Hoots and grunts from bonobos show signs of complex communication, researchers say
The peeps, hoots and grunts of wild bonobos, a species of great ape living in the African rainforest, can convey complex thoughts in a way that mirrors some elements of human language, a new study suggests.
The study says bonobos — humanity's closest living genetic relative — can combine several types of calls to construct phrases in which one vocalization modifies the meaning of another. This is the first time such behavior has been documented clearly in an animal, the researchers behind the study said.
The research, published Thursday in the journal Science, challenges the prevailing thought that humans are the only species with that ability, which is called nontrivial compositionality and is considered a fundamental building block of human language.
'We would never say that bonobos have language because language is specific to humans. It's our very special communication system,' said Simon Townsend, a professor at the University of Zurich who studies cognition and is an author of the study. But, 'we're showing that features of language seem to be present in the communication system of bonobos.'
Outside experts said the work was convincing. And because humans and bonobos share a common ancestor, the work could help explain how humans developed their ability to use language in the distant past.
'This is a terrifically novel and creative study,' said Robert Seyfarth, a professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, who studied primates and cognition and was not involved in this study. 'The evolutionary origins of language are kind of like the evolutionary origins of bipedalism, walking on hind feet. It doesn't occur overnight. It occurs gradually and there are intermediate stages along the way. How do you get started and get on this evolutionary trajectory? This begins to help us be more precise in deciding the answers to these questions.'
It's possible that other animals, like chimpanzees, could also have the ability to form phrases where words modify each other's meaning.
'It could be that bonobos are exceeding chimpanzees in that capacity. It could be that they're doing the same. It could be that many other species are doing this,' Townsend said. 'Now, we've got the method to really test this.'
Eavesdropping
It took months of slogging through the rainforest and chasing after wild bonobos with microphones to pave the way for this discovery.
The study's lead author, Mélissa Berthet, of the University of Zurich, spent about six months in the Democratic Republic of Congo following three groups of wild bonobos with colleagues at the Kokolopori Bonobo Reserve. Berthet and her colleagues took detailed notes about what was going on as the bonobos were making their vocalizations, recording about 400 hours of audio.
'I would have a list of about 300-something contextual parameters that I would use,' Berthet explained. 'Was my caller feeding? Was it resting? Was it grooming?'
Bonobos have complicated, matriarchal social structures with lots of movement and activity, so Berthet took careful notes about group dynamics.
The researchers ultimately mapped more than 700 vocal calls, including combinations, and the circumstances of these vocalizations' use. Then, they mapped the relationships between all the data points and found at least four instances in which the bonobos were combining different calls to create new meanings.
The researchers don't have a precise understanding of what each bonobo call is intended to communicate, but they were able to make some assumptions about their purpose based on the context.
The researchers said some calls meant things like 'I'm feeding,' 'Let's build a nest' or 'Let's keep traveling.'
The size of the groups often change as bonobos come and go.
'They mostly talk about things to coordinate the group,' Berthet said. 'Just like humans, you know, they're in the family, then they go to work, then they go with friends, then again with family and so on. They really need complex communication to coordinate that. And so it's not surprising that most of the communication is about coordination, because this is actually a very important part of their social life.'
Origins of language
Bonobos and chimpanzees are the closest genetic relatives to humans. The research suggests that the last common ancestor of these species — which likely roamed the Earth between 7 million and 13 million years ago — could have had the capacity to communicate with the same fundamental building blocks of language bonobos are displaying.
The researchers behind this study said bonobos are almost akin to a time machine into humanity's past.
And this research raises questions about what happened so long ago that pushed ancient humans to evolve and develop a more complex form of verbal communication.
'If bonobos and chimpanzees, in their natural communication systems, have a lot of these building blocks, it can help us understand what is that tipping point where humans jumped off into a language that is far more complex,' said Sara Skiba, a research scientist and director of communications for the Ape Initiative, a bonobo research facility in Des Moines, Iowa. Skiba was not involved in the new study.
Bonobos are difficult to study in the wild. They live in fragmented habitat in Congo, which has experienced human conflict in recent years.
The species is endangered and its population is likely less than 20,000, said Martin Surbeck, an assistant professor in the department of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University and an author of the study.
