Talk:Pan (genus)/Archive 2

Two extant species
Ealtram (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)The first sentence seems to imply there are only two extant species of great ape exclusive to Africa. This article mentions two (the common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo). The Wikipedia entry for "Gorilla" mentions two more, the Western and Eastern Gorillas. I don't feel comfortable rewording it but if an expert or the author agree, they should go ahead and do so.

Does not say that chimpanzees are part of the hominini tribe
Chimpanzees are part of the hominini tribe. In between where it says subfamily and subtribe on the right, there should be a row called tribe where it says hominini. Here is the wikipedia link where it states that chimpanzees are 1 of the 3 subtribes of hominini: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini Lolothegeneral (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016
"an chimpanzee's"...no. Wrong. How in the world is that on a protected page. Second paragraph on the page.. "Fruit is the most important component of an chimpanzee's diet;". I'd have been happy to fix that myself.

Alyssea (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Chimpanzee. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add 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 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.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/laird/Social%20Organization.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.originsnet.org/chimpspiritdatabase.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/chimps_deserve_better/research/chimpanzee-lab-and-sanctuary-map.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Commented out" content: Tortoises and dubious facts in dubious language
While I was doing some copyediting, I ran across some "content" that was commented out, that I guess potentially could be part of the article – I don't really understand why the person left them there, but I have removed them to here so that if someone wishes to verify and add them properly they may.

I am dubious that the first item's statement is an accurate reflection of the article; if a chimp wished to kill a tortoise, I doubt they would be worrying about being that um...precise. It also stated that they do not eat them - so why would they kill them in the first place? The bushbabies information I think is already included somewhere in the article, but including it so it doesn't get "lost". Removed from main article so that editors don't have to read it without warning before breakfast.

WARNING - NOT "READING OUT LOUD TO THE KIDS" MATERIAL

BEGIN of Commented Material

Chimpanzee kill tortoises by thrusting a stick into their rectum but do not eat them. ref /ref

A recent study revealed the use of such advanced tools as spears, which common chimpanzees in Senegal sharpen with their teeth and use to spear Senegal bushbabies out of small holes in trees.

END

If doing this violates some major guideline, well, I can't stop you from putting it back. Peacedance (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Hystrix reference goes to an etnographical article. This article does mention the story about chimps killing but not eating tortoises, in the manner described in the commented material.  However, this is given precisely as a story, among other, and partly contradicting, stories. (Another quoted story is that the chimpanzee indeed eats tortoises.  There are also many other stories, e. g., about chimpanzees being afraid of red-brown dogs, but not of black dogs.  The article is not about chimpanzee, but about some human hunter-gatherer populations, and their stories, hunting modes, and taboos concerning such animals as they eat, which includes chimps).
 * It was rather good that you removed this paragraph, in my opinion. Stuff from the Hystrix article could possibly be used in some section about folklore concerning the chimpanzee, or about human hunt of them; but not otherwise. JoergenB (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What kind of addition to the hunting section would you prefer?
You put a into the section Chimpanzee the other week. What would you like to have clarified?

I have not (yet) checked the reference given immediately before your How?. Did you check it, and find it inadequate? I read another reference, a kind of excerpt collection (here), which indeed on pages 14-15 describes different ways the hunting and the distribution of the prey displays different kinds of social interactions in different populations of chimpanzee. Could you glance at it, and see if you think that some of this should be included into our article? JoergenB (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi JoergenB, Thanks for asking! I was starting to think that no one ever looked at those.  I began to read it, read your point, and thought, Oh, that's interesting, how do they do that?  But then it ended!  What I wanted to know was, once they catch something, how, and how much they share and with whom.  Do they eat what they want and the others get the rest? Do they give parts to their favorites? To mothers? To young ones? Is everyone sweet and generous, or is it more like a foodfight? :-) The appendix you found is a rich source of information, but the book or article that goes with it would probably provide an expert general overview that may be more useful.  The appendix is listing particular studies, and may apply to one location and/or one subspecies. But you could probably make some general statements from it.


 * In general, I also think the Hunting section could be quite a bit larger, a good paragraph or two, perhaps one on actual hunting, and the second on how they distribute the food. For example, how do they hunt? Individually or in groups? Weapons? Time of day? Prey? etc. Given how short the section is, any additional information at this point would be good. (However, I don't necessarily expect you to do it all.) I didn't double check social behaviors section to see if there is anything already there.


 * Hope this is not too much information - take what you like and leave the rest! Peacedance (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Social structure sources
First I found: www.janegoodall.ca/about-chimp-behaviour-social-organization.php -hugeTim (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest rather to use some of the siezeable body of published literature on the topic - some of it by Goodall, others by Wrangham, and others again by several teams of Japanese researchers. It is one of the most studied fields of primatology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Misleading! Either make this a "chimp & bonobo" page, or disentangle
It's a big mess here. Either this is supposed to be a "genus Pan", page, or a "chimp" page. If a mix, then think it through and use "main" or "further" hatnotes to connect paragraphs on this page with paras on the "bonobo" page.

