It is unlikely thai this practice of fishing for termites is an inborn behavior pat- 

 tern. Among higher primates, behavior is found to depend more and more on 

 learned techniques and less and less on "instincts." It seems almost certain that 

 this method of eating termites is a social tradition, passed from ape to ape by 

 watching and imitation. As such, it must be regarded as a crude and primitive 

 culture. [Goodall 1903b, p. 308] 



Kortlandt and Kooij (1963) would agree with this view. According to 

 the laboratory experiments and zoo experience they have reviewed, the 

 behavior of the great apes, unlike that of monkeys, is moulded largely by ma- 

 ternal education, social traditions, and other environmental factors, rather 

 than by innate factors. "This applies," they point out, "to locomotion, nest 

 building, food choice, sexual behaviour, social intercourse, etc., and, to 

 some extent, even to maternal care" (1 ()'':;. p. 61). Therefore, according to 

 these workers, the great apes and man might be characterized as "cultural 

 Primates," whilst the gibbons and monkeys would be classified as "instinctual 

 Primates," provided that we may use the term "culture" for a nonverbalized 

 system of social traditions. (Unfortunately, there exists no appropriate term 

 to designate nonhuman, speechless culture.) (Ibid., p. 62.) 



These primatologists thus align the apes with man because the behavior 

 patterns of the apes are largely learned rather than genetic or instinctual. 

 Of course, there is no sharp dividing line. There must be a smooth transition 

 from the instinctual to the learned patterns of behavior, and even in modern 

 man there is often doubt as to the degree to which he has thrown off in- 

 stinctual patterns and substituted learned ones for them. However, Kort- 

 landt's distinction between the cultural Primates and the instinctual Pri- 

 mates is a useful one. It is in line with other recent evidence tending to 

 show a much closer relationship between the great apes (especially the 

 African ones) and man. The new evidence includes data on the chromo- 

 somes and on the serum proteins of the apes. It seems that we must now 

 add to the evidence of comparative anatomy not only that of cytogenetics 

 and serology but also ethological evidence, that is, data drawn from the field 

 of animal behavior. 



The limits of implemental activities by apes 



In an attempt to ascertain the limits of implemental activity possible in 

 apes, G. F. Khroustov (1968) in Moscow devised an elegant series of experi- 

 ments on chimpanzees. A food bait was placed in a metal tube of such diam- 

 eter and length that neither the chimpanzee's fingers, toes, nor lips could 



^ '20 



