still allowing the common name "chimpanzee" to become the primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope the comment above by Randy Kryn is well noted. The fact that the term chimpanzee is sometimes applied to both species is clearly explained (and links provided) at the very beginning of the article, and now that the genus article is better titled, there is no ambiguity. It is unnecessary to name this article anything other than what the vast majority of readers know this creature is called, and no readers will be confused about the close relationship with bonobos. Unless there is a situation calling for emphasis that some topic of discourse is meant to apply to this species in contrast to bonobos (or vice versa), the common preface is superfluous. To see what experts most often call this species, try this: Search Google Scholar using the search terms "Pan troglodytes" and "research papers," and list them by most recent. See how deep you have to go to find one that calls the species "common chimpamzee". And if it does, does it do so without purposeful distinction from bonobos? Genesyz (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz @Genesyz: hey bud, I moved this comment because you have that is okay before and i gues this is where you intended to place it. cygnis insignis 10:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think cat should stay as is, but I don't think that is a particularly apt analogy to this situation. If you showed a group typical Wikipedia users a picture of a house cat and lion (or tiger or leopard), and asked what the pictures were of, almost all would say " a cat and a lion." If you showed a group typical Wikipedia users a picture of a bonobo and a common chimpanzee and asked what they were, (putting aside those who would identify one or both as "monkey", "gorilla" or "ape") I am sure that far more would say "chimpanzees" than "a bonobo and a chimpanzee." My point being that most Wikipedia readers would not even be aware that there are 2 different species of "chimpanzee" or would necessarily know to be looking for the particular species that Jane Goodall studied as opposed to the particular species that uses sex to resolve conflicts. Not to mention that many scientists (such as the articles I linked in the table, which were the first ones I found when looking up a question that came up in the Pan move discussion), use "chimpanzee" to refer to the collective term covering the 2 species. Which is why I cannot agree that most Wikipedia would necessarily be looking for this particular species when looking up "chimpanzee." Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• comment there is a couple of other related changes and proposals currently underway. The related page, hang on, I mean the page that is the proposed target of this move Common chimpanzee → Chimpanzee (RM 22 January 2019) is also the subject of a move proposal Chimpanzee → Chimpanzee (disambiguation) (RM 24 January 2019). After double checking all this I forget what the other thing was!? cygnis insignis 18:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This should have been a multi-move request covering both Common chimpanzee and the dab page. I've left a comment for the initiator of the Talk:Chimpanzee RM and plan on bundling them together.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I would have been inclined to support, but since BD2412 has apparently replaced all the article space links to chimpanzee with common chimpanzee, I think it's better going forward to keep the disambiguation page at the base title so that any future links get an extra level of scrutiny. I will note that some of the links that BD2412 changed to common chimpanzee should definitely go to Pan (genus); in Orangutan–human last common ancestor and Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor, "chimpanzee" pertains to the genus more than the species. Plantdrew (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  BD2412 did you individually check each entry to make sure common chimpanzee was really intended? Bearing in mind that until a few days ago, "chimpanzee" referred to the genus, and in most cases (unlike New York) it will not be immediately obvious which meaning was intended by the author, I think a lot of care was needed on that operation.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  I specifically filtered references to "pygmy chimpanzee" to point to "pygmy chimpanzee", since that is the only other meaning that could be intended, given the target of the page prior to disambiguation. In the entire run of over 1,200 pages, there was only one link intending this meaning. bd2412 T 23:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  No, I'm afraid that's incorrect. The other principal meaning is not so much the pygmy chimp, but the Pan (genus), which was moved to its current title from Chimpanzee a few days ago. Many links, particularly those pertaining to taxonomy and perhaps to common diseases etc. should definitely be retargeted to the genus rather than the species, especially as the genus was indeed their target until the recent move. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  Many links intended for the genus had already been changed so, when BD2412 started work, most remaining links would be for the species. I had left the cases I was unsure about but many were arbitrary choices, the text being equally valid for both genus and species. Certes (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  From 2004 to three weeks ago "Chimpanzee" was a redirect to "Common chimpanzee"; if something other than that was intended, then all those links were wrong all along. My edits merely preserve the status quo ante, which is likely what was intended if editors were at all paying attention. bd2412 T 02:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  That is incorrect. We just had a RM discussion, Chimpanzee → Pan (genus) [January, 2019], the links that went to that page were redirected to this page (by you), which assumes that no one linking it was paying attention to the topic (and that you know what they meant). The closer of that discussion, which ended half an hour before this one opened, created a redirect as a result of the move, and that was then converted to a disambiguation by the same user. I made it an SIA, and others added to that, but the user reverted to their version because it should remain like that until this discussion is over (for some reason). That is where we are up too. cygnis insignis 03:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  Certes disambiguated some of the incoming links early yesterday. I did a few more, looking specifically for titles that indicated subjects where the genus was likely intended or at least more relevant than the species (e.g. human evolution, taxonomy, comparative anatomy related topics). I had to go to work before I had a chance to look all the links. By the time I had a chance to get back to Wikipedia, BD2412 had disambiguated them all to common chimpanzee. Plantdrew (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. We established in the last RM that the term may refer to the genus, including common chimps and bonobos, or it may refer just to common chimps. This depends on context and depends on the source used. The fact that bonobos are separate species is a red herring because that doesn't prevent them being known as chimpanzees, in the same way that mountain gorillas and lowland gorillas are both gorillas despite being separate species. Since the term is ambiguous, and there doesn't seem to be a primary topic one way or the other, disambiguation is our friend. Then the reader can choose what they want.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• But gorilla is a genus name, so this is not just like that. I don't see what bearing that chimpanzee can refer either to this species or to both species of Pan has on naming this article using the most common name. If there is a permanent disambiguation page, I guess it doesn't matter. Otherwise, if a reader intends the meaning to apply to both species, the first two sentences of this article shows them what they are looking for. If they mean it to apply to one or the other species, the same is true. How does titling the article common chimpanzee help anything? Genesyz (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz

