Chimp & See Talk

(Female) adult chimp

  • AnLand by AnLand moderator

    (found by @rlb66xyz)

    An adult chimp on the move. Stopping briefly for a picture of its face. Hard to see, but I think female. (I think, I see a swelling in the second video when it is almost hidden behind the tree.) Gray beard, no baldness, rounder brows, overall not much gray on back and legs.

    ACP0004fbj and ACP0004fbk

    enter image description here

    Posted

  • NuriaM by NuriaM scientist, moderator

    I see a female too 😉

    Posted

  • AnLand by AnLand moderator

    I will try to match her to MF7Fem13.

    Very dark face with slightly rounded brows, a gray beard, narrow face with rather flat, but wide nostrils. Both ears present and without visible irregularities. I have to correct myself with the statement about no baldness from above. She actually is slightly bald directly above the brows (midline). One can see the reflected light. Both females look slightly gray on the top of the head, but I am not sure whether this is just light. In MF7Fem13, there seems to be some actual grayness, with MF7Fem20 I am not so sure. The whiter brows in MF7Fem20 are in my opinion due to the light reflection. One can see this partly in MF7Fem13, too.

    I cannot really see the left ear very good. The one of MF7Fem13 is triangular. The fur of MF7Fem20 seems to be smoother. I don't know whether the fuzziness with MF7Fem13 is because of fear (leopard), so the hairs stand-up. That happens in many animals, so I suggest this explanation. The back from MF7Fem20 is not well seen. MF7Fem13's back looks very light (but also here strong light reflection present).

    Both are not seen with an infant or juvenile. We discussed briefly here: http://talk.chimpandsee.org/#/boards/BCP000000j/discussions/DCP00004cd that MF7Fem13 is probably not the mother of MF7Juv09.

    I don't feel very strong about this matching proposal. In fact, I came up with it after excluding everyone else. There are similarities, but no specific signs to hold on to.

    enter image description here

    enter image description here

    Posted

  • NuriaM by NuriaM scientist, moderator

    ...could be, but I see Fem20´s face slightly longer, and she has quite an older appearance than Fem13 to me (?). Her left ear looks kind of triangular too, but here I am being hazardous...

    let´s see what the others say 😃

    Posted

  • AnLand by AnLand moderator in response to NuriaM's comment.

    Hi @NuriaM, I don't disagree, just would like to know why do you think MF7Fem20 might be older. What are the signs you are a looking for? I don't really have a clue about this.

    Posted

  • ksigler by ksigler moderator

    I have to disagree about this match. For the most part, they do look very similar, however the major difference for me is that MF7Fem13 has a lot of light gray fur on her back (see :05 seconds in ACP0004tjo). MF7Fem20 is almost all black, with just a little gray on the back of the legs. I don't think it's due to lighting difference. Also, I agree that MF7Fem20's face seems more flat and drawn down when viewed from the side (profile), while MF7Fem13 has a rounder, more protruding muzzle.

    Posted

  • NuriaM by NuriaM scientist, moderator in response to AnLand's comment.

    Hmmm...sorry, I think here I have been too punctilious 😃

    I see Fem20 slightly older than Fem13 because Fem13 looks in general more homogeneous in colour to me. Her face and expression appear more `childish´ to me: rounder eyes, still no scars, while Fem20´s face looks more spotted. Fem20´s brows are more protruded too, which give her a more mature appearance.

    this is a 45 year-old chimp:

    ![one](http://ktbs.images.worldnow.com/images/23298182_BG1.jpg =500)

    a 50 year-old chimp:

    one

    and this is a 22 year-old one:

    one

    but these are VERY subtle points and a very personal assessment. That was the first thing that came to my mind when I first saw them together (not very scientific explanation, sorry).

    Posted

  • AnLand by AnLand moderator in response to NuriaM's comment.

    Hi @NuriaM,

    thanks for this explanation. I am still struggling to see that really in MF7Fem20, but I do not have any experience. Hopefully, I will get better at this with time. We have seen the changes in the face features (scars, skin color, general appearance) very well in MF7Male14 and MF7Fem03 (see below). The "childish" component is kind of true. Eyes, mouth etc. look kind of younger, more lively. So, ok, I learned something. 😃

    enter image description here

    enter image description here

    By the way: great pictures that you posted here!

    Posted

  • ksigler by ksigler moderator

    And, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are subtle differences in their appearance depending on their region, also. Chimp subspecies in West Africa look different than subspecies in Central Africa, for example. Though I'm guessing some of the aging clues are universal, as with humans (gray hair, scars, etc.).

