Chimp & See Talk

Another 4 member family?

  • jwidness by jwidness moderator

    Ok, so this is mostly just significant speculation, but maybe someone else will see something I didn't or it will be helpful down the line. I think there might be another 4 member family that definitely doesn't match any of the videos from the other 4 member family thread (because of the dates/sizes of the kids). It's a mom with what appears to be the tiniest newborn (still requiring mom's support to cling!), a very small juvenile, and a very large juvenile. Both sequences date from 6/30/2013 and neither show mom's face 😕, but I'm confident it's the same family based on the appearance of mom's rear (grey surrounding a floppy pink area), her build, and the size of the juvenile. Also no other videos from this cam show any other chimps in the area around this time.

    ACP0007aq2 and ACP0007aq3

    enter image description here

    enter image description here

    enter image description here

    enter image description here


    ACP0007apq

    enter image description here

    enter image description here

    The large juvenile doesn't appear in the second video, but something triggers the cam a couple minutes later, that (again, total speculation) I'm guessing is the large juvenile running past. None of the other videos from this cam around this time show any other chimps.


    As far as potential features to look for in possibly matching them, mom is fairly robust, no greying, rear has a lot of dark skin, I'm guessing previous sequences will potentially show her visibly pregnant and with 2 kids (or perhaps just one since the older one seems pretty independent). I also think I see a small white spot on her upper back in ACP0007aq2 -- I sort of hope people think it's just debris because she doesn't look like a match to the other back scar ladies, even taking into account she might not have the tiny infant in earlier clips.

    Posted

  • Snorticus by Snorticus

    ACP0007aq2 and ACP0007aq3 I think she is carrying a whole bunch of green fruit that you can just glimpse peeking out at about the one second mark. The small juvenile also has a piece of green fruit and we hear some vocalizations that may be food excitement. She could have an infant in addition to the fruit, but I can't see it. In ACP0007aq2 I think I see her left arm swinging and no infant, but she is not seen very much before she exits.

    I've been keeping an eye out for a little one with those unusually tiny pink feet and skinny short legs but don't think I've seen one yet.

    Posted

  • ksigler by ksigler moderator

    Not to distract from the consideration of this match, but we have the Notable Family 1 -- ACP0006lcy -- that almost fits this one. A mother with a ventral infant, a small juvenile, and an older juvenile. What really stuck out in my mind is the large dark swelling on the mother and how low the infant hangs. The time stamp puts it a month earlier, however, which may be the deal breaker... though, what if the ventral infant isn't so young, but is just sick and can't hold on by itself in the June clips? Just a thought.

    Posted

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

    @ksigler, that is exactly what I thought about...the infant must be a newborn (or sick?).

    I agree that ACP0007aq2 and ACP0007apq are the same family, but I am not sure if we should consider them as a match with only 4 minutes of difference between both videos...match or sequence? I have to ask others about it.

    about your matching proposal with ACP0006lcy Notable Family 1 I see similarities too, but tricky anyway 😕

    Posted

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

    The videos are actually almost an hour apart, but to be honest, I think I'd be more comfortable putting them in the notable list for now (or maybe giving them temp names). We can't see mom's face, it's not 100% for sure that the older juvenile is hers, and the quality is just very iffy.

    I'm not sure about matching them to Notable Family 1 -- even if the infant here is just sick, I think it looks quite a bit smaller than the ventral infant from ACP0006lcy 6 weeks earlier. I looked through the entire spreadsheet for videos dated after 6/30/2013, but didn't find any with a small ventral infant that I thought could match this one 😕

    Posted

  • jwidness by jwidness moderator

    I noticed a video tagged by @ksigler that might possibly be this family again -- still no face shots 😕

    ACP00077xb (no chimps, but sets the date), ACP00077xc, ACP00077xd, ACP00077xe

    It's from 6/12/2013 and to me, it looks like a large mom with a big belly (!) and two juveniles of the right sizes. Mom has the same darker rear with lots of flopping skin. I'm not sure how to describe it, but the darker part of her rear has the same lumpiness too. No other chimps caught on that cam that day.

    enter image description here

    enter image description here

    enter image description here

    Posted

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

    oh my bad!! I looked at the minutes only, not the hour...sorry for that 😛

    I´m placing them in the notable list as you suggested, I think it´s a good idea. Thanks!!