You have created a redirect for the genus Pan to this page (actually only for "Pan (genus)" but not also for "genus Pan" - ?!!), which is utterly misleading, since half of the genus, namely the species "bonnobo", has its own page. If one takes the time to go through the text, there is an explanation for that, but if all one wants is, say, to check out the components of the Hominini tribe, it's less than user-friendly. I'll try to fix the two leads accordingly, but I don't know how to add redirects, so who wants to do it? As the easiest compromise, "Pan (genus)" and "genus Pan" should both get a redirect, since there is no page by that name. Thanks. ArmindenArminden (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chimpanzee. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202195221/http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp-central-pets to http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp-central-pets

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

mature more proprtionally
section: chimpanzees as pets, "chimpanzees physically mature a lot more proportionally than do human beings" needs clarification. i guess it was meant to say they grow FASTER and become stronger than humans. the expression "a lot more proportionally" rather means the opposite of that, if it has any meaning at all. "more proportionally" is not mentioned in the source either (on the contrary it says they adolesce by the age of 6-8 years and become too strong by this age to be controlled by human force). therefore i suggest removing the misleading word "proportionally" and replace it with something more straightforward like, "faster and stronger". 176.63.176.112 (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC).

Longevity
The article reads: "Chimps live about 33 years for males, 37 years for female, in the wild". This is sourced to Baker (2000), but that article actually gives those numbers as maximum ages at Gombe, not typical ages as we are implying. 69.54.6.123 (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Error in Description of Chimpanzee Sexuality
At the end of the section "Anatomy and Physiology" it currently says: "This relatively great size is generally attributed to sperm competition due to the polyandrous nature of chimpanzee mating behaviour.[32]" I didn't think Chimps were polyandrous (one woman has multiple mates but not vice versa) so I checked the reference: Why Are Rat Testicles so Big? First of all IMO this is not a valid reference. It's a web page from some site called ratbehavior.org and the home page (which looks like it was designed in 1991) simply says the site is "Ann's Rat Page". This is a very poor reference at best and for a topic on science there should be a better reference. In any case, all that reference says is "chimpanzees live in groups with multiple males and females, and when a female comes into heat she may mate with several males in one day" which says nothing about whether males take multiple mates, which they do. I did a quick search and found this article: Why did humans evolve big penises and it says: "Male chimpanzees are much larger than females, and they have a multi-male to multi-female mating system." I.e., it's polygamous or more precisely Polygynandry I plan to change the text and reference unless anyone has a counter argument. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed this. I left the reference to "Ann's Rat Page" because it seemed like it was well written and I always think more references are better than less other things being equal, and it supports my change as well, it never says chimps are polyandrous, it simply says females mate with multiple males which is true and it says nothing about how the males mate. This jumped out at me because I've read some anthropological research recently that talks about how dominance hierarchies in chimps influence which males have access to which females so clearly the males aren't monogamous which is what (the very rare strategy) of polyandry would require. I added another reference that supports the point about their testacles and is clear that they practice Polygynandry not Polyandry. ✅ --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that reverted my change, saying that "the source doesn't say this, it's your conclusion". In fact the new source I added does indeed say this. The source is:  Why Did Humans Evolve Big Penises but Small Testicles  and it says: "Male chimpanzees are much larger than females, and they have a multi-male to multi-female mating system." I.e., males mate with multiple females and females mate with multiple males. Not polyandry but polygynandry. I think it's very clear and the reference I added is much better than the Rat Lady page, although as I said above even the Rat Lady page doesn't contradict this (which is why I left it) it simply states that female chimpanzees have multiple mates but says nothing either way about males. I'm changing it back. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Misread; I stand corrected. - I have also inserted a more general reference to polygynandry in the Behaviour section, since that was not mention independent of physiological adaptations. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Misleading! Either make this a "chimp & bonobo" page, or disentangle

