A recent New Scientist article says that it has just been observed for the first time that when a bonobo has a baby, all her female mates cluster around and lend a helping hand, to make sure mum and baby are OK.

My question is, how is it possible that no-one noticed this before?

The article also mentioned in passing that the survival rate of human babies used to be much higher than it is now.

That also seems a fairly extraordinary thing to say in passing, and I don’t recall reading this before. Anyone got any background information on this?
How long ago are they talking?
How could they know what the survival rate was?

The Rev Dodgson said:

A recent New Scientist article says that it has just been observed for the first time that when a bonobo has a baby, all her female mates cluster around and lend a helping hand, to make sure mum and baby are OK.

My question is, how is it possible that no-one noticed this before?

The article also mentioned in passing that the survival rate of human babies used to be much higher than it is now.

That also seems a fairly extraordinary thing to say in passing, and I don’t recall reading this before. Anyone got any background information on this?
How long ago are they talking?
How could they know what the survival rate was?

The writer could be a new scientist?

Or a new journalist even.

> New Scientist article.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169354-ape-midwives-spotted-helping-female-bonobos-give-birth/

When bonobos give birth, other females gather around to support and protect the mother. These “midwives” bely the notion that assistance during birth is unique to humans.

Until now there has only been one scientific account of a wild bonobo giving birth, published in 2014. On that occasion, other females stayed close to the mother.

Now Elisa Demuru of the University of Pisa in Italy and her colleagues have described three births among captive bonobos at primate parks in France and the Netherlands. …

Rev D, I don’t have access to the rest of the article. Can you copy it here?

The use of the “bely” instead of “belie” suggests that the reporter was in a hurry and made mistakes.

The original article (abstract) is at https://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(17)30281-7/abstract

> Birth attendance has been proposed as a distinguishing feature of humans (Homo sapiens) and it has been linked to the difficulty of the delivery process in our species. (But it isn’t, because) birth in bonobos was a social event, where female attendants provided protection and support to the parturient until the infant was born and helped the parturient during the expulsive phase by holding the infant.

Article is long and has video attachments

5. Conclusions

Our results on bonobos question the traditional view that the “obligatory” need for assistance was the main driving force leading to sociality around birth in our species (Trevathan, 2011). Indeed, bonobo females stay in proximity to the parturient, support and protect her, even if birth in this species is not hindered by physical constraints and the mother is self-sufficient in accomplishing the delivery. We suggest that the similarities observed between birth attendance in bonobos and humans might be linked to the high level of female gregariousness characterizing these species, differently from chimpanzee. The similarities between bonobo’s female gregariousness and human’s female gregariousness – a prerequisite for birth attendance in our view – can be either the result of convergent evolution or common descent. Similar socio-ecological factors could have led to a phenomenon of convergent evolution between bonobos and humans. In these species female gregariousness was selected for because it increased the survival probability of females. This phenomenon of convergence could have arisen at different moments and in different species along the hominin lineage whenever the benefits of female gregariousness outranked its costs. On the other hand, common descent would imply that the last shared ancestor between Homo sapiens and the two Pan species showed female gregariousness and that this behavioural trait could have then been maintained in the course of the hominin evolutionary lineage. Therefore, the absence of female gregariousness in chimpanzees would be a derived feature, maybe linked to a more competitive nature of female-female relationships. According to this view, the bonobo would be more similar to last common ancestor with humans (Zihlman, Cronin, Cramer, & Sarich, 1978), but this topic is debated (Johnson et al., 1981). Certainly, both scenarios raise interesting questions and both the Pan species must be taken into account when trying to reconstruct the evolution of complex human behaviours, such as midwifery.

>The article also mentioned in passing that the survival rate of human babies used to be much higher than it is now.

Please quote the passage in which they make this claim.

Bubblecar said:

>The article also mentioned in passing that the survival rate of human babies used to be much higher than it is now.

Please quote the passage in which they make this claim.

I’ll post the NS article.

But now I’m called for lunch.

Don’t think assistance of other females during birth is restricted to the Homo line. Dolphins do it as I would also suspect to varying degrees, other intelligent social animals.

>>Groupings of females with calves occur naturally in the wild. The groupings are called maternity pods (Wells 1999). DRC tries to emulate these natural formations. It is important to have other females available to a mother dolphin. Female dolphins have been seen assisting in birth, and more consistently as baby-sitters or aunties helping to rear young dolphins. One of the best ways a female dolphin can learn how to care for a calf is to be around a baby and other more experienced females.<<

https://dolphins.org/maternity

PermeateFree said:

Don’t think assistance of other females during birth is restricted to the Homo line. Dolphins do it as I would also suspect to varying degrees, other intelligent social animals.