    Posted

  • ksigler by ksigler moderator

    ACP000781n

    I think this might be the same female, doing double-duty taxi service with 2 of her offspring. 😛 (Also posted as a response in Another Tyra & Toby?)

    The oldest juvenile isn't seen, but the female has the same body type and darkness around the very protruding swelling. The younger juvenile is riding on top, and the tiny infant is being carried underneath.

    female + 2 young

    female + 2 young

    Posted

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

    mind = blown! I'm with you 100% that this is our little family again! And that totally explains why "Tyra" didn't have Tyra's rear end

    Posted

  • NuriaM by NuriaM scientist, moderator

    do you mean that ACP000781n might be a match to the NOTABLE FAMILY 4 ( ACP00077xc, ACP00077xd, ACP00077xe )?

    Posted

  • jwidness by jwidness moderator

    I don't mean to speak for ksigler, but I think the match is between ACP000781n and notable families 2, 3, and 4:

    ACP000781n

    notable family 2 ACP0007aq2 / ACP0007aq3

    notable family 3 ACP0007apq

    notable family 4 ACP00077xc / ACP00077xd / ACP00077xe

    Posted

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

    Well, I had in mind the original 2 sequences in this thread, ACP0007aq2 and ACP0007apq where the infant is seen. Notable Fam #4 is proposed as a match to those, but the infant isn't seen (or born yet).

    Posted

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

    Yes, exactly - thanks for looking up the full sequences. 😃

    Posted

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

    This transport of two kids explained why I could not see her body build at all. I played the video again and again, but did not see this (I thought it might be her knee very high). Interesting.

    As we have a video from Tyra from May and she does not look pregnant at all, it excludes her and Toby is either not the only infant riding this way on mom's back or transporting two kids leaves no other possibilities for the older to sit.

    Anyway, I have the feeling that the baby looks bigger on June 26th than on June 30th. And I actually cannot see the baby at all in ACP0007apq (but she might have it more on the side of the arm that is holding it).

    Posted

  • jwidness by jwidness moderator

    Stumbled across this in the spreadsheet: ACP0007c4z

    To me it looks like a female with a very large belly and super floppy rear. Infant age matches. Dated 5/31/2013

    enter image description here

    enter image description here

    enter image description here

    enter image description here

    If this is them again, we finally can see some of her face : )

    Posted

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

    My very first reaction (and the second and the third): that's Olive and Tassilo. But unfortunately, her damaged left ear is not really seen and all other traits - dark body, big belly, gray beard, and long face are present, but also not well seen.

    (And she is seen in July without a second offspring.)

    Posted

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

    My very first reaction to ACP0007c4z was also Olive -- but as you said, Olive has no small infant on 7/2 ( ACP00078z2), though we've seen the newborn ~40 hours earlier ( ACP0007aq2). More importantly, the female from ACP0007c4z has quite a floppy rear, and Olive's rear looks flat in every video of her, like this:

    enter image description here

    And in particular, here's Olive's flat rear on 7/2/2013, two days after ACP0007aq2 shows a female with a very floppy rear

    enter image description here

    The videos of the notable families all show a floppy rear, and they date from 6/12, 6/26, and 6/30, while Olive's videos all show a flat rear, from 7/2, 7/19, 7/24, and 7/26. The notable family mom is likely anestrous due to the birth of her infant so her baseline rear is larger and floppier than Olive's.

    I don't think the notable family mom could match Olive, and if not, I would prefer to match ACP0007c4z to the notable family -- at least until I see a video of Olive's swelling. Maybe we'll find more videos that will help with this?

