From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Bonobo is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Bonobo at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.


I changed "This primate is frugivorous" to "The bonobo is an omnivorous frugivore". It is a more precise and less confusing description. The links to other wiki pages contain language that backs up this change. For instance on the wiki frugivore page "A frugivore is a fruit eater. It can be any type of herbivore or omnivore where fruit is a preferred food type." and on the wiki omnivore page, "Various mammals are omnivorous in the wild, such as the Hominidae...." The rest of the section is both accurate and well referenced and also explains quite well why Bonobos are classified as omnivorous frugivores. (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

diversity of faces[edit]

'The bonobo also has highly individuated facial features, as humans do, so that one individual may look significantly different from another, a characteristic adapted for visual facial recognition in social interaction." - this statement is very doubtful. Humans are adapted to differentiate between human faces. The bonobo face is similar in structure to the human face. This might be the cause of the apparent diversity in bonobo faces that is perceived by humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

All animals have a great degree of individuality in looks humans are just poorly able to see them unless given high levels of exposure, Bonobos happen to have more human like faces thus we notice them more rather than them truly having any more facial diversity than any other ape. Most zoo keepers who work with chimps know the faces of their normal chimps from one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Locomotion change reference[edit]

I changed the line where it said Bonobos use bipedal motion less than 1% of the time. That was based on a study from 1993 and since then multiple observations have shown Bonobos ranging from even lower than 1% to substantially more than that. I was going to use this specific link as the reference: But I have no idea how to actually make a reference in the article, so if someone could put the reference in at the end of the sentence that'd be great. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this, sorry it was reverted so quickly, editors are (generally rightly) wary of an unsourced statements. Jack (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete article[edit]

Where is all the details on gestation and the proper details on their sex anatomy to other chimps. It seems this article over focuses on the "popular" stuff. really think these articles need more information. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right! I'll have a look into it now. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Commentary on Cooperation[edit]

Bonobos are one of two species of the genus Pan. They are essentially chimpanzees, though are smaller, less violent, and much more sexual than the common chimpanzee. In this Wikipedia article, much information is wanting as to the cooperation of bonobos in the wild. This article’s discussion of their social behavior focuses largely on their sexual practices and their engagement of homosexual activity. Cooperative traits such as kin selection and reciprocity are not mentioned in this article. Briefly, the article mentions that bonobos are altruistic, but the article fails to elaborate and say exactly how. This article can be improved by discussing the role of cooperation in child-rearing, avoiding predators, building shelters, and gathering food. Marklxb (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Bonobo genome available[edit]

The bonobo genome has recently become available. See and (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

See also this article in Nature. Gobōnobo + c 21:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Broken image file[edit]

When I attempt to load this high-resolution image file, I only get the upper 30% of the image.

My guess is the file is missing data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It loads fine for me. Have you tried forcing a reload - you may have had a connection issue the first time you tried to load it and subsequent attempts may have been from your browsers cache. In Firefox you do this by holding shift while pressing refresh or with ctrl+F5; I don't know how to do it on other browsers. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Gracile is not a helpful descriptor[edit]

The word gracile has, in the past, been attached to the name of the bonobo as the gracile chimpanzee. Because of this, people seem to think it's approriate to say - as in this article - that the bonobo is considered more gracile than the common chimpanzee. Probably, it could be said that there is an implication that ... well it's like a kind of chimpanzee, but y'know ... more gracile. So people are led to believe that it is actually a chimpanzee but a gracile one. Then they might go on to think ... I wonder what gracile means - but probably not. They'll just think that it's a chimpanzee ... but a strange type.

So, we know that the word gracile has been used as part of its name in the past - but do we take anything from that description. If I was to say, "A gracile man walked past my house." What sort of image would that convey? "My sister used to be gracile, but as she got older she put on weight, like the rest of us." Doesn't it sound a bit like lanky, skinny or moving gracefully - it does to me.

Is the word used in any other context? Do we have gracile elephants, horses, geese or bananas? I haven't heard of them.

My thoughts are, that we drop this strange, unhelpful descriptor and - probably trying to avoid saying how similar of dissimilar it is to the common chimpanzee - find another way of describing the bonobo.Francis Hannaway (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The word is used most commonly in biology when talking about apes. Australopithecus is often referred to as gracile, as is the bonobo. It is generally used to distinguish from the robust form of an animal. Jack (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps that's true, but it doesn't make it understandable to the general Wikipedia audience. It could be explained in the text.Francis Hannaway (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


I'd like to pin down more information on what extent oestrus is concealed in Bonobos.

The article says: "During oestrus, females undergo a swelling of the perineal tissue lasting 10 to 20 days. Most matings occur during the maximum swelling."

This reference says maximum swelling lasts 13.4 days, but that swelling cycles do not correlate exactly with the menstrual and ovulation cycles. Small, 1993 suggests "bonobos continually exhibit estrus swellings and behavior".