    Posted

  • NuriaM by NuriaM scientist, moderator

    this is an interesting issue 😃

    you are right @ksigler,

    there are 4 chimp subspecies currently recognized by the taxonomists. These are their names and geographical distribution:

    1. Pan troglodytes verus
    2. P. t. ellioti
    3. P. t. troglodytes
    4. P. t. schweinfurthii

    one

    There are few differences between all three subspecies:

    1. Pan troglodytes troglodytes: their face can be completely black, similar to gorillas.
    2. Pan troglodytes verus: (our chimps here) in Ivory Coast, have a slightly lighter face and brow ridge (supraorbital torus) pigmentation. Infants have a white anal tuft (you´ve already noticed 😃 ).
    3. Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii: has longer and more shiny hair. Adults may have bald patches similar to human´s.

    Although there are very few available data from individual subspecies, it appears that P. t. schweinfurthi is smaller than P. t. verus, which is smaller than P. t. troglodytes. Some of the differences seen between captive chimps and wild chimps may be due to subspecific differences in size.

    Posted

  • MimiA by MimiA scientist, moderator

    HI everyone

    actually the taxonomy that is currently recognized is 4 subspecies, and the 4th is called P. t. ellioti http://www.ellioti.org/history.shtml

    Posted

  • NuriaM by NuriaM scientist, moderator in response to MimiA's comment.

    Thanks for the update 😃

    Posted

  • jwidness by jwidness moderator

    To be (excessively?) pedantic, the 2nd one Nuria mentioned (vellerosus) is the older name for ellioti, and the gray spot labelled "2" is where that subspecies is located. 😃

    Posted

  • NuriaM by NuriaM scientist, moderator in response to jwidness's comment.

    you are not pedantic!

    Updated... thanks @jwidness 😃

    Posted

  • MimiA by MimiA scientist, moderator in response to NuriaM's comment.

    What is the reference for the 3 subspecies differences? I haven't read that before and I am not sure how much it is suported. Also, important to note that the current IUCN taxonomy of 4 subspecies is questioned still, for example: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22638/abstract

    We don't have a good clear defintion of what a species is and that is doubly true for subspecies.

    Posted

  • jwidness by jwidness moderator in response to MimiA's comment.

    I almost said something similar about the disagreement on the subspecies level, but I was worried it was being too argumentative. 😉

    I read a bit about it last fall for another research project -- the paper you linked ran DNA samples from central chimps, and eastern chimps, but what about western and Nigerian-Cameroon? In particular, I'm thinking of a paper from 2006 by Gonder et al. where they found the most support for a two subspecies split, lumping western with Nigerian-Cameroon, and central with eastern, but did not find support for splitting central and eastern (similar to the paper you linked -- and co-authored 😉). What do you think of the data supporting two subspecies?

    Even more significant (I think) than the chimp subspecies debate is the gorilla species debate. It still surprises me that many researchers think that gorillas should be considered a single species despite the obvious morphological differences and very clear reproductive isolation between eastern and western populations. Apparently the genetic differences just aren't significant enough -- but of course, as you said, "significant enough" isn't well defined!

    I think one interesting part of the puzzle is the political implications: a separate species/subspecies can mean the difference between getting support for conservation and not. 😕

    Posted

  • AnLand by AnLand moderator

    When we encountered the subspecies question the first time (and as I have some general problems with the subspecies / „race“ concept – that’s what it is in the end), I found this paper: Great ape genetic diversity and population history. (Prado-Martinez et al. Nature. 2013 Jul 25;499(7459):471-5. doi: 10.1038/nature12228. Epub 2013 Jul 3.) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/nature12228.pdf - describing a rather complex population history with stratification in two major groups (Western/Nigeria-Cameroonian and Central/Eastern) followed by splits – very interesting. In my understanding, much boils down to differences in allele frequencies, not fixed differences, and interbreeding occurs (or occurred before geographical barriers „appeared“).

    And although it might not be so correct for taxonomy, I like the distinction between Western, Nigeria-Cameroonian, Eastern, and Central chimpanzees much more helpful for understanding what happened and how it happened.

    And to make a point here: It's strange, it's not okay to be racist, but subspecies are good for conservation. (This is my private opinion.)

    Posted

  • MimiA by MimiA scientist, moderator

    I think given the current state of things the biological species defintion isn't very useful so we may as go with the geographic one which supports 4 subspecies and helps with conservation planning. From a historic point of view i think the data from Gonder and others, show geographic clustering and so should be considered evolutionary significant units (which was a good concept that never caught on but im going to bring it up anyway).

    For the gorilla question i think Eastern Lowlands resemble Western Lowlands from a behavioural and morphological standpoint more than mountain gorillas, so I can see why people would argue for them to be one species, and from a genetic point of view they haven't been differentiated for long. Again though, as you both said, its good for conservation and biodiversity to have distinct units to conserve, so its all about your perspective.

    Posted