Our smart ape cousins
QUESTION
Was ape tool use, famously described by Jane Goodall in the 1960s, well known and not the least bit controversial in the 18th century?
It Is a myth that tool use in apes was discovered by Dr Jane Goodall, though there is little doubt that she greatly improved our appreciation and understanding of the animals.
A quote from the Jane Goodall Institute states: ‘In October 1960, Dr Goodall watched as a chimpanzee bent a twig, stripped off its leaves and used it to “fish” termites from their nest. Up until her moment of discovery, the ability to make and use tools had been considered uniquely human.’
this can’t be true, as a short excerpt from Charles Darwin’s 1871 book the Descent Of Man proves: ‘It has often been said that no animal uses any tool; but the chimpanzee in a state of nature cracks a native fruit, somewhat like a walnut, with a stone. Rengger easily taught an American monkey thus to break open hard palm-nuts, and afterwards of its own accord it used stones to open other kinds of nuts, as well as boxes. It thus also removed the soft rind of fruit that had a disagreeable flavour.
‘Another monkey was taught to open the lid of a large box with a stick and, afterwards, it used the stick as a lever to move heavy bodies; and I have myself seen a young orang put a stick into a crevice, slip his hand to the other end, and use it in the proper manner as a lever. In the cases just mentioned stones and sticks were employed as implements; but they are likewise used as weapons.’
tool use was not widely described in the 18th century. However, the close links between humans and chimps was recognised, in particular by Carl Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy. In 1735, he published the first edition of his systema Naturae and caused great controversy by placing humans into a class he called Quadrupeds, and the order Anthropomorpha, along with apes ( Simia).
By the time of his celebrated tenth edition of systema Naturae (1758), Linnaeus had elevated humanity with the species name sapiens (wise) and placed
us in the genus Homo at the head of a revised table, the order Primates, meaning ‘of first rank’.
Linnaeus was aware his system would upset theologians. In a letter to a colleague, he wrote: ‘It is not pleasing that I placed humans among the primates, but man knows himself. Let us get the words out of the way. It will be equal to me by whatever name they are treated. But I ask you and the whole world for a generic difference between men and simians in accordance with the principles of Natural History. I certainly know none.’
In 1999, there was a failed attempt to change the chimpanzee’s genus from Pan to Homo because we share 99.4 per cent of the same critical DNA sites.
Dr Ian Smith, Cambridge.
QUESTION Why is Robinson Crusoe (1719) often described as the first English novel?
THE notion that Robinson Crusoe is the first novel in english hinges on how we define ‘novel’. Using a basic definition of it as a narrative in prose, one could make a case for Malory’s Morte d’Arthur in the 15th century, William Baldwin’s satire Beware the Cat (1561) or Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko, Or the Royal slave (1688).
the great Irish novelist James Joyce considered Defoe the father of the english novel, as he was: ‘ the first english author to write without imitating or adapting foreign works . . . to devise for himself an artistic form which is perhaps without precedent . . .’
Defoe was first to use key aspects of the novel; his protagonist was a strong, independent man able to adapt to situations thrown at him without being at the mercy of a higher power. He also pioneered new literary devices, notably his pitch- perfect use of first- person narrative, which was highly influential to Joyce. Yet Robinson Crusoe follows the form of an open-ended narrative rather than a concrete whole. thus, when I was at university, samuel Richardson’s Pamela Or Virtue Rewarded (1740) enjoyed the label of first english novel.
Pamela differs from the works of Defoe; it has a distinct plot with an obvious conflict that finds resolution. It ends when the title character marries, securing her virtue, economic security and a rise in social class. the marriage is an inevitable ending to which all other events lead.
Katherine Barnett, Reading, Berks.
QUESTION If neither John Lennon nor Paul McCartney could read or write music, who actually put the notes to their lyrics?
IN A 2019 interview for 60 Minutes, McCartney said: ‘I don’t read music or write music. None of us did in the Beatles. We did some good stuff, though. But none of it was written down by us.’ Consequently, most of it was written down by Beatles producer George Martin, latterly aided by staff at Abbey Road studios.
the recent Peter Jackson documentary Get Back gives a remarkable insight into how the Beatles’ creative process worked. With the song Get Back, Paul strums his bass and extemporises the lyrics, Ringo picks up the beat and George begins improvising on lead guitar until a loose arrangement is tightened up into something new and original.
Paul, John and George did write down their lyrics, chords and bits of notation that allowed them to keep track of their songs. Brian epstein realised the songs could provide an additional revenue stream and established the publishing company Northern songs in 1963.
Martin’s transcriptions weren’t always literal interpretations. He sometimes had to stop the musicians, change tempos and add the odd note fully to capture the melody.
When, in 1986, Hal Leonard bought the Beatles’ publishing rights, he asked todd Lowry to look over the existing transcriptions. He found songs printed in wrong keys, with wrong notes, wrong chords, even wrong words. His patient work, which took months, was finally released as A New Complete Beatles songbook.
Sam Ellery, Hexham, Northumberland. IS THERE a question to which you want to know the answer? Or do you know the answer to a question here? Write to: Charles Legge, Answers To Correspondents, Daily Mail, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT; or email charles.legge@dailymail.co.uk. A selection is published, but we’re unable to enter into individual correspondence.