'Bonobos really have this unique opportunity to hold kind of a mirror to humankind,' Surbeck said. 'I think they offer a unique opportunity, right, for us to really understand ourselves in ways that wouldn't be possible without them, and I think losing them, I think we lose a lot of, a part of our heritage to a certain degree.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
10 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Scientist reveals exactly how long it would take for humans to go EXTINCT if we stopped having babies
It is a terrifying prospect right out of a dystopian science fiction movie. But a scientist has now revealed exactly how long it would take for humanity to go extinct if we stopped having babies. Since very few people live beyond a century, you might think that humanity would take around 100 years to vanish. However, according to Professor Michael Little, an anthropologist at Birmingham University, we would probably disappear even faster. That's because there would eventually not be enough young people of working age to keep civilisation functioning. Writing in The Conversation, Professor Little explained: 'As an anthropology professor who has spent his career studying human behavior, biology and cultures, I readily admit that this would not be a pretty picture. 'It's likely that there would not be many people left within 70 or 80 years, rather than 100, due to shortages of food, clean water, prescription drugs and everything else that you can easily buy today and need to survive. 'Eventually, civilization would crumble.' If all of humanity suddenly lost the ability to have children, the world would not end overnight. Instead, the world's population would gradually shrink as the older generations die and fail to be replaced by the next. If there were enough food and supplies to go around, the world's population would simply get older until everyone currently on Earth died of old age. The countries that would show the most rapid declines would be those with already ageing populations such as Japan and South Korea. Meanwhile, countries with younger populations such as Niger, where the median age is just 14.5, would remain well-populated for longer. However, much like in the science fiction classic Children of Men, Earth's extinction would not follow such a smooth trajectory into oblivion. Professor Little says: 'Eventually there would not be enough young people coming of age to do essential work, causing societies throughout the world to quickly fall apart. 'Some of these breakdowns would be in humanity's ability to produce food, provide health care and do everything else we all rely on. 'Food would become scarce even though there would be fewer people to feed.' This societal collapse would likely lead to Earth's depopulation well before most people live out their natural lifespans. Luckily, Professor Little says that an abrupt halt in births is 'highly unlikely unless there is a global catastrophe'. One possible scenario that could lead to such a disaster is the spread of a highly contagious disease which causes widespread infertility. Studies suggest there are only a small number of viruses which have an impact on male fertility, including deadly strains such as Zika virus and HIV. But none of these cause infertility in 100 per cent of cases and many only have mild impacts on fertility-related issues such as reduced sperm count. This means that a virus which wipes out the world's ability to reproduce thankfully remains a matter for science fiction. However, the possibility of facing a rapidly ageing population due to a declining birth rate is a far more pressing concern. The world's population has boomed in the last 100 years, expanding from just 2.1 billion in 1930 to 8.09 billion today. Current estimates suggest that humanity will continue to expand until the mid-2080s, reaching a peak of 10 billion. But as humanity reaches its peak size, the number of babies being born each year is already beginning to fall. In some cases, fertility rates have now fallen below the 'replacement rate' of 2.1 children per woman needed to maintain a stable population. Combined with growing life expectancy, this means the average age of many countries has begun to increase. Billionaire Elon Musk - who has 14 children with four women - has for years warned about population collapse caused by a 'baby bust' in America and the West. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics found that the fertility rate fell to just 1.44 children per woman in 2024 down from the 'Baby Boom' of 2.47 children per woman in 1946. This is leading to a rapid increase in the average age, reaching 40.7 years in 2022 from 39.6 years in 2011. England and Wales only recorded 591,072 live births in 2023, the lowest number since 1977. This has brought the UK's fertility rate below the 'replacement rate' - the number of babies per woman needed to maintain a stable population Other countries are facing an even greater birth rate crisis, sparking serious concerns for economic growth. China, which artificially dropped its birth rate through the 'one child policy', has a fertility rate of just 1.18 children per women. This has led many to worry about how a dwindling working-age population will be able to care for a growing number of elderly people. While falling birth rates alone aren't likely to destroy humanity, Professor Little cautions that humans should be wary. Professor Little says: 'Our species, Homo Sapiens, has been around for at least 200,000 years. That's a long time, but like all animals on Earth we are at risk of becoming extinct.' He points to the example of the Neanderthals, a close relative of Homo sapiens, which lasted over 350,000 years before gradually declining and becoming extinct. Professor Little added: 'Some scientists have found evidence that modern humans were more successful at reproducing our numbers than the Neanderthal people. 