You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Chimpanzee expedition : finding the missing apes
Wondering how Bartok got his name. And in an earlier post you mentioned Garbo and others. Is this apparent intersection of science and popular culture common? Do you think it has an impact on the way field workers see and understand the chimps?
No one person names the chimps, so there's an array of themes across the years. Many of the older males and females are named after Jazz musicians, and then other classic musicians and artists. There was a period of honoring powerful women. For instance, we have a chimpanzee named Doudna after the nobel prize winner. We haven't heard back from many celebrities on whether they in particular find this to be an honor.
Many other primate sites keep family named defined be a letter. For instance at Gombe where Jane Goodall started research, there is a famous F family. The matriarch, Flo, had offspring named Faben, Figan, Fifi, Flint, and Flame. Ostensibly, this makes it easier to remember names and recall their relationships. However, you might quickly see a problem here. Pretty soon, you've got to reach pretty far for a good name. If you have many families, you either repeat letters (confusing) or have tricky letters (imagine the chimps Xiaver, Xerxes, and Xabat). At Ngogo, there is no such naming rule. Although this can make a steeper learning curve at the beginning, it's ultimately liberating when naming our chimpanzees. I think we've selected some excellent names and perhaps the lack of a shortcut helps us focus in on the chimps as individuals. Read more on the F Family
Getting at your questions, there is a story that Jane Goodall met resistance when she wanted to give her chimps human names. Stodgy academics, the tale goes, bristled at this, because such naming implied the chimpanzees have individual attributes akin to humans and moreover, it could come in the way of objective science. Jane Goodall stubbornly kept to her schema, maintaining that the chimpanzees are in fact, individuals with unique personalities. Now, I've never heard verification of this story, but it's a good one, no? I agree with Dr. Jane, but in addition, I think that a researchers methods should always remove their own bias. Biased researchers are inevitable, but that doesn't mean biased results are. Good methods are designed to specifically counter potential bias.
Moreover, I think that as researchers get to know chimpanzees, their name origin becomes irrelevant. When I look at Jolie, I no longer think of the actress from the movies. When I see Struhsaker, I don't think of my old professor. I see the chimps since I've gotten to know them as individuals. We do this with people we know all the time when they share names with others. And the point is, chimps aren't so different.