Apes and Monkeys: Their Life and Language

by R. L. Garner

The chimpanzee is doubtless a better climber than the gorilla. He finds much of his food in trees; but he is not, in the proper sense of the term, arboreal. To be arboreal, the animal must be able to sleep in a tree or on a perch. The chimpanzee cannot do so. He sleeps the same as a human being does. He lies down on his back or side, and frequently uses his arms for a pillow. I do not believe it possible for him to sleep on a perch. He may sometimes doze in that way, but the grasp of his foot is only brought into use when he is conscious. I have often known Moses to climb down from the trees and lie upon the ground to take a nap. I never saw him so much as doze in any other position.

I may here call attention to one fact concerning the arboreal habit. There appears to be a rule to which this habit conforms. Among apes and monkeys the habit is in keeping with the size of the animal. The largest monkeys are found only among the lowest trees, and the small monkeys among the taller trees. It is a rare thing to see a large monkey in the top of a tall tree. He may venture there for food or to make his escape, but it is not his proper element. The same rule appears to hold good among the apes. The gibbon has the arboreal habit in a more pronounced degree than any other true ape. The orang appears to be next; the chimpanzee comes in for third place, and the gorilla last. It must not be understood that all of these apes do not frequently climb, even to the tops of the highest trees; but that is not their normal mode of life, any more than the top of a mast is the habitual place for a sailor on a ship.

The chimpanzee is nomadic in habit, and, like the gorilla, seldom or never passes two nights in the same spot. As to his building huts or nests in trees or elsewhere, I am not prepared to believe that he ever does that. For months I hunted in vain and made diligent inquiry in several tribes, but failed to find a specimen of any kind of shelter built by an ape. I do not assert that it is absolutely untrue that he does this, but I have never been able to obtain any evidence of it, except the statement of the natives. On the contrary, certain facts point to the opposite belief. If the ape built himself a permanent home, the natives would soon discover it and there would be no difficulty in having it pointed out. If he built a new one every night, however rude and primitive it might be, there would be so many of them in the forest that there would be no difficulty in finding them. The nomadic habit plainly shows that he does not build the former kind, and the utter absence of them shows that he does not build the latter kind. The whole story appears to be without foundation.

In addition to these facts, one thing to be noticed is that few or none of the mammals of the tropics ever build any kind of home. The animals that in other climates have the habit of burrowing do not appear to do so in the tropics, This is due, no doubt, to the warm climate, in which they are not in need of shelter. Of course birds and other oviparous animals build nests, as they do elsewhere. The period of incubation makes this necessary.

The longevity of these apes is largely a matter of conjecture, but from a cursory study of their dentition and other facts of their development, it appears that the male reaches the adult stage at an age ranging from eight to ten years, while the female matures between six and eight. These appear to be the periods at which they pass from the state of adolescence. Some of them live to be perhaps forty years of age, or upwards, but the average life is probably not more than twenty-one to twenty-three years. The average of life is, doubtless, more uniform with them than with man. These figures are not mere guesswork, but are deduced from reliable data.

The period of gestation in both these apes is a matter that cannot be stated with certainty. Some of the natives say that it is nine months, while others believe that it is seven months or less. There are some facts to support each of these claims, but nothing is quite conclusive. The sum of the evidence that I could find rather points to a term of four and a half months, or thereabouts, as the true period. During the months of January and February the male gorillas are vociferous in their screaming, the young adults separate from the families, and other things indicate that this is the season of pairing and breeding. They may not be strictly confined to this period, but the inference that they are so 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 it continues for four months. It would appear that nature has selected this period of the year because it is more favorable 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 with her young to the dense jungle, where she is less exposed to danger than she would be in the more open forest. It is uncertain whether or not the periods are the same with both apes. Native reports differ on this point. But it is probable that they are the same. The average of this season is about four and a half moons, or eighteen weeks.

From a social point of view the chimpanzee appears to be of a little higher caste than other apes. 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 other simians. He seems to appreciate better the relationship of parent and child and to retain it longer than others do. Most male animals become estranged from their young and discard them at a very early age. The chimpanzee keeps his children with him until they are old enough to go away and rear families of their own.

The family of the chimpanzee frequently consists of three or four wives and ten or twelve children, with one adult male. There are known cases in which two or three adult males have been seen in the same family, but each one having his own wives and children. In such an event 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 apparently question the authority of the patriarch or rebel against it. The male parent often plays with his children and is seemingly very 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 paternal instinct that they nobly sacrifice their own lives in defense of their young. I do not wish to dispel any belief that tends to dignify or ennoble animals, for I am their friend and champion. But truth demands that this statement be qualified. It is quite true that many have lost their lives in such acts of defense, but it was not a voluntary sacrifice. It is not alone in the defense of their young, but in many cases it is an act of self-defense. In other instances it is 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 and 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 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 all animals, including mankind.

I have no desire to detract from the heroic quality of this instinct or to dim the glory it sheds upon the noble deeds ascribed to it, but the fact that a parent incurs the risk of its own life in the defense of its young is not a true test of the strength or quality of this instinct. 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 instinct. In most such cases the parent acts under a belief in its own ability to rescue the one in danger, the parent not being wholly aware of its own peril. I doubt if any animal except man ever deliberately offered its own life as a ransom for that of another. Such instances in human history are so rare as to immortalize the actor.