Is there good evidence, as the article says, that matings mostly occur during oestrus, and that oestrus/increased sexual behaviour unambiguously exists in Bonobos? Thanks. PhilMacD (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SIV comment in socio-sexual beahviour[edit]

At the end of the socio-sexual behaviour section there is a single line "It is unknown how the bonobo avoids simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) and its effects." which seems to suggest that bonobos are somehow immune to SIVs. The nearest I can get to this conclusion in the linked article is that Bonobos have never been found to have SIV and some hypothesising that non-pathogenisis of SIV is due to a pre-evolutionary split SIV outbreak. The article isn't really about bonobos and they are only mentioned incidentally twice. Not sure what the etiquette/procedure is here. Seems to me like this sentence should just be removed but as I'm new I'll just leave this here Crothersj (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

wild observation[edit]

I think this sentence is biased, poorly researched, and needs to be deleted or completed: "The primatologist often cited for the peaceful nature of bonobos has never studied them in the wild." There are several primatologists making this assertion including Francis White who has observed them in the wild. This sentence is unhelpful misinformation. Vince Watkins (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Vince Watkins

I've flagged this sentence with a citation needed tag. (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed that line a minute before the IP commented in this section about it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research[edit]

On the 29th, Severum deleted criticism of Frans de Waal not having studied bonobos in the wild; because he deleted the material without an explanation, marking the deletion as WP:Minor when it is not WP:Minor, I restored the material and stated that his marking was wrong.

As seen here, Severum deleted the criticism again, on the 30th (non-Wikipedia time), stating, "The deleted sentence refers to a journalistic piece, not a reputable source compared to others mentioned here." As seen with that diff-link, I reverted him, stating, "The New Yorker is a reputable source; criticism does not have to come from a scientific journal." Maunus followed that up by adding an academic source regarding what appears to be criticism of Frans de Waal not having studied bonobos in the wild; he then added a response from Frans de Waal on the criticism. Severum removed the material, and added new material in its place, taking away the criticism angle and Frans de Waal's response to it. I reverted, stating, "Two editors clearly object to your changes. Discuss the matter on the article talk page, per WP:BRD. No WP:Edit warring." As that link shows, I also stated, "Do stop being so pro-Frans de Waal in your editing. The fact that he has been criticized, and has responded to the criticism, should be mentioned. Added back this piece you added." I mentioned the pro-Frans de Waal aspect because it is clear to me, from having examined Severum's occasional editing of Wikipedia, he is pro-Frans de Waal with his editing and appears to want to hide any criticism of Frans de Waal. Severum reverted again, stating, "Wikipedia entries are to be based on science, not journalism. The issue of captivity vs. wild bonobos asks for a systematic comparison, of which there are few, if any. If they do exist, they might be referred to here." I responded with a WP:Dummy edit stating, "Something tells me that you don't know how Wikipedia is generally supposed to work. Criticism often need not be based on science, and Wikipedia allows that. Furthermore, this criticism is based on the science. Taking the matter to talk." It's clear to me that Severum is inexperienced with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and is biasing content regarding Frans de Waal.

Comments? Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • In general it is correct that articles should be based on scholarly not journalistic sources. But it is not a problem to report it if a journalistic source reports statements or opinions of scholars and scientists. They are reliable sources for the opinions of the people who are interviewed, and if the people who are interviewed are respected scholars as in this case then there is no reason we cant use it. It is indeed necessary for this article that also the scholarship that disagrees with de Waals popularizing stereotypes of the bonobos be included prominently in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree about the scholarly aspect (well, unless it's a topic that generally doesn't need that aspect, such as a film article), but, like you stated, the The New Yorker source is relaying the opinions of experts in this particular field. And, of course, there's the aforementioned academic source you included. Flyer22 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Drbogdan, as someone else who watches the Bonobo article/talk page, do you have an opinion on this matter before I start a WP:RfC on it? Severum is apparently not interested in this discussion and thinks that he can WP:Edit war, get his way, and that's all to it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW - seems that User:Severum is trying to promote a higher level of science authority in the article (*entirely* ok w/ me) - but - in a way that could be better - atm I agree w/ the comments (well-presented imo) of User:Maunus above - differing views of such issues, grounded in worthy scholarship, are welcome of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RfC: Should criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research be included?[edit]