>>Groupings of females with calves occur naturally in the wild. The groupings are called maternity pods (Wells 1999). DRC tries to emulate these natural formations. It is important to have other females available to a mother dolphin. Female dolphins have been seen assisting in birth, and more consistently as baby-sitters or aunties helping to rear young dolphins. One of the best ways a female dolphin can learn how to care for a calf is to be around a baby and other more experienced females.<<

https://dolphins.org/maternity

And whales have midwife whales to run the baby up to the surface, I think.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

Don’t think assistance of other females during birth is restricted to the Homo line. Dolphins do it as I would also suspect to varying degrees, other intelligent social animals.

>>Groupings of females with calves occur naturally in the wild. The groupings are called maternity pods (Wells 1999). DRC tries to emulate these natural formations. It is important to have other females available to a mother dolphin. Female dolphins have been seen assisting in birth, and more consistently as baby-sitters or aunties helping to rear young dolphins. One of the best ways a female dolphin can learn how to care for a calf is to be around a baby and other more experienced females.<<

https://dolphins.org/maternity

And whales have midwife whales to run the baby up to the surface, I think.

Yes.

NS article:

By Sam Wong

WHEN a bonobo gives birth, other females gather to support and protect her. Fresh observations confirm this behaviour and dispel the notion that assistance during birth is unique to humans.

There has only been one scientific account of a wild bonobo giving birth, published in 2014. Then, other females stayed close to the mother.

Now Elisa Demuru at the University of Pisa in Italy and her colleagues have observed three births among captive bonobos in France and the Netherlands. On each occasion, the mother made no attempt to isolate herself.

Other females showed a keen interest in her, inspecting her genital area and sniffing the birth fluid. Some placed their hands under her, as if trying to grab the emerging baby. One was seen swatting away flies (Evolution & Human Behavior, doi.org/cpz6).

Some of these companions had given birth before, and their behaviour suggested they knew what was going on, says Demuru. They guarded the mother, keeping males and the human observers away. “We believe they want to show the female that they are there to support and protect her in the phase in which she’s most vulnerable.”

The females in a bonobo group are usually not related, but they do form close bonds, helping them to assert dominance over males. This contrasts with chimps, bonobos’ closest living relatives. Female chimps tend to be more solitary and competitive, and to give birth alone.

“Midwifery may have been present in our last common ancestor with bonobos, but chimps lost the trait”

The close relationships between female bonobos explain why birth is a social event for them, says Demuru, who is now at the French National Center for Scientific Research in Paris. “It makes sense because they’re highly social animals. Isolation is not part of their behavioural repertoire.”

We know little about birth in other primates, as it often occurs at night. But there are reports of birth assistance in monkeys.

In humans, assistance during birth is the norm in almost all cultures. Some researchers have claimed that it is a unique and long-standing human trait, made necessary by our large brains and narrow pelvises – a combination, it has been argued, that would make childbirth exceptionally difficult.

However, recent research had challenged the claim even before the new bonobo study. For instance, there is evidence that for most of the history of our species, death in childbirth was less common than it is now.

Demuru thinks birth assistance arose in bonobos and humans because both live in social groups with strongly bonded females. Midwifery may have been present in our last common ancestor and lost by chimpanzees, or it might have evolved separately in the human and bonobo lineages.

Birth assistance in humans might have made it possible for us to evolve our big brains despite potential difficulty in childbirth, says Demuru.

Bubblecar said:

>The article also mentioned in passing that the survival rate of human babies used to be much higher than it is now.

Please quote the passage in which they make this claim.

The passage:

In humans, assistance during birth is the norm in almost all cultures. Some researchers have claimed that it is a unique and long-standing human trait, made necessary by our large brains and narrow pelvises – a combination, it has been argued, that would make childbirth exceptionally difficult.

However, recent research had challenged the claim even before the new bonobo study. For instance, there is evidence that for most of the history of our species, death in childbirth was less common than it is now.

The Rev Dodgson said:

NS article:

By Sam Wong

WHEN a bonobo gives birth, other females gather to support and protect her. Fresh observations confirm this behaviour and dispel the notion that assistance during birth is unique to humans.

There has only been one scientific account of a wild bonobo giving birth, published in 2014. Then, other females stayed close to the mother.

Now Elisa Demuru at the University of Pisa in Italy and her colleagues have observed three births among captive bonobos in France and the Netherlands. On each occasion, the mother made no attempt to isolate herself.