 * A requested move discussion to Pan (genus) is at the bottom of this page, with a pointer to this section as reference or alternate proposals. I'm suggesting users contribute to either or both sections for discussion, maybe compress to key points for the closer. cygnis insignis 20:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The confusion goes on. I'll repeat this until smb. starts discussing it.Arminden (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The page should definitely be renamed Pan (Genus) as to avoid confusion with the actual Chimpanzee page, Common chimpanzee (which is where searching for Chimpanzee should actually link to). It seems to already be serving the function as a page for the genus, so a rename only makes sense. Kyle Tatum (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I'll try to move the page and see if someone stops me. Shame, the page is move protected. ScienceDawns (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't see this being moved - we always use the name that is in most common use, and that is definitely "chimpanzee" over Pan. However, the lede needs to make clear from the very start that this is about the genus and not the common chimpanzee, so some clarification is welcome. I've given it a further shot. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with the move. 🔥flame🔥talk 14:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the move. I think it's VERY confusing when you come to an article titled Chimpanzee and it's not about the species but the Genus. I don't see the argument that this is the "most common use" as being at all valid. When people talk about Chimpanzees they virtually always mean the species not the genus. It's rare except for technical articles to talk about the genus in the first place and in every journal or academic reference I've read if they refer to the genus they use a term like "Pan". Perhaps it was common to refer to the genus as Chimpanzee before Bonobos became so widely talked about but no longer. Just because someone move protected this doesn't mean it's right. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, ,  I've been doing some research on the use of the terms Chimpanzee and Pan and from what I've seen by far the most common usage is to refer to the species as Chimpanzees and to the Genus as Pan (not Chimpanzee for the genus and "common chimpanzee" for the species as the articles are currently titled). This may seem like a minor issue but especially since Chimpanzees are our nearest living relative from another species it seems worth the effort to make this clear. Also, as a user I myself found this quite confusing. I came to the Chimpanzee article expecting to find information about... Chimpanzees and because I'm a multitasking impatient sort of fellow I jumped right to the parts I was interested in and ignored the disclaimer at the top for quite some time, so I was reading this article thinking everything it said was about the species not the genus. In Moral Origins by Christopher Boehm he refers to the species as Chimpanzees or Pan Troglodytes and when he wants to refer to the genus and include Bonobos he then refers to the Pan genus. Indeed in the very first reference for the very article itself: Wilson and Reeder's Mammal Species of the World it refers to the genus as Pan! And in the third reference for this article: Chimpanzees among 33 species selected for special protection it is clearly talking about the species Chimpanzee NOT the genus. And the fourth reference for the article: Animal Diversity Web it refers to the species not the genus and it calls the species "Pan troglodytes chimpanzee". I think the fact that 2 of the first 4 references refer to the species Chimpanzee (rather than the genus Pan which is what the article is supposed to be about) is one of the problems caused by the illogical naming of the articles right now. I also have some books on primates that I've checked out for other reasons waiting on hold for me at the library and I was going to wait and read them before posting this but I think just looking at the first four references of this article plus the Boehm book is pretty compelling evidence alone that the current naming is illogical and should be changed. I'm just not real familiar with renaming articles and also from the thread above it seems this article is protected so it can't be moved without getting it unprotected or I would just be bold and do it. Can someone else do this? Does anyone disagree and if so why? The argument that "we always use the most common name which is Chimpanzee" (for the genus) is not consistent with three of the first four references in this very article! (And BTW, not sure about the fourth one that wasn't online so I couldn't check it) --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One last thing and I'll shut up and wait for some feedback: I was thinking a bit more about the argument that "we always use the name that is in most common use" even if that were true for the genus Pan (which I don't think it is) the question isn't just what's the "most common use" for the genus but what's the most common use for the species? I think it's obvious that the most common name for the species Chimpanzee is Chimpanzee (not "common chimpanzee") and that it's far more frequent to find "Chimpanzee" refer to the species than the genus. For example, the definition in the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary is clearly about the species. So for that reason alone I think renaming the 2 articles is warranted. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really know at this point. It's kind of a high-profile article, so in any case I'd be more comfortable with waiting for some further input before attempting any renaming. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What about renaming it "Chimpanzee (genus)"? Good compromise! All else is solved with automatic links and the current, well-worded lead.
 * I would definitely go for renaming it "Chimpanzee (genus)" as opposed to the current name as long as we also renamed "common chimpanzee" to be "Chimpanzee (species)". If that's the consensus I'm okay with it but I'm still not convinced at all that Chimpanzee is the most common name for the genus Pan. I have to admit that this isn't my field but I have read a fair amount of anthropology and evolutionary biology regarding primates recently such as the Boehm book I mentioned in a previous comment and I can't ever recall seeing the genus described as Chimpanzee rather than Pan. If there are some common references that I'm not aware of I would just like to know what they are because so far as I've looked at the references in the article they support calling it Pan rather than Chimpanzee. The one example of the genus being called Chimpanzee in the current references that I see is in the first reference: Mammal Species of the World and in that reference the genus is named Pan but with a synonym on the side that says: "Chimpansee Voigt, 1831" so I think this is perhaps something that was common at some point but in more recent literature, as bonobos became well known as a different species it's been clear that Chimpanzee is a species as are Bonobos and Pan is their Genus. But I've only looked at the first four references so if I'm wrong I'm fine with that renaming but would just like to know the specific references cited, considering that I've provided several that support naming it Pan. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there hasn't been a reply to my previous comment I'm going to reiterate my position: 1) If someone can provide good references (e.g., from the late 20th century not the 19th) that call the genus Chimpanzee rather than Pan then I'm fine with renaming this page "Chimpanzee (genus)" as long as we also rename "common chimpanzee" to "Chimpanzee (species)" 2) If no one can put forward good references that are at least the equivalent to the ones I've listed in my comments above (that support saying the most common name for the genus is Pan, I've NEVER seen the genus referred to as Chimpanzee in any modern book or article) then I think we should simply rename this article to "Pan" and "common chimpanzee" to "Chimpanzee". If there is no more discussion then on Monday (as I write this it's Thursday morning) I'm going to put in a move request with pointers to this section of the talk page since the page is move protected and I can't do it myself. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no genus Chimpanzee. This is a reference article. The title should definitely be Pan (genus). The argument that the most common use of "Chimpanzee" for this genus reflects the very misunderstanding this article should help to dispel. There is already an existing article for the species chimpanzee (P. troglodytes) and there is an article for bonobo (P. paniscus). This article is not a redundancy; it is about the genus that includes those two species, and its name should clearly and accurately reflect that.