    Posted

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

    I do not think at all that the notable family is Olive, but I definitely think that the female in ACP0007c4z is Olive with her son Tassilo. She has a big belly all the time. And the fact that she is not so floppy in July does not exclude that she is cycling on that occasion in May.

    I think ACP0007c4z is not the notable family. It's Olive. (And at least we cannot exclude that and face features are not seen very well nor is anything else. So, we cannot base the matching of a couple of videos with bad quality on it as she might be somebody we already knew. You need to exclude that at first if you claim her to be part of the notable family.)

    And her rear does not look necessarily floppy. The swelling is protruded with some gray on the upper part and pinker on the lower part. Both consistent with Olive. I do not really see floppy skin swingung around in that brief sequence.

    Posted

  • NuriaM by NuriaM scientist, moderator

    ok...this is what you both propose:

    A. ACP0007c4z : pregnant (?) female (here I would say that the female has no floppy rear, but very swelling, but I don´t get to see it well) + large infant + NOTABLE FAMILY 2 / 3: one month later: female (now with floppy rear) + newborn + large infant

    or

    B. ACP0007c4z + OLIVE/TASSILO

    am I right?

    Posted

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

    Yes, and I am in favor of B (and without ruling out this possibility, I think, we cannot claim the other one). But that is my opinion. I see very much Olive in the female from ACP0007c4z (the visible traits and general appearance of her and the kid together).

    Posted

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

    What we're calling an infant in ACP0007c4z looks a lot smaller to me than the ones we were calling the younger juvenile in Notable #2 & #3. Like, more than a month's growth smaller, even accounting for camera distance. (I still think ACP000781n is a match to Notable #2 & #3, though.)

    Notable #2 younger juvenile on 6/26/2013:

    Not2 juv

    Notable #3 younger juvenile on 6/30/2013:

    Not3 juv

    Infant in ACP0007c4z on 5/31/2013:

    infant

    infant

    Posted

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

    I agree with you @ksigler, the `notable juvenile´ looks a bit bigger than the infant. @AnLand said that Olive´s curved left ear is not very well seen in ACP0007c4z female, but I think I see it a bit?

    one

    Posted

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

    Well, that's great if you see it. I am convinced that she is Olive, but did not want to claim something I cannot really see. Wonderful.

    Posted

  • NuriaM by NuriaM scientist, moderator

    😛

    I think I see it, but it might be an annoying pixel as well. What I mean is that if I had to choose between A and B, I would go for B (Olive) because of the infant size and her possible curved ear that I see.

    But as usual in this site, the image resolution is very annoying 😦

    Posted

  • ksigler by ksigler moderator

    I think I can agree on Olive. Other than the ear (which I can maybe see also, but not positive), they have the same large body, uniformly dark hair, large stomach, visible but not elongated nipples, and white beard. There are other traits I'd like to compare, but they just aren't visible from this clip.

    And just to be sure about the infant being Tassilo...

    Tassilo in ACP00078z2, from 7/2/13 (chose this profile view for a reason, see below):
    Tassilo

    Tassilo in ACP0006ksp, from 7/26/13:
    Tassilo

    Compared to the infant in ACP0007c4z, from 5/31/13:
    Infant

    Tassilo seems to have a long, flat face in the profile, while the new infant's muzzle seems more rounded. You can see it better in the clips. Is that something that changes as the infant gets older? Or maybe it's just the angles? Other than that, I think they look similar, and the size difference would be believable for a month or two.

    Posted

  • Snorticus by Snorticus

    ACP0007apq 6-30-13 To me Notable Juvenile 2&3 has unusual body proportions and looks different from the juvenile in ACP0007c4z - Notable Juvenile 2&3 has a very short neck and a somewhat large rounded head that sits down into the shoulders. The torso is barrel shaped, short and stocky. The legs are short and very skinny, the feet unusually tiny and pink.

