Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Saturday September 05 2015, @10:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the must-have-watched-'King-Kong' dept.

Cool. Calm. And oh, so calculated. That's how a chimpanzee living in the Royal Burgers' Zoo in the Netherlands set out to swat an aerial drone that was filming her group. In an article in the journal Primates² published by Springer, Jan van Hooff and Bas Lukkenaar explain it as yet another example of chimpanzees' make-do attitude to using whatever is on hand as tools.

The incident happened earlier this year, on 10 April, when a Dutch television crew was filming at the zoo in Arnhem. The idea was to use a drone to film the chimpanzees in their compound from different close-up angles. The drone already caught the chimpanzees' attention during a practice run. Some grabbed willow twigs off the ground, while four animals took these along when they climbed up scaffolding where the drone was hovering. This behavior is not frequently observed among these chimps.

Filming started when the next drone flew over. It zoomed in on two chimpanzees, the females Tushi and Raimee. They were still seated on the scaffolding holding on to twigs that were about 180 cm (ca. six feet) long. Tushi made two long sweeps with hers -- the second was successful in downing the drone and ultimately broke it. Before and during the strike, she grimaced. Although her face was tense and her teeth were bared, she showed no signs of fear. This suggests that she quite deliberately and forcefully struck at the drone, rather than fearfully or reflexively.

Fascinating. Evidence that drones do indeed provoke a response in the monkey ape brain, which could explain the drone antipathy felt by many humans. But what is it, a response to hovering insects or predatory birds?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @11:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @11:50PM (#232798)

    we are humans; hominids; great apes; apes; monkeys; primates; mammals; reptiles; tetrapods; fish; vertebrates...eukaryotes...terrestrial life.

    I think reptile/fish and mammal are mutually exclusive categories. I mean, by definition. The point of those categories is to distinguish between the different types of life.

  • (Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Sunday September 06 2015, @12:04AM

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Sunday September 06 2015, @12:04AM (#232801) Homepage

    The earliest mammal came from a line of animals that, were they extant today, we would recognize as reptilian; and the ancestors of the earliest animal to walk on land would, similarly, today be recognized as a fish.

    For details, consult a great many resources, including:

    http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453 [amazon.com]

    Cheers,

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @12:50AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @12:50AM (#232815)

      Then why not call ourselves single celled organisms, or RNA viruses, or primordial ooze? You really think there is no a rational reason to draw distinctions between different types of life by dividing them into mutually exclusive categories?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:38AM (#232852)

    This is just a lack of understanding of modern classification. You can't have a group that arbitrarily excludes some of its descendants just because they are covered in fur.
    Just like birds are dinosaurs you are a fish. That doesn't make you less human or keep us from telling you from an orangutan(well probably).
    The GP was wrong in saying that you are a reptile as that word is in modern usage applied exclusively to the diapsida. The correct word would have been an amniote.