"Chimpanzee" is misleading. "Chimpanzee (genus)" would not be a good compromise; it would be wrong. This article is about Pan (genus), and that is what it should be named. Genesyz (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Genesyz. here. There is no genus "chimpanzee".  If we make a move it should be to Pan (genus). Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A search for "chimpanzee" should be directed to the article "Common chimpanzee," as any argument for most common use would have to concede that anyone wanting information about the species would search for "chimpanzee" not "common chimpanzee." I had not realized before that a search for "chimpanzee" would be directed to this article for the genus! That is an egregious error you really need to correct right away. It seems you all understand the genus/species distinction, and the taxonomy is not a matter for debate here. The only impediment seems to be about people commonly (and mistakenly) referring to the genus by the name of one of its member species, and maybe worse, consequently ignoring the more generally relevant reality that "common chimpanzee" is almost always just referred to as "chimpanzee," and should be the primary target of that search instead of directing to the genus. If someone where looking for an article about "squares," would it make sense to direct them to an article for "rectangles" and name the article about squares "equilateral rectangles" instead?

Please be reasonable and fix this right away. Genesyz (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Has this really been like this since 2016? Genesyz (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I request that whatever block is preventing this error from being corrected, that it be lifted immediately. Continuing to prevent this correction against the clear and reasoned consensus of editors is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. Genesyz (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So I did some more research and found some support for calling the Genus Chimpanzee. In the book The Human Career by Richard Klein on p. 81 he says "the Chimpanzees comprise two species known popularly as the common chimpanzee (Pan Troglodytes) and the pygmy chimpanzee or bonobo (Pan paniscus)". I consider the Klein book to be very authoritative, I actually got it because I kept seeing it referenced in so many other papers I was reading about primates, hunter gatherers, and altruism, it's an incredibly detailed and well researched book. So given that I'm okay with the option of renaming this to just "Chimpanzee (genus)", that will require less work to change the articles as well. To be completely honest my preference would still be to just call the genus by it's scientific name Pan but given the Klein book I can see that it could go either way so I'll agree with the "Chimpanzee (genus)" option so we can have a consensus. can you make this change? I can't move the article because it's protected. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , note the plural in the label, chimpanzees, a label that klein defines with reference to accepted and universal names. Note also that it is not capitalised at wikipedia, not a proper noun or title, where he has done so gives clarity. On the other hand, a species or genus is inherently plural, in theory it is population. The rules about those names are decided by an outside authority, a web of citations, and we don't have to do anything but start adding facts beneath those names. cygnis insignis 14:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There is one scientific name for the genus: Pan. The two species are: Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee) and Pan paniscus (bonobo). Sometimes people have referred to bonobos as pygmy chimpanzees, and then call chimpanzees common chimpanzees, but nevertheless, there is no genus called chimpanzee.

There have been arguments made that chimps should even be included in the genus Homo with us, but as it is, the genus is Pan, and it's not something that is debatable on Wikipedia. You guys will either get it right or get it wrong. Genesyz (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Please consider these sources to see that this is not a matter of opinion. This taxonomy has already been established. As a former teacher, I would hate to see Wikipedia get this wrong and discredit Wikipedia as a reliable source of information on something as clear cut and simple as this.

Tree of Life web project http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4718

Emory University (home of the Center for the Advanced Study of Ape and Human Evolution and the Yerkes National Primate Research Center) https://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdfs/primate_taxonomy.pdf

New Genetic Evidence on the Evolution of Chimpanzee Populations and Implications for Taxonomy Mary Katherine Gonder,1,2,4 Todd R. Disotell,3 and John F. Oates2 Received June 17, 2004; accepted July 1, 2005 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=primate+%22taxonomy%22+%22Pan%22+%22genus%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,36&as_vis=1