    ACP0007apq Note the odd proportions:

    Juvenile 2&3 odd proportions

    I agree that ACP0007c4z from 5-31-13 is Olive (for reasons noted by others above) and the juvenile is Tassilo. Tassilo has different proportions - longer and bigger legs, a longer neck, and bigger feet - than Notable Juvenile 2&3.

    Here is Tassilo in ACP00078z2 on 7-2-13 Note the bigger size of the overall body, (taking into account the further distance from the camera) thicker legs, a longer neck, and bigger feet.

    Tassilo

    Posted

  • ksigler by ksigler moderator

    A couple thoughts regarding the Notable Families... Are Notable Family 2 ( ACP0007aq2 ) and Notable Family 3 ( ACP0007apq ) still really separated? Are we not sure that they are the same? I think the mother, infant, and small juvenile are the same for sure... going in one direction, then back an hour later in front of the same camera. Or are we not matching them because of the older juvenile not being seen in 3?

    Also, @Snorticus, you mention the pink feet of the younger juvenile in Not Fam 2&3... do you think it's possible that its feet aren't pink, and that maybe it just walked through some of that red mud that makes the warthogs look red? I'm asking because there was some discussion of the Not Fam 4 ( ACP00077xc ) being Not Fam 2 & 3, before the infant was born. Time-wise, it's a couple of weeks before the other sequences. But, the younger juvenile's feet don't look pink. If it's a trait, then it's probably not a match. But if it's a temporary discoloration, then maybe we keep considering that possibility.

    Posted

  • NuriaM by NuriaM scientist, moderator

    What do you think @jwidness? are you still supporting your match proposal?

    Posted

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

    I have been thinking of this too, but I find it safer to keep them separate or at least not to give them the same IDs. I will put them together like this: NOTABLE FAMILY 2/3 ; ]

    Posted

  • Snorticus by Snorticus in response to ksigler's comment.

    ACP0007apq Mud stained soles is certainly a possibility. I thought they were a skin coloring trait because I see a similar pink patch above the tail tuft and on the inside of the left arm where the hair is sparse, however as you say, it could be a temporary coloring on the feet.

    ACP00077xc Do female chimps continue to cycle when pregnant - would she have a large swelling 2 weeks before giving birth?

    Posted

  • jwidness by jwidness moderator

    I still think notable families 2, 3, and 4 are a match, and that they match ACP000781n.

    As far as the color of the small juvenile from ACP0007apq, I'm wondering if it's more a camera artifact than really pink skin. Some frames look pinker to me, but others look more normal, and when I step through the video, I feel like there are color inconsistencies across the whole image.

    Females can continue to cycle while pregnant, though it's less likely the further along in the pregnancy. To be honest, I'm not really sure exactly what is going on with NF4 mom's rear. It's not fully swollen -- at maximum tumescence it would be taut with no wrinkles. But considering I see some degree of floppiness across all the moms that I think are the same (over 18 days), it's unclear to me if she's partially swollen, if she has a larger rear than average anyway, or if maybe there are changes back there associated with parturition. I've never looked closely at a female chimp's rear in the days around a birth, but maybe the hormones make it change? Does anyone know?

    Posted

  • AnLand by AnLand moderator

    Hi @jwidness, I think the question was whether you still think that the female and infant from ACP0007c4z are part of your match as we discussed this in the last days and you defended your position here.

    I totally agree with you on the (not so pink) feet. I cannot see a consistent coloring, but only flashing artefacts from the bigger pixels of the SD camera.

    Posted

  • NuriaM by NuriaM scientist, moderator

    @jwidness proposes that NF2/3/4 + ACP000781n are a match:

    one one one one

    terrible pics 😠

    Posted

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

    what I think is that NF2 + 3 + 4 are VERY likely to be a match, but I´m not so sure about ACP000781n:

    NF4 : 06-12-2013 . 13.31 (see ACP00077xb). She looks pregnant. 18 days afterwards:

    NF2 : 06-30-2013 . 14:48

    NF3 : 06-30-2013 . 15:44

    here she is holding a baby (newborn?) with her hand.

    this sequence would make chronologically sense, but here ACP000781n is 4 days before NF2/3 and she is walking with a newborn clinging ventrally and she is not holding him/her.

