|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chimpanzee article.|
|Chimpanzee was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Chimpanzee has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Pan vs Homo
Morphological, DNA, and fossil evidence suggest that humans and chimpanzees diverged 6-7 million years ago. Suggestions that the genus homo and pan should be merged seem to be mostly coming from social activists (Jared Diamond is an historian/anthropologist) rather than hard science...the kind that comes from things like actual research and testing. Clearly, if even autralopithecus is considered a separate genus and only diverged 2 million years ago, chimps really aren't all that close to humans. Rather, it seems that an emotional longing to find a closely-related species is behind this unscientific proposal.188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- All proposals related to subjective taxonomy, e.g. where a genus should begin or end, are unscientific. Unless or until Homo and Pan are defined as clades under a PhyloCode, i.e. a testable concept, what does or does not belong to the "genus" (whatever that means) Homo is totally a matter of opinion. One could sink all vertebrates into Homo and there would be no rational reason to argue against it, because the term "genus" lacks a definition other than "a ranked taxon above Species and below Family". Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Should bonobo be included?
I'm not an expert - but to say that chimpanzees are two species .... common chimpanzee and that other funny one that nobody's heard of, confuses the reader and demeans the status of bonobos. It's not the same as saying that there are two types of Orang Utan - they are the same species. This is like saying - there are two species of dog ... the wolf and the domestic dog (that's how it appears to be conveyed - I know that's not correct). Bonobo are a different species, albeit the same genus, and shouldn't be included in the same article. I see there are at least four sub-divisions of pan troglodytes - surely that should fill the page. The reason I'm making this point, is that it makes the bonobo seem ... as they used to say ...just like a pygmy, or gracile style of essentially the same animal. Its whole way of existence differs markedly from chimpanzees and because of this, shouldn't be treated alongside them. Francis Hannaway (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Chimpanzee is the common term for the genus, not the species. They are classified as two distinct species, pan paniscus and pan troglodytes. Changing the article would require a ton of reliable sources demonstrating that those cited in this article, Bonobo, and Common chimpanzee are in an extreme minority in the zoological community. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not doubting that they are the same genus - not for one minute. What I'm suggesting is that by having an article about "Chimpanzees" in general will lead the reader to dismiss the bonobo as "just a little type of chimpanzee". Yes - it's the same genus ... but no, it's not the same species. This article confuses the issue. I know that there is a separate page for Common chimpanzee, and a separate page for Bonobo - but people looking for the common chimpanzee will come here first and progress no further.Francis Hannaway (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are 2 living species of orangutans, and 2 living species of gorillas. It's simply a myth that the great ape species are: human, bonobo, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, it simply isn't. Editor abcdef (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
please change "and are built in trees with a minimum diameter of 5 metres (16 ft)" to something else... There aren't that many trees that big, I think it is an error. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Trunks are rarely that wide, but branches can result in the whole tree being that large. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a contradiction within the article about the chimpanzees taxonomic tribe. In the second paragraph of the article introduction is mentioned that chimpanzees are members of the tribe hominini, while in the box at the right they are mentioned as members of the tribe panini. Is the article reflecting an ongoing taxonomic debate about in which tribe the genus pan should be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?
Clarify that "Social structure" discussion is about common chimpanzee, not bonobo
Please insert clarifying sentence at the start of the Social structure discussion.
While the Behavior section starts by distinguishing the significant behavioral differences between common chimpanzees and bonobos, the distinction seems to be quickly forgotten. The Social structure discussion uses the term "chimpanzee" in a description of the social structure of the common chimpanzee.
Probably the simplest way to fix this would be to state that the social structure described is that of the common chimpanzee, and then refer the reader to the Bonobo article for info on the bonobo social structure.
I agree with Francis Hannaway that there should be a separate article about only the common chimpanzee. Any discussion here about the genus Pan in general should be in a new article about the genus Pan. But that fix would be complicated. The most glaring part of the problem is the misleading Social structure discussion, which can be patched up with one or two clarifying sentences.