Indiana University http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/hominins.html Genesyz (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm dropping a note to the Wikiproject Tree of Life for some further comments. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I would also point out as an example, the article on opossums is titled "Opossum" even though this animal is commonly and popularly called "possum." This issue with this article about Pan (genus) is even more clear, given it is an actual issue of taxonomy. Genesyz (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Elmidae If you check the website they reference (https://tree.opentreeoflife.org/), there is a search field. The hamburger icon (those three lines in the upper right) will drop down a search box. In "search for taxon" type "chimpanzee" and in the place where it says "all life" select "mammals." Genesyz (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I should have thought to offer that as a reference myself. It shows Pan. Genesyz (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There really aren't two ways about it. We can't make up genus names. Genesyz (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can someone demonstrate that the term "chimpanzee" doesn't include both the common chimpanzee and the bonobo/pygmy chimpanzee? If not, I see no point in a move. We go by the most commonly used terminology, no need to be more restrictive than we have to. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To stall a premature move, oppose move until someone demonstrates that the term chimpanzee is not used to refer to both species. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is about the genus Pan and according to Wikipedia conventions is named after the common name used for animals from the genus, which is chimpanzees. This is correct and unfortunate. There is no question that the vast majority of people searching for an article on chimpanzees will be looking for the article on the species. How often have you heard people refer to the common chimpanzeee rather than just the chimpanzee? So the question is should the title be named for the convenience of the reader or should it strictly follow Wikipedia conventions.
 * I favour the move to Pan (genus) and redirecting chimpanzee to common chimpanzee because it better aligns what people are searching for. A lay person might be confused if they find themselves on a page about the genus when they want an article on the popular animal known as a chimpanzee. Someone more knowledgable and looking for a genus article will quickly be able able to navigate to the correct article. No one would be inconvenienced or confused, unlike the current arrangement. The genus article cannot be Chimpanzee (genus) as that is not the name of the genus. You could make a case for chimpanzees (plural) but that wouldn't be helping bring clarity. If the common name is important for genus title then Chimpanzees (Genus Pan) would be unambiguous.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think that is an unwritten rule, the common name is not chimpanzee. I've opened move discussions that elaborate why a move to a systematic name accords with policy, only to have another show how guidelines wielded as "use english" and "common name" actually support the move, in this case Pan the most universal name in reliable sources, the definitive name in English sources. Without reference to a systematic name, chimpanzee is ambiguous. cygnis insignis 10:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Pan circumscribes all the taxa and their referents—chimp, bonobo, bonzo, et al—which further split the traditional name for a 'type of animal' from the taxonomy of reliable sources. The reader is two words into the article and they have learned something: this article is about the genus Pan. As it is, as is so often the case, the lead is a battleground for supremacy of emboldened and preferred vernacular (and suppressing the theory they are our near relations, we are a very similar animal?). I'll await the argument that this name is confounding and technical, or unpronounceable, it is time the site evolved past pointless arguments over which vernacular is promoted. Pan blows away the competition, resolves naming disputes and title squabbles, and clearly defines the scope of a biology article.  cygnis insignis 10:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk, I'm not sure if you're asking if people use the word chimpanzee to mean both species of the genus Pan, or if you're asking if people correctly use it this way. Most people would call them all monkeys, but that is scientifically wrong. They are apes. There are three articles: one for chimpanzees alone (a species), one for bonobos alone (a species), and one that includes both as a kind that includes both and excludes other animals (a genus). The only correct genus name is Pan. Because bonobos used to be called "pygmy chimpanzees" (among other things), the parallel term "common chimpanzee" was needed to distinguish the two; however, "chimpanzee" properly refers only to the species Pan troglodytes (chimpanzees), not bonobos (Pan paniscus). There just is not a genus called "chimpanzee." This article is redundant if it is not about the genus Pan, and if it is about the genus Pan, then it really should have that name.

I don't know if I answered your question, but if people use "chimpanzee" or "monkey" or any other scientifically incorrect term when referring to chimpanzees and bonobos together (as a genus), then they shouldn't. And if they do, we should help correct the misconception. Genesyz (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, the article about the species chimpanzee is currently called "common chimpanzee," but the one for bonobo is not titled with the parallel term "pygmy chimpanzee." The first should just be titled "chimpanzee" to match the second and to make it easier for people to find what they're almost certainly looking for when they search "chimpanzee," i.e. the species, not the genus. Then, with this article properly named for the genus, this will all finally make sense. Genesyz (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , ask me what I think the name of those articles should be ;) cygnis insignis 11:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Monkey man 1 & monkeyman 2? LOL. People want to find what they're looking for, find accurate information, and learn something, right? That's the whole point. If the science changes or if popular terminology is wrong, articles should be updated to reflect that, not remain outdated to conform to common but inaccurate terminology. Genesyz (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , support that too :-) Changes in taxonomy represent an improvement in the sum of knowledge (that phrase!), changes in common name happen for all sorts of reasons, often unaccountable. Systematic names change from time to time, common names change from place to place. This is a concern in static texts, but synonyms exist for that reason; most general texts on organisms begin with an apology for those whose preferred name lost out. Accounting for the various preferences of different places, languages, Royal committees for the Anglicisation of God's Creatures is something I enjoy adding to the article content, where it can be given attribution and context. However, choosing one name for the big letters at the top is unnecessary in a[n] NPOV document with a world view. The effect of taxonomic changes on a digital and live document are trivial, an opportunity for simple expansion. Writing an article about organisms is easier from a taxonomic pov, and avoids all sorts awkward language to justify the result of a talk page debate on whose common name get to the top. cygnis insignis 11:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What used to be called "hominids" are now called "hominins" and "hominids" now has a different meaning. I'm glad to see that has been updated on Wikipedia, even though most people have not gotten the memo. This is the same sort of thing. Genesyz (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the comparison is apposite, it gets close to undermining Homo exceptionalism cygnis insignis 11:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The species Pan troglodytes has a correct common name: chimpanzee. The species Pan paniscus has a correct common name: bonobo. The genus Pan itself doesn't have any other correct name. Some people mistakenly call them chimpanzees, and even more people incorrectly call them monkeys. I don't think a reasonable argument can be made for following either error. Genesyz (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What source do you have that calling the genus Pan "chimpanzees" is an error or a mistake? That bonobos are now typically referred to by a common name that doesn't contain the word "chimpanzee" does not mean the collective term is an error.Rlendog (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know how to comment under the threads properly. :/

If there is an article on Homo exceptionalism, I definitely want to read that! And if there is a way it needs undermined (corrected), count me in. :) Genesyz (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The usual mode is to use one more full colon : to keep indenting reply threads. I have never looked for an article on that area, if I think of a good book I ping you, I suppose one starting point is to consider the different views on flora and fauna of different societies. Deep ecology is reviled enough to provide some detachment for critical analysis (not for action!). Bonobo is a better choice than pygmy chimp, that much is certain to me. Regards, cygnis insignis 14:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Genesyz (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

For an exactly parallel analogy, look at the Wikipedia article for Equus (genus). There is no other correct name for the genus, even though people commonly (and mistakenly) label the genus as a whole "horses."