NAC: There was consensus that criticism of de Waal's captivity research should be included, but not to what extent. Other than agreement that some mention of criticism is appropriate, discussion was inconclusive. Since there do appear to be different opinions as to what extent of criticism to include, another RFC may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research be included in the Bonobo article? And, if so, what type of sources are appropriate for that? These are the two versions that are currently debated. As seen in the section immediately above this one (here is the link for those viewing this from the WP:RfC page: Talk:Bonobo#Criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research), one editor argues that "Wikipedia entries are to be based on science, not journalism. The issue of captivity vs. wild bonobos asks for a systematic comparison, of which there are few, if any. If they do exist, they might be referred to here." Another editor argues that "The New Yorker is a reputable source; criticism does not have to come from a scientific journal.", and that The New Yorker source was followed up with an academic source concerning what appears to be criticism of Frans de Waal not having studied bonobos in the wild, and that this was followed up with Frans de Waals's response to that. The current version is not only missing that material, but is not supported by a source for part of the material that one of the aforementioned editors (the one pushing the "based on science" argument) left in. Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Maunus re-added some of the material after I posted this WP:RfC; Maunus, the "Primatologists who have studied" aspect is currently a repeat in that section; so that needs fixing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV requires that controversies are covered, and, by their nature, many types of sources are allowed, many of them far from peer reviewed scientific sources. Controversies are often matters of opinion, so, when in doubt, attribute the opinions. Use all kinds of reliable sources.
This should only get short mention, so as not to disturb the balance of the article. Captivity vs. natural habitat would be a legitimate discussion in many articles about animals. Extensive coverage of the controversy might warrant a proper FORK article, although the Frans de Waal article might be the logical place for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This WP:RfC is slow, but you know that I appreciate you weighing in on it, Brangifer. As for Severum, he made another edit here, with an edit summary that does not seem to sufficiently explain the edit or show that it is better than the previous text, and is still yet to make his case on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
My objection to that edit is more about the fact that good content was removed. The new content could just as well be added, but with the annotation that "there are other opinions, with M. Wilson, et al confirming ...."
You know this subject better than I, so I'll let you deal with it. That's just my suggestion. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That is infact what I just did. The 2014 study was not well summarized by Severus, though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Maunus also criticized the edit because it removed material; that's why Maunus reverted. In addition to mentioning the content side-by-side, I obviously think Severum should discuss his thoughts regarding these issues here at the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This content that Maunus added minutes ago is also decent. Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The 2014 study does not claim bonobos to be more peaceful than chimpanzees, they find Western Chimpanzees and Bonobos to be more peaceful than Eastern Chimpanzees, but find no statistically significant difference in violence rates between Western Chimpanzees and Bonobos. They therefore ascribe the difference in behavior to ecological factors. I.e. the study does not support the conclusion that bonobos are innately less aggressive than Chimpanzees.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts on the matter generally align with what seems to be the emerging (if still quite small-scale) consensus here; I don't see any policy-relevant reason as to why content based on the piece from The New Yorker should be excluded. As has been noted, we are obliged to discuss the controversy if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources -- regardless of whether they come in the form of scientific press or not -- though needless to say clear attribution needs to be implemented such that our readers understand the nature of the criticism and the identity and credentials of those making them. On the other hand, I also tend to agree with BullRangifer's assessment that those points should be probably be only neatly summarized here, with more extensive coverage of the criticism taking place elsewhere -- but primarily at Frans de Waal rather than a distinct fork to this article, I would think. Snow talk 04:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with inclusion of the controversy in this article in compact summary form, supported by reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to echo the opinions here and say that it is reasonable to include information from reliable sources, without imposing additional restraints on what constitutes a RS, compared to the usual. On an added note, it might be worth looking at the other subsections of the Behavior section, as the peacefulness/aggression seems to be addressed in both General and Peacefulness right now. — daranzt ] 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to join the discussion so late. I agree with others above that the controversy should be included. If we place animals into captivity, we are placing them into artificial environments for which they may not have evolved appropriate (coping) behaviour. This can manifest itself as abnormal behaviours such as stereotypies and self-harming. So, I would actually doubt the applicability of de Waal's findings to wild bonobos. This rasies the question of the value of such research. Having said this, the controversy exists and as other have suggested, this should be discussed here at an appropriate length and with reliables sources.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Well the man has considerable bonafides and probably feels his interpretations control for that, and there's little doubt that the New York Yorker's position is one of speculation by non-experts. So we have to be thorough with attribution, making clear exactly what was expressed and by whom. The fact that a RS has questioned the methods means we are obligated, in this instance anyway, to cover the conflicting perspectives -- but by the same token we have to be clear as to the identity of the source of each skeptical statement and what their credentials are. And by clear, I mean treating the identity of the sources in the actual prose, in addition to the inline citations. Snow talk 16:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible reference?[edit] Bananasoldier (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect this page[edit]

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)

Sexual Behavior[edit]

I read the sentence that states "Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in tongue kissing, and oral sex." and chose to verify it with the source provided. I'm glad I did, because I didn't find that statement anywhere. The bonobos were in fact observed engaging in that behavior, but the article also clearly states that the one other primate they were studying, Cebus Capucinus, engaged in oral sex "extremely rarely," but that it had not been documented during focal observations of adults. Adult capuchins were not the only subgroup being studied, that is they were also collecting data from juvenile individuals.

I am reluctant to edit the page myself, because I am new to wiki contributions and have not read all the guidelines.

Thanks, wiki contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humblehermit (talkcontribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bonobo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016[edit] (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: Empty request - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017[edit]

NightBlue3 is a part of this Primm34 (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK Discuss 01:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017[edit]

I want to add that the term Bonobo is used often by the streamer Rabia "Nightblue3" Yazbek Rekkles (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Discuss 12:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)