Great apes give gestures deliberately and voluntarily, in order to influence particular target audiences, whose direction of attention they take into account when choosing which type of gesture to use. These facts make the study of ape gesture directly relevant to understanding the evolutionary precursors of human language; here we present an assessment of ape gesture from that perspective, focusing on the work of the “St Andrews Group” of researchers. Intended meanings of ape gestures are relatively few and simple. As with human words, ape gestures often have several distinct meanings, which are effectively disambiguated by behavioural context. Compared to the signalling of most other animals, great ape gestural repertoires are large. Because of this, and the relatively small number of intended meanings they achieve, ape gestures are redundant, with extensive overlaps in meaning. The great majority of gestures are innate, in the sense that the species’ biological inheritance includes the potential to develop each gestural form and use it for a specific range of purposes. Moreover, the phylogenetic origin of many gestures is relatively old, since gestures are extensively shared between different genera in the great ape family. Acquisition of an adult repertoire is a process of first exploring the innate species potential for many gestures and then gradual restriction to a final (active) repertoire that is much smaller. No evidence of syntactic structure has yet been detected.

We describe the individual and combined use of vocalizations and gestures in wild chimpanzees. The rate of gesturing peaked in infancy and, with the except

When we compare human gestures to those of other apes, it looks at first like there is nothing much to compare at all. In adult humans, gestures are thought to be a window into the thought processes accompanying language, and sign languages are equal to spoken language with all of its features. Some research firmly emphasises the differences between human gestures and those of other apes; however, the question about whether there are any commonalities is rarely investigated, and has mostly been confined to pointing gestures. The gestural repertoires of nonhuman ape species have been carefully studied and described with regard to their form and function—but similar approaches are much rarer in the study of human gestures. This paper applies the methodology commonly used in the study of nonhuman ape gestures to the gestural communication of human children in their second year of life. We recorded (n = 13) children’s gestures in a natural setting with peers and caregivers in Germany and Uganda. Children employed 52 distinct gestures, 46 (89%) of which are present in the chimpanzee repertoire. Like chimpanzees, they used them both singly, and in sequences, and employed individual gestures flexibly towards different goals.

Studying animal behaviour allows us to understand how different species and individuals navigate their physical and social worlds. Video coding of behaviour is considered a gold standard: allowing researchers to extract rich nuanced behavioural datasets, validate their reliability, and for research to be replicated. However, in practice, videos are only useful if data can be efficiently extracted. Manually locating relevant footage in 10,000 s of hours is extremely time‐consuming, as is the manual coding of animal behaviour, which requires extensive training to achieve reliability. Machine learning approaches are used to automate the recognition of patterns within data, considerably reducing the time taken to extract data and improving reliability. However, tracking visual information to recognise nuanced behaviour is a challenging problem and, to date, the tracking and pose‐estimation tools used to detect behaviour are typically applied where the visual environment is highly controlled. Animal behaviour researchers are interested in applying these tools to the study of wild animals, but it is not clear to what extent doing so is currently possible, or which tools are most suited to particular problems. To address this gap in knowledge, we describe the new tools available in this rapidly evolving landscape, suggest guidance for tool selection, provide a worked demonstration of the use of machine learning to track movement in video data of wild apes, and make our base models available for use. We use a pose‐estimation tool, DeepLabCut, to demonstrate successful training of two pilot models of an extremely challenging pose estimate and tracking problem: multi‐animal wild forest‐living chimpanzees and bonobos across behavioural contexts from hand‐held video footage. With DeepWild we show that, without requiring specific expertise in machine learning, pose estimation and movement tracking of free‐living wild primates in visually complex environments is an attainable goal for behavioural researchers.

Hunting and sharing of meat is seen across all chimpanzee sites, with variation in prey preferences, hunting techniques, frequencies, and success rates. Here, we compared hunting and meat-eating behaviour in two adjacent chimpanzee communities (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) of Budongo Forest, Uganda: the Waibira and Sonso communities. We observed consistent between-group differences in prey-species preferences and in post-hunting behaviour. Sonso chimpanzees show a strong prey preference for Guereza colobus monkeys (Colobus guereza occidentalis; 74.9% hunts), and hunt regularly (1–2 times a month) but with large year-to-year and month-to-month variation. Waibira chimpanzee prey preferences are distributed across primate and duiker species, and resemble those described in an early study of Sonso hunting. Waibira chimpanzees (which include ex-Sonso immigrants) have been observed to feed on red duiker (Cephalophus natalensis; 25%, 9/36 hunts), a species Sonso has never been recorded to feed on (18 years data, 27 years observations), despite no apparent differences in prey distribution; and show less rank-related harassment of meat possessors. We discuss the two most likely and probably interrelated explanations for the observed intergroup variation in chimpanzee hunting behaviour, that is, long-term disruption of complex group-level behaviour due to human presence and possible socially transmitted differences in prey preferences.