Is anyone still not seeing why naming this article "Chimpanzee" is wrong? We really need to correct this right away. The error is pretty bad. I can't believe this was pointed out in 2016 and hasn't been corrected. Genesyz (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , there is one objection placed to forestall the process., does the objection still stand? cygnis insignis 11:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No one provided any sources that state what I was asking for (only their own opinions/analyses, which are really irrelevant), so I had to look myself. Since the following scientific articles seem to restrict the term chimpanzee to P. troglodytes, I think we should follow. That said, at least this paper and Oxford Dictionaries uses the term for both species. Therefore, we should still make it clear here that the term chimpanzee is sometimes applied to the genus as a whole. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I could make that clear, without making it the article title. Reference to taxons is not opinion or OR, certainly less than deciding that the happenstance of unregulated terminology in some sources, that rely on the same systematic name, somehow weights an argument to do otherwise. cygnis insignis 11:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And another thing! :P That is not a reference to the OED, it is an online dictionary that they state is not the same thing, it often contradicts the OED proper. cygnis insignis 12:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we can't deem something "unregulated taxonomy" if we have no sources that actually state one use is correct and one is not. What I have seen throughout this discussion has just been personal opinions, with few to no actual sources to back anything up. And again, our personal opinions are irrelevant here, all we have to do is point to authoritative sources that back up one position or the other. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , you want an authoritative source that 'chimpanzee, Chimpanzee and Chimpanzees' are not part of an regulated taxonomy, because I know you know that Pan is. cygnis insignis 12:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What I want is what I've stated a couple of times above; a source that restricts the term "chimpanzee" to only the common chimpanzee. I have found sources that go either way, but the restricted use seems most prevalent. But since the other use exists too, in specialised literature (so it can't be dismissed as ignorance), we can't just ignore this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The term chimpanzee is used both for the common chimpanzee and for members of the genus. Both are correct usages. Words often have multiple meanings with narrower or broader definitions (e.g. plant, cat). The Collins and Mirriam-Webster dictionaries use chimpanzee for the species, Oxford applies it more loosely to the genus. So it is not incorrect to use chimpanzee for the genus, although now the pygmy chimpanzee is usually called the bonobo this is the less common usage.
 * That said, I support the change of name for the article. One, it reflects more common current use of chimpanzee for the species and, two, a search for chimpanzee will more often take people to the article they are expecting.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 12:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Bonobos are not chimpanzees any more than zebras or donkeys are horses. In both cases the different species are closely related and are grouped together within a genus.

Until this is corrected, is there a way to tag or notate the current title of this article as disputed so that readers at least have fair warning? Genesyz (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the above before I saw the posts immediately above. It the move is agreed, then ignore my question about tagging the title. Genesyz (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The term "chimpanzee" is used (colloquially) to refer to both species, but it is scientifically inaccurate in terms of taxonomy, since the proper scientific term is "Pan." Genesyz (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate may not be the same as incorrect, but the use of the term this way is objectively imprecise, given it does not conform to the current taxonomy. Genesyz (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , a licensed premise is how I look at it. Something noted above is that the genus was 'generally regarded' monotypic, so chimpanzee referred to the genus and species unambiguously. Any child knows there are two species, and something about gracile one, they would look blankly back and say "which chimpanzee" (maybe not in theocratic cultures, but we can't help that) cygnis insignis 14:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You can repeat "bonobos are not chimpanzees" over and over again, but until you actually provide a reliable source that states this, it is your personal opinion and doesn't make any difference. As has been demonstrated above, some sources restrict the term to P. troglodytes, some use it for Pan, but since the former is prevalent, we can go by that. But the constant bald statements without backup are really getting tiresome. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The genus may have been considered monotypic at one time, but recognition that the genus contains two species and that the genus represents the chimpanzees can be found from 1939 to the present. Allen's Checklist of African Mammals (1939, p172) has an entry for Pan Oken. Chimpanzees and goes on to list several subspecies of P. troglodytes and the species P. paniscus, the Lesser Chimpanzee. The current ITIS entry for Pan contains this line in the taxonomy Pan Oken, 1816 – chimpanzees. The American Heritage dictionary entry for chimpanzee is particularly clear:
 * 1. Either of two African apes of the genus Pan, having black hair, a bare face, somewhat arboreal habits, and a high degree of intelligence.
 * 2. The common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), of equatorial central and western Africa, having a stockier build than the bonobo (P. paniscus).