'This occurred when Homo sapiens became more successful at providing food for their families and also having more babies than the Neanderthals.' So what is behind the West's baby bust? Women worldwide, on average, are having fewer children now than previous generations. The trend, down to increased access to education and contraception, more women taking up jobs and changing attitudes towards having children, is expected to see dozens of countries' population shrink by 2100. Dr Jennifer Sciubba, author of 8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death, and Migration Shape Our World, told MailOnline that people are choosing to have smaller families and the change 'is permanent'. 'So it's wise to focus on working within this new reality rather than trying to change it,' she said. Sex education and contraception A rise in education and access to contraception is one reason behind the drop off in the global fertility rate. Education around pregnancy and contraception has increased, with sex education classes beginning in the US in the 1970s and becoming compulsory in the UK in the 1990s. 'There is an old adage that 'education is the best contraception' and I think that is relevant' for explaining the decline in birth rates, said Professor Allan Pacey, an andrologist at the University of Sheffield and former chair of the British Fertility Society. Elina Pradhan, a senior health specialist at the World Bank, suggests that more educated women choose to have fewer children due to concerns about earning less when taking time off before and after giving birth. In the UK, three in 10 mothers and one in 20 fathers report having to cut back on their working hours due to childcare, according to ONS data. They may also have more exposure to different ideas on family sizes through school and connections they make during their education, encouraging them to think more critically about the number of children they want, she said. And more educated women may know more about prenatal care and child health and may have more access to healthcare, Ms Pradhan added. Professor Jonathan Portes, an economist at King's College London, said that women's greater control over their own fertility means 'households, and women in particular, both want fewer children and are able to do so'. More women entering the workplace More women are in the workplace now than they were 50 years ago — 72 vs 52 per cent — which has contributed to the global fertility rate halving over the same time period. Professor Portes also noted that the drop-off in the birth rate may also be down to the structure of labour and housing markets, expensive childcare and gender roles making it difficult for many women to combine career aspirations with having a family. The UK Government has 'implemented the most anti-family policies of any Government in living memory' by cutting services that support families, along with benefit cuts that 'deliberately punish low-income families with children', he added. As more women have entered the workplace, the age they are starting a family has been pushed back. Data from the ONS shows that the most common age for a women who were born in 1949 to give birth was 22. But women born in 1975, were most likely to have children when they were 31-years-old. In another sign that late motherhood is on the rise, half of women born in 1990, the most recent cohort to reach 30-years-old, remained childless at 30 — the highest rate recorded. Women repeatedly point to work-related reasons for putting off having children, with surveys finding that most women want to make their way further up the career ladder before conceiving. However, the move could be leading to women having fewer children than they planned. In the 1990s, just 6,700 cycles of IVF — a technique to help people with fertility problems to have a baby — took place in the UK annually. But this skyrocketed to more than 69,000 by 2019, suggesting more women are struggling to conceive naturally. Declining sperm counts Reproductive experts have also raised the alarm that biological factors, such as falling sperm counts and changes to sexual development, could 'threaten human survival'. Dr Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, authored a ground-breaking 2017 study that revealed that global sperm counts have dropped by more than half over the past four decades. She warned that 'everywhere chemicals', such as phthalates found in toiletries, food packaging and children's toys, are to blame. The chemicals cause hormonal imbalance which can trigger 'reproductive havoc', she said. Factors including smoking tobacco and marijuana and rising obesity rates may also play a role, Dr Swan said. Studies have also pointed to air pollution for dropping fertility rates, suggesting it triggers inflammation which can damage egg and sperm production. However, Professor Pacey, a sperm quality and fertility expert, said: 'I really don't think that any changes in sperm quality are responsible for the decline in birth rates. 'In fact, I do not believe the current evidence that sperm quality has declined.' He said: 'I think a much bigger issue for falling birth rates is the fact that: (a) people are choosing to have fewer children; and (b) they are waiting until they are older to have them.' Fears about bringing children into the world Choosing not to have children is cited by some scientists as the best thing a person can do for the planet, compared to cutting energy use, travel and making food choices based on their carbon footprint. Scientists at Oregon State University calculated that the each child adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the 'carbon legacy' of a woman. Each metric ton is equivalent to driving around the world's circumference. Experts say the data is discouraging the climate conscious from having babies, while others are opting-out of children due to fears around the world they will grow up in. Dr Britt Wray, a human and planetary health fellow at Stanford University, said the drop-off in fertility rates was due to a 'fear of a degraded future due to climate change'. She was one of the authors behind a Lancet study of 10,000 volunteers, which revealed four in ten young people fear bringing children into the world because of climate concerns.