    Posted

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

    Brainstorming, as I still feel ACP000781n is part of the story. I have 2 ideas:

    In that clip, the mother is carrying both the infant and the juvenile. Is it possible that she needs both arms on the ground to support herself and their weight and move so quickly, even if her preference would be to cradle the infant?

    And/or...

    The infant is hanging low on her belly in ACP000781n, and we can see its feet around her hips. However, in ACP0007aq2 (Not Fam 2/3), the baby is higher up and not clinging to the hips, needing to be held. We discussed the possibility of it being sick, but would an infant ever be nursing while the mother is walking? That could also explain why the infant is in that position and she would need to support it.

    Posted

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

    hi @ksigler 😃

    during the first few days after birth, a mother supports her infant with her hand and thighs while she is walking (tripedal walk), and holds the baby constantly while she is sitting or lying. After several days, the infant can cling to mom´s belly on its own (van Lawick-Goodall, 1967; Zamma et al ., 2012). I think mom wouldn´t take her hand from her baby even if she had to walk fast (in case of danger she would grab her baby even tighter). Only one case of twins was observed in the wild (in Mahale), and the mom was even using both hands, walking bipedally.

    I´m not sure if they nurse while walking, but I know that bigger infants often begin suckling with the left nipple, probably because of the mother´s tendency to support infants with their left hand. It might make sense in ACP0007aq2 .

    I still think that, although there are some signs, matching ACP000781n with NF2/3/4 is too risky.

    But as usual, I am open to discussion :S

    Nice brainstorm!

    Posted

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

    So it's really a matter of just a few days that would determine if the infant needed support or not? Because it also occurred to me that the timestamps could be wrong. As we've seen in the spreadsheet, the dates on the camera timestamps don't always match the date the footage was captured to file.

    Considering this, the timeline is:

    ACP00077xc Pregnant - Clip shows 6/12/2013, file shows 5/28/2013

    ACP000781n (clip in question) Not supporting infant - Clip shows 6/26/2013, file shows 6/23/2013

    ACP0007aq2 & ACP0007apq Supporting infant - Clip shows 6/30/2013, file shows 6/13/2013

    As you can see, based on what the clip timestamps show, the order doesn't make sense. But by the file date shown in the spreadsheet, it does. I know we don't often get this technical about it, but if the chronological order is the only doubt...

    Posted

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

    Hi @ksigler, the "time" in the spreadsheet is more a down-/upload date (download from camera, upload on someone's computer). It has nothing to do with real time. We talked about it here: http://talk.chimpandsee.org/#/boards/BCP0000008/discussions/DCP00005i9

    I don't know about the meta data associated with the video files, but from the spreadsheet and video point of view you can in my opinion verify dates and times only with comparing videos of the same camera and the same upload (or download) date. And I guess, you can here only see wrong times (sunshine at 10 p.m.), not really dates. I was wondering why the upload date can be before the actual time stamp on the camera, but we had this cases before.

    We had the case at Lingering Shape, where one camera did not show the actual date, but started with January 1st, 2011. There it was obvious that something went wrong. I think that's the default time when you buy the cameras.

    Posted

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

    Of course, thank you, @AnLand ! I remembered a discussion about it, but didn't remember all the details. And of course, when you're looking for an explanation, one tends to grab what supports the theory, which was the date in the spreadsheet. Disregard that argument, then. Wrist slap self-inflicted. 😃

    Posted

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

    Just a quick point: twins in chimps have been observed more than at Mahale, They were observed at Tai at least once that I know of but they didn't survive and I have heard about them at other sites (and certainly in zoos)

    https://books.google.de/books?id=t7YhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA239&lpg=PA239&dq=tai+chimpanzee+twins&source=bl&ots=R_oqD6vZBN&sig=R34M0KC0bGhQnOcDfyFTakWjr-M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBj5r8i8rJAhWkl3IKHUHICl4Q6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=tai chimpanzee twins&f=false

    Posted

  • jwidness by jwidness moderator

    The date in the spreadsheet should be the date the memory card was installed in the camera -- so except for a few incorrect duplicate files, all the timestamps on the videos themselves should come after the date in the spreadsheet.