 * So I think the evidence is clear that chimpanzees has been applied to the genus containing both species. There are also many sources using chimpanzee for the one species, so we have to accept that the common name is used in two ways and that it is inaccurate to say that this is wrong or misleading. The discussion would be more useful discussing the most appropriate name for the genus article.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I didn't look into when chimpanzee was recognised as a species, or when the other chimpanzee was, and wider acceptance of chimpanzee was a circumscription of chimpanzee and chimpanzee. What I do see is the reactionary position that names in those early readers, that form a platonic type in the minds of editors, must be in big letters and anything that contradicts the description of an imaginary static form by a popularly sanctified english label is disregarded as technicalities, if not heresy. Excuse the rancour, cygnis insignis 16:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. The term chimpanzee has been used to refer to both species in the genus Pan, and as far as I can tell is still the most common name for the genus.  And we have a separate article for the common chimpanzee under its appropriate common name.  The hatnote already addressed the issue of covering bonobos within this article and the revised hatnote probably does so better, although it can probably be refined some more.  So this is the appropriate common name and thus title for the genus Pan and we have a separate article for the common chimpanzee under its appropriate common name. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doing a little more research, Groves (2005), which has been our gold standard for primate taxonomy with a long history of consensus, uses the term "common chimpanzee" for Pan troglodytes, not plain "chimpanzee." That said, I do think this source needs to be updated.  Two newer possible sources that I am aware of are Handbook of the Mammals of the World (2013) and All the World's Primates (2016).  My recommendation - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates for more information - is Handbook of the Mammals of the World, which is also as far as I can tell aligned with ITIS.  I checked both those sources and Handbook simply uses "chimpanzee" for P. troglodytes and "bonobo" for P. paniscus.  So if we moved to handbook as our primary source, there would be a good case for naming the genus Pan (genus) and the species "chimpanzee" and "bonobo."  On the other hand All the World's Primates uses "Bonobo or Gracile Chimpanzee" (emphasis added) as the common name for P. paniscus, which again suggests that referring to bonobos within the collective term "chimpanzee" is not incorrect or mistaken.  And that source punts on a common name for P. troglodytes, separating P. troglodytes into separate subspecies without a species article. Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just opened a move discussion and thought research was cheating, isn't it like cribbing when we are online and being tested by the fire of debate? /s "A subgenus of Homo according to Goodman et al. (1998, 2001c); Watson et al. (2001) also included it in Homo." I may have changed my mind again ;-) cygnis insignis 21:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I may be coming around to a different view too. Maybe "Pan (genus)" is a better title for this article, even if some of the hyperbole in the discussion about it being "mistaken" or "misleading" is off base.  In that case, I would probably still leave P. troglodytes under the title "common chimpanzee" and make "chimpanzee" either a dab page or redirect it here, with suitable hatnotes if someone is looking for the species or the film. Rlendog (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm tending toward a similar solution: a dab would not be misleading, only helpful. No common name is a 'mistake' with context, and I personally like researching them when I run out of other things to say in an article; there are sometimes interesting asides in their emergence. cygnis insignis 23:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with these last two views by Rlendog and cygnis insignis. My objections to what I considered misleading (misnaming the genus) are resolved, and what I complained was mistaken I should rather have called imprecise. Genesyz (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the one journal article FunkMonk referenced (sorry, I don't know how to format it as he did) [4]:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00548-3

does speak of the clade including chimpanzees and bonobos using the generalized term "chimpanzees," but this could just be for convenience, because in the beginning of the second paragraph of the body, when specifying taxonomical terms, the author refers to the genus Pan (members called "panins"):

"The lineages leading to modern humans (hominins) and to common chimps/bonobos (panins) separated c.8 million years ago (Mya), while common chimpanzees and bonobos separated c.2 Mya."

So I accept that the term "chimpanzee" is used as a generalization to refer to chimpanzees and bonobos, but in the context of taxonomy, it should not be implied that "chimpanzee" is an equivalent term for "panin." In common speech, I concede it is sometimes used this way, but when we explicitly refer to the genus (a taxonomical term), we should be careful to avoid equivocation. Genesyz (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If searches for "chimpanzee" in the end continue to be directed to this article for the genus, I suggest an image of a bonobo be added alongside the existing image labeled "chimpanzee" and that the description under each image include its genus and species. Currently, the image shown of the chimpanzee describes it as a chimpanzee (correctly), in the sense of the species, but it is under a heading that "Chimpanzee" that I presume refers (ambiguously) to the genus. Genesyz (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Were there other scientific source references offered as support for using "chimpanzee" to refer to the genus, or was that the only one? Genesyz (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have a vote on the move discussion that was opened or is that for certain people? Genesyz (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , goodness, of course you can have a say! Note, however, it is not a vote, decisions are made by consensus. Have a read of the links in the banner at the move section, then add a succinct of the observations you and others have made. cygnis insignis 10:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I really do think that when experts use chimpanzees to refer to both species, it is more a matter of convenience and not an assertion about taxonomy or phylogeny. They certainly know what a genus is and that both species are in the genus Pan; they are just using common terms instead of confusing readers who might not immediately recognize a reference to a term like "panins." It's like generalizing canines to dogs or equines to horses, even though they wouldn't mean to imply dogs are wolves or zebras are horses. Since there are only the two species in Pan, the generalization for convenience is understandable. Even this one article FunkMonk referenced in support of using chimpanzee that way went on to specify chimpanzees/bonobos are panins (see beginning of second paragraph of the article). Primatologists know this, but laypeople (and even some biologists from other fields) may not, so it is appropriate to acknowledge the use of chimpanzees as a generalized term, but not in explicit statements about taxonomy, where it might be confused as equivalent or standard taxonomical terminology. Genesyz (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