Reuters
a day ago
- Reuters
This Hayden Planetarium space show led to a cosmic discovery
"Encounters in the Milky Way" at the American Museum of Natural History explores the motion of our solar system through the galaxy, using scientific data and visualizations to explain how these cosmic movements have shaped—and continue to influence—our position in space. Gabe Singer has more.
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Tech stampede to the exit: British brilliance born of our great universities is being plundered daily, says ALEX BRUMMER
At the weekend, the country was encouraged to be cheerful when Whitehall spin doctors came out in force to celebrate a Labour investment of £86billion in science and technology by 2029-30. The Higher Education Policy Institute notes a different reality. The spending pledge represents a real-terms freeze. Five years ago during Covid, Boris Johnson's government committed £22billion of spending on R&D by 2024-25. The new number is a modest cash increase of £500million. At 2.7 per cent of national output, British spending on R&D is woefully mean. Rachel Reeves and the Government seek to confuse voters with spending gobbledegook. The reality is that uplifts in spending for the NHS and defence will leave the cupboard bare. Britain's brilliant technology is exiting these shores through the back door after a series of overseas and private equity assaults. For sale: Britain's brilliant technology is exiting these shores through the back door after a series of overseas and private equity assaults on leading edge science-based enterprises It was hoped that the Tory-sponsored National Security & Investment Act of 2021 would end wanton destruction of Britain's tech and bioscience genius, bringing a halt to a period when great companies such as Arm Holdings were shunted overseas. Despite the eye-watering sums being propagated by the Government, the biopharma Francis Crick Institute is short of funding needed to attract deserting US scientists to the UK. And in the presence of Sir Keir Starmer, Nvidia boss Jensen Huang cautioned that the UK lacks the digital infrastructure needed to capitalise on AI. The extra £1billion pledged by the Prime Minister is unlikely, given spending constraints, to be wholly new money. But we can live in hope. Technology brought to market by firms spun out of Britain's great research universities is being plundered daily. US chipmaker Qualcomm is to swallow Britain's Alphawave for £1.8billion, a stunning 96 per cent premium. If evidence were needed that London-listed shares are trading at bargain basement prices, it is provided by such departures. As if this were not proof enough, US quantum computing company IonQ is seeking to snaffle British tech start-up Oxford Ionics for £800million. Advent, destroyer of aerospace pioneer Cobham and submarine sonar group Ultra Electronics, is making a £3.7billion offer for precision instrumentation supplier Spectris. Private equity group Advent operates a model of high leverage, which breaks up and sells parts in rapid-fire time. The deal can only be destructive to Britain's supply chain to vital industries where there is a cutting edge. A Spectris board of nodding-dogs shows little sign of putting up any fight in the national interest when faced with a handsome premium. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and Secretary of State for Science Peter Kyle have no strategy for addressing the private equity and overseas takeovers. This may not be surprising when Investment Minister Poppy Gustafsson sold her Cambridge-based cyber security pioneer Darktrace to private equity outfit Thoma Bravo last year. That isn't a wonderful blueprint for a Britain seeking to create its own Silicon Valley. Mad men Phil Jansen can be a tricky person to work with. Soon after his arrival as chief executive of BT he fell-out with respected chairman Jan du Plessis. It has taken Jansen just six months as chairman of WPP to wave goodbye to boss Mark Read, a 30-year lifer at the advertising group. Read was dealt a difficult hand by his predecessor and WPP's inspiration Sir Martin Sorrell. It was a marketing giant in transition and carrying substantial debt. Read has pressed ahead with the embrace of AI but received little credit as the stock plummeted to a five-year low and the firm lost its status as the world's largest advertising agency. There will be no shortage of candidates to replace him. But it should be a case of beware the chairman. Bad skin The sale of scientifically-based skin dermatology brand Medik8 to cosmetics leader L'Oreal, for an estimated £850million, is another loss to the UK. Last time the French group bought into Britain when it acquired The Body Shop, it came to an ugly end. The late Anita Roddick's creation was neglected and ended up in unsafe hands. Not a beautiful precedent.