    I don't actually think that seeing the infant unsupported in ACP000781n precludes a match to the supported infant in ACP0007aq2 four days later -- from Van Lawick-Goodall 1968:

    During the first few weeks the mother gradu­ally supports her infant less frequently. Thus Goblin was supported continuously (during observation) for his first 2 days. He was not seen on the third day. On the fourth and fifth days he was supported less often by his mother's hand but almost continuously by her thighs. During his second week he was seen clinging, unsupported, for at least 40 yd and during his third week Melissa only supported him for the first few yards after moving off. If he lost a hand- or foothold, however, she immediately pressed him back into place. The data for most of the other infants followed the same general pattern.

    So I think similar to the change in position from ventral to dorsal, there is variation in support behavior in the early days of life. I think we also see this in some Crimson Dew videos. ACP0005fe1 shows a very young and shaky infant clinging unsupported, but ACP00058d1 shows an older infant (possibly the same infant) getting a little extra support from mom. (To be honest, the older infant seems to be letting go intentionally, but regardless, we're talking about the the support behavior from mom, which is still there.)

    Also, as ksigler said, the infant from ACP0007aq2 may be sick and having a hard time clinging 😕

    Lastly, again from Van Lawick-Goodall 1968:

    Chimpanzee infants, unlike many other primate species-e.g. baboon (DeVore, 1963), rhesus (Hinde, Rowell & Spencer-Booth, 1964) and langurs (Jay, 1963)­ do not use nipple attachment as an additional means of support.

    If anyone wants the Goodall text, I can send it around. There is some good stuff in it -- like reports of male baboons mounting chimps!

    Posted

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

    When you simply said "they didn't survive" I was totally unprepared for the terrible end of their story! How utterly heartbreaking 😦

    Posted

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

    If it is really the date when the memory card is put in the camera (and not a download date to a computer which can be the next day or even later), we could try to verify the date with the help of the field team-videos. One of them should correspond to the spreadsheet data (date from time stamp equals spreadsheet date).

    Edit: Ok, I am technically not really clear here as that must always be the case as it is not an independent source as a download computer would be, right? The camera date should come from the memory card or not? From where does the time stamp on the video come - from the camera or from the memory card?

    Posted

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

    I might be misunderstanding your question, but I'll see if I can answer it. The date on the camera is set by the field team and is the source for the timestamp that appears on screen on the video files. Presumably all the files off of the same camera -- even if they come off different memory cards -- should have consistent timestamps. The date that appears in the spreadsheet is manually typed in when the files get moved to a computer. It's supposed to be the date that the memory card was placed in the camera, not the date the files were transferred to the computer.

    I hope I got all of that right, someone from the science team should correct me if I'm wrong : )

    Posted

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

    Ok, so it is an independent time taken (manually, but still) and there should be a camera set up-video of the field team with the same automatic video time stamp as the (manually and later) included spreadsheet date when the files are saved/downloaded. This should determine whether there is in one of the cameras in question a gap between these dates of some days (not only the minutes, we've seen earlier).

    (But I doubt that it's the case. In the "wrong" 2011 videos from Lingering Shape, the camera for some reasons went back to the default time 2011-01-01. Having a gap of just some days would be strange.)

    But nice discussion!

    Posted

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

    Hi what @jwidness said is correct regarding the two types of dates, thanks!

    Posted

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

    thanks @MimiA for the twins update 😃

    Posted

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

    @jwidness,
    interesting research job!

    ok, I accept now the gradually unsupported theory. It really makes sense...I shouldn´t expect a `black or while´ behaviour in nature. Thanks!

    Posted