So FunkMonk, I apologize if it is tiresome, but strictly speaking, in terms of taxonomy, no, bonobos are not chimpanzees, and in this context at least, I disagree that you shown otherwise. I do concede to the term as a generalization, but not in any way implies that bonobos are chimpanzees in any phylogenetic sense. This is not my personal opinion. You asked that I provide a source that restricts chimpanzee only to the common chimpanzee, but taxonomically, species is a subset of genus, and it would be difficult to find a scientific source that would have any reason to point this out explicitly. This is just how taxonomy works. It's like asking me to prove a negative. It would be more reasonable to place the burden on proving the opposite. When bonobos were first redesigned as a separate species instead of a subspecies of chimpanzees, the inherent implication became that bonobos are not in fact chimpanzees, and the genus name then became correct taxonomical term to refer to both species. Genesyz (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I meant "When chimpanzees were redesignated as a separate species. . .", not redesigned. LOL Genesyz (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Autocorrect error:


 * I meant bonobos there. (Good grief! I'm done). Genesyz (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , and, of course, this is why systematic names were adopted. There is historically been a conservative or reactionary resistance or rejection to their common use, because common names have a cultural value to each society and supplanting those with names familiar to the dominating or colonial 'culture' is a hard won tradition. I contend, because I can't remember the source, that this is more evident when an organism resembles ourselves or has a place as a type in our crude conceptions of the biosphere. It is fascinating enough for me to bother detailing that when the sources mention it, and the short comings of vernacular are slowly being shown to cause confusion to the reader and disruption to the community. The plant articles here don't have naming disputes, unless an uninvolved editor thinks that using a binomial is somehow 'wrong' and believes they are warriors in some cultural struggle against those who "come here and take away our names!!!" and I can see why they are sensitive about that sort of thing. Conceptually, there is no distinction between a plant and animal taxon, there seems to one between gardeners and hunters. Happy editing, cygnis insignis 06:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * cygnis insignis, I think you're probably (well, certainly) right, but I haven't gotten that impression from any of the editors on this Talk so far. I'm glad the content of Wikipedia articles are not subject to anyone's whims, but I've also (not necessarily here) seen resistance to change for what sometimes seems like attitudes of attachment or ownership. I don't know enough about how this all works to know which editors are given more authority to make or block changes, but I'd like to learn more. I think these editors are acting in good faith, although the ignoring and discounting of objective statements as just irrelevant opinions can be demoralizing. I believe our discussions will in the end significantly improve these articles. Genesyz (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a place to ask questions about editing (formatting, policies, guidelines, etc?) I hate to muck up the Talk section with questions not related to the topic. Apologies, all. Genesyz (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Should a separate Talk section be opened on the page for the article currently titled Common chimpanzee for a discussion focused on the reasoning for and against changing the title of that article. It seems there is a consensus (although I don't know if that has an operational meaning here) about changing the title of this current article to Pan (genus), but not quite complete consensus about moving Common chimpanzee to Chimpanzee. Or do we just now continue here for that discussion? What will count as consensus for these changes? Genesyz (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , ownership is a thing that actually happens and a claim that is made. Any genuinely invested in the content will be glad for objective improvements, but I have also seen when users created facts and the ownership tendency that is founded on their personal views becomes reinforced by the impertinent resistance from lesser minds who find their facts in sources. Some discussions are considered so volatile that they become forbidden topics, 'don't mention the war', because gut-feeling ideas versus verifiable citations only lose out in the long run and the little victories keeps the mannish boys from creating havoc and insulting strangers at some new battlefield. Creators keep their heads down when these matters come up, until consensus becomes clear, they probably have experienced being scolded by the uninterested, drawn to the fire, to simply disrupt and force a no-consensus so the game can be restarted. Sometimes user have picked a side long ago, and cannot see things from outside this community and opposing their imagined adversaries (as seems to have happened here, undeserved in my opinion) cygnis insignis 07:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Did I understand correctly that you're not supposed to edit your comments? I was tempted to correct some goofy errors (punctuation, omitted words, etc), but what I read about guidelines for these talk sections said you really shouldn't even correct typos once you've saved a comment. Is that still the expectation? Genesyz (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is in the guidelines, then it is rarely followed. People edit typos and extend their comments all the time. What you shouldn't do is change a comment (beyond simple typos) after someone has responded to it or after several people have added comments, as that can falsely skew the discussion. One approach people take is to strike out parts of old comments that no longer apply and add a clearly marked update edit. For instance, its not uncommon for someone to go back and change a vote on a proposed change once they have read the rest of the discussion. The important thing is people can see what was said originally and what the new position is.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 12:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm working on a mobile phone, and it's kind of a pain. I appreciate people's tips. I hope it's not too distracting. Genesyz (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)