There are two arguments for calling this article "Common chimpanzee".

1. It's simply a better title than "Chimpanzee".
2. We'd have liked to call this article "Chimpanzee" but that title is needed for the disambiguation page; "Common chimpanzee" is the next best choice.

Personally I don't support either statement, but they're both reasonable points of view. Certes (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• If the disambiguation page is to be permanent, then that would make sense. Otherwise, I can see no reason to prefer "common chimpanzee" over "chimpanzee" as the title for this article. The objection that chimpanzee can refer either to the species or to both species of the genus doesn't make an argument that justifies naming the article "common chimpanzee" instead of the obviously more common term "chimpanzee," at least no argument that has been made explicit. How does that conclusion follow? How does naming it "common chimpanzee" help anything? I don't have an objection to keeping the disambiguation page though, if that is preferred. Genesyz (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz

A third argument is that chimpanzee has always referred to the same animal. The term has been used for the animals in west Africa and the Congo since long before Linnaeus. No distinction was made for animals living north and south of the Congo River. The recognition that the animal south of the river differed enough morphologically (albeit questionably at the time) and the molecular evidence for the lineages seperating long enough to justify a division into two species, doesn't mean that they stopped being chimpanzees. That's why they were called the common chimpanzee and lesser/pygmy/gracile chimpanzee, respectively. The gradual adoption of the name bonobo for the latter doesn't change this. Since the recognition of two species, animals north of the river have always been known as common chimpanzees. Before that they were considered chimpanzees along with their southern relatives. Chimpanzee alone has never referred solely to the animals north of the river. Most people using the term chimpanzee couldn't tell the two types apart and are certainly not making a distinction based on whether they live north or south of a particular river, so the argument that they would expect an article called chimpanzee to only refer to the northern group is based on a false premise.   Jts1882 | talk  08:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The lead will tell the reader what it is about. It will direct the reader to Pan and bonobo. It will do this far more informatively and clearly than a dab page that asks the reader whether by "chimpanzee" they meant the genus, the common chimpanzee or the bonobo. Srnec (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - as has been pointed out many times now, the term chimpanzee is used in different ways by different sources. FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter. This is a primary topic debate. Britannica has an article on the chimpanzee. No mention of "common". Srnec (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Err, so you are ignoring all other examples of different uses mentioned earlier just because Britannica (which is hardly an authority on the subject) uses one definition? Anyhow, if we are going to follow dictionary definitions, here Oxford Dictionaries uses chimpanzee as a synonym of Pan, yet again demonstrating that there is no "primary topic", and why it needs to be a disambig page:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Is this discussion about whether or not to keep the disambiguation page, or about the name of this article? Is keeping the disambiguation page permanently an option? I'm okay with that (if it's written properly), I just didn't know if that was on the table. I thought this discussion about the article name meant the disambiguation page was a temporary thing. Obviously, if that page is named "chimpanzee," this one can't be. It does seem a reasonable solution that allows readers to decide for themselves what sense of the term they intend. Would someone please clarify the scope of this discussion? Thanks. Genesyz (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz
  • The disambiguation page in some form or under some title would need to remain regardless of how this discussion ends up. If this discussion ends up with renaming this article as "Chimpanzee" then the disambiguation page would need to be retitled along the lines of "Chimpanzee (disambiguation)." Besides the issue that Pan (genus) can refer to "chimpanzee" and Bonobo can refer to pygmy chimpanzee (or its variants), there is also the Chimpanzee (film) article that we have. Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Rlendog. If this article were named "Chimpanzee," the search term chimpanzee would still be directed to the disambiguation page titled "Chimpanzee (disambiguation)," is that right? If so, that is exactly what I support, as it would seem to address every problem. Genesyz (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz

• Not quite. If this article were named "chimpanzee", someone typing "chimpanzee" would come here. There would be a hatnote helping direct people to other pages. There would still be a page called "Chimpanzee (disambiguation)", but in order to get there someone would need to type "chimpanzee (disambiguation)" or get there through the hatnote on this page (and possibly the "Pan (genus)" page. Rlendog (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, I would have favored just leaving this as "Common chimpanzee," but I don't think the disambiguation page will correctly make the distinction between Pan and its member species. Chimpanzee may refer to the member species of Pan (i.e. panins), but not to the genus itself. There still seems to be will to make chimpanzee an equivalent term for Pan, but it is not. Therefore, I'll continue to support Common chimpanzee → Chimpanzee and trust the opening lines of the article will make everything clear.