Gorillas & Chimpanzees. Garner Richard Lynch
both of these claims, but nothing quite conclusive. The sum of the evidence that I could find rather pointed to a term of three months or thereabouts as the true period. During the months of February and March the male gorillas are vociferous in their screaming, the young adults separate from the families, and some other things indicate that this is the season of pairing and breeding. Such may not be the case, but the inference is well-founded. It is quite certain that the season of bearing the young is from the beginning of May to the end of June. It is about this time that the dry season begins and continues for four months. It would appear that nature has selected this period of the year because it is more favourable for rearing the young. During this season food is more abundant and can be secured with less effort. The lowlands are drier, and this enables the mother to retire to the dense jungle with her young, where she is less exposed to danger than she would be in the more open forest.
It is not certain whether the periods are the same with both apes or not, and native reports differ on this point, but it is probable that they are the same.
From a social point of view, the chimpanzee appears to be of a little higher caste than other animals. In his marital ideas he is polygamous, but is, in a certain degree, loyal to his family. The paternal instinct is a trifle more refined in him than in most other animals. He seems to appreciate the relationship of parent and child more, and retain it longer than others do. Most male animals discard their young, and become estranged to them at a very early age; but the chimpanzee keeps his children with him until they are old enough to go away and rear a family of their own.
The family of the chimpanzee frequently consists of three or four wives and ten or twelve children, with one adult male; but there are cases known in which two or three elderly males have been seen in the same family, but they appear to have their own wives and children. In such an event, however, there seems to be one who is supreme. This fact suggests the idea that among them a form of patriarchal government prevails. The wives and children do not appear to question the authority of the patriarch, or to rebel against it. The male parent often plays with his children, and appears to be fond of them.
There is one universal error that I desire here to correct. It is the common idea that animals are so strongly possessed of the parental instinct that they nobly sacrifice their own lives in defence of their young. I do not wish to dispel any belief that tends to dignify or ennoble animals, for I am their special friend and champion; but truth demands that we qualify this statement. It is quite true that many have lost their lives in such acts of defence, but it was not a voluntary sacrifice. It was not alone in the defence of their young, but in many cases it was in self-defence. In others, it was from a lack of judgment. These apes have often been frightened away from their young, and the latter captured while the parents were fleeing from the scene. This may have been the result of sagacity rather than of depravity, but the parental instinct in both sexes, in many instances, has failed to restrain them from flight. If it be a foe that appears to come within the measure of their own power, they will certainly defend their young, and this sometimes results in the loss of their own lives; but if it be one of such formidable aspect as to appear quite invincible, the parents leave the young to their fate. This is true of many other animals, including man.
I have no desire to detract from the heroic quality of this instinct, or to dim the glory it sheds upon noble deeds ascribed to it; but the fact that a parent incurs the risk of its own life in the defence of its young, is not a true test of its strength or quality. It is only in the few isolated cases of a voluntary sacrifice of the parent, foreknowing the result, that it can be said the act was due to the instinct. In most cases it is under the belief in its ability to rescue the one in danger, but the parent is not wholly aware of its own danger.
I doubt if any animal except man ever deliberately offered its own life as a ransom for that of another, and such instances in human history are so rare as to immortalise the actor.
To whatever extent the instinct may be found, it is much stronger in the female than in the male, and it appears to be stronger in domestic animals than in wild ones. To what extent this is due to their contact with man, it is difficult to say. The germ may be inherent, but it certainly yields to culture.
The fact of the ape deserting its offspring under certain conditions, may be taken as an evidence of its superior intelligence and its appreciation of life and danger, rather than a low, brutish impulse. It is the exercise of superior judgment that causes man to act with more prudence than other animals. It does not detract from his nobleness.
Within the family circle of the chimpanzee the father is supreme; but he does not degrade his royalty by being a tyrant. Each member of the family seems to have certain rights that are not impugned by others. For example, possession is the right of ownership. When one ape procures a certain article of food, the others do not try to dispossess it. It is from this source, doubtless, that man inherits the idea of private ownership. It is the same principle amplified by which nations hold the right of territory, but nations often violate this right, and so do chimpanzees when not held in check by something more potent than a sense of justice. With all due respect, I do not think the ape abuses the right by urging his claim beyond his real needs, while nations sometimes do.
When a member of a family of apes is ill, the others are quite conscious of it, and evince a certain amount of solicitude. Their conduct indicates that they have, in a small degree, the passion of sympathy, but the emotion is feeble and wavering. So far as I know, they do not essay any treatment, except to soothe and comfort the sufferer. They surely have some definite idea of what death is, and I have reason to believe that they have a name for it. They do not readily abandon their sick, but when one of them is unable to travel with the band, the others rove about for some days, within call of it, but do not minister to its wants.
It is said, if one of them is wounded, the others will rescue it if possible, and convey it to a place of safety; but I cannot vouch for this, as such an incident has never come within my own experience.
One of the most remarkable of all the social habits of the chimpanzee, is the kanjo, as it is called in the native tongue. The word does not mean "dance" in the sense of saltatory gyrations, but implies more the idea of "carnival." It is believed that more than one family takes part in these festivities.
Here and there in the jungle is found a small spot of sonorous earth. It is irregular in shape, but is about two feet across. The surface is of clay, and is artificial. It is superimposed upon a kind of peat bed, which, being very porous, acts as a resonance cavity, and intensifies the sound. This constitutes a kind of drum. It yields rather a dead sound, but of considerable volume.
This queer drum is made by chimpanzees, who secure the clay along the bank of some stream in the vicinity. They carry it by hand, and deposit it while in a plastic state, spread it over the place selected, and let it dry. I have, in my possession, a part of one that I brought home with me from the Nkami forest. It shows the finger-prints of the apes, which were impressed in it while the mud was yet soft.
After the drum is quite dry, the chimpanzees assemble by night in great numbers, and the carnival begins. One or two will beat violently on this dry clay, while others jump up and down in a wild and grotesque manner. Some of them utter long, rolling sounds, as if trying to sing. When one tires of beating the drum, another relieves him, and the festivities continue in this fashion for hours.
I know of nothing like this in the social economy of any other animal, but what it signifies, or what its origin was, is quite beyond my knowledge. It appears probable that they do not indulge in this kanjo in all parts of their domain, nor do they occur at regular intervals.
The chimpanzee is averse to solitude. He is fond of the society of man, and is easily domesticated. If allowed to go at liberty, he is well-disposed, and is strongly attached to man, but if confined, he becomes vicious and ill-tempered. All animals, including man, have the same tendency.
Mentally the chimpanzee occupies a high plane within his own sphere of life, but within those limits the faculties of the mind are not called into frequent exercise, and therefore they are not so active as they are in man.
It is difficult to compare the mental status of the ape to that of man, because there is no common basis upon which the two rest. Their modes of life are so unlike, as to afford no common unit of measure. Their faculties are developed along