Other females showed a keen interest in her, inspecting her genital area and sniffing the birth fluid. Some placed their hands under her, as if trying to grab the emerging baby. One was seen swatting away flies (Evolution & Human Behavior, doi.org/cpz6).

Some of these companions had given birth before, and their behaviour suggested they knew what was going on, says Demuru. They guarded the mother, keeping males and the human observers away. “We believe they want to show the female that they are there to support and protect her in the phase in which she’s most vulnerable.”

The females in a bonobo group are usually not related, but they do form close bonds, helping them to assert dominance over males. This contrasts with chimps, bonobos’ closest living relatives. Female chimps tend to be more solitary and competitive, and to give birth alone.

“Midwifery may have been present in our last common ancestor with bonobos, but chimps lost the trait”

The close relationships between female bonobos explain why birth is a social event for them, says Demuru, who is now at the French National Center for Scientific Research in Paris. “It makes sense because they’re highly social animals. Isolation is not part of their behavioural repertoire.”

We know little about birth in other primates, as it often occurs at night. But there are reports of birth assistance in monkeys.

In humans, assistance during birth is the norm in almost all cultures. Some researchers have claimed that it is a unique and long-standing human trait, made necessary by our large brains and narrow pelvises – a combination, it has been argued, that would make childbirth exceptionally difficult.

However, recent research had challenged the claim even before the new bonobo study. For instance, there is evidence that for most of the history of our species, death in childbirth was less common than it is now.

Demuru thinks birth assistance arose in bonobos and humans because both live in social groups with strongly bonded females. Midwifery may have been present in our last common ancestor and lost by chimpanzees, or it might have evolved separately in the human and bonobo lineages.

Birth assistance in humans might have made it possible for us to evolve our big brains despite potential difficulty in childbirth, says Demuru.

Excluding all other animals with our very limited number of wild observations, is I think asking to be shot down in flames.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>The article also mentioned in passing that the survival rate of human babies used to be much higher than it is now.

Please quote the passage in which they make this claim.

The passage:

In humans, assistance during birth is the norm in almost all cultures. Some researchers have claimed that it is a unique and long-standing human trait, made necessary by our large brains and narrow pelvises – a combination, it has been argued, that would make childbirth exceptionally difficult.

However, recent research had challenged the claim even before the new bonobo study. For instance, there is evidence that for most of the history of our species, death in childbirth was less common than it is now.

A somewhat related article claiming that deaths in child birth increased during the early 20th century, because midwives were replaced by doctors:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_longevity/2013/09/death_in_childbirth_doctors_increased_maternal_mortality_in_the_20th_century.html

It would be good to see some other evidence to confirm or refute that, since she seems to have a bit of an axe to grind.

How much reading do you want? Puerperal fever information:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088248/

It’s a long read.

buffy said:

How much reading do you want? Puerperal fever information:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088248/

It’s a long read.

As much as you are prepared to do, as long as you give us a good summary :)

Some statistics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3511335

And another paper. Nice graph in this one where you can see the antibiotics kicking in.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

How much reading do you want? Puerperal fever information:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088248/

It’s a long read.

As much as you are prepared to do, as long as you give us a good summary :)

I’m not interested in reading it all. But I can give you relevent links. If you only read the summaries, that might suffice.

I do have a book here called “Sex and Suffering”, which is a history of the Royal Womwen’s Hospital in Melbourne, 1856 – 1996. One of the reasons it was set up was because the girls coming out from England were small framed because of poor nutrition, and once here they had much better nutrition. This meant their babies were bigger in utero, and because the women had narrow pelvises, there were problems with birthing. I think there is stuff in there about teaching the medical students to wash their hands between doing anatomy dissections in the morgue and intimately examining the pregnant/birthing women.

buffy said:

Some statistics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3511335

Interesting.

Looks like before about 1920 there is enough variation in the data that you can reach whatever conclusion you like.

But certainly the doctors don’t seem to have been doing an awful lot of good, even if they were not harming.

And here is the original information about the washing hands thing:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3807776/

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

Some statistics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3511335

Interesting.

Looks like before about 1920 there is enough variation in the data that you can reach whatever conclusion you like.

But certainly the doctors don’t seem to have been doing an awful lot of good, even if they were not harming.

They were harming…have a look at my next couple of posts.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

How much reading do you want? Puerperal fever information:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088248/

It’s a long read.

As much as you are prepared to do, as long as you give us a good summary :)

I’m not interested in reading it all. But I can give you relevent links. If you only read the summaries, that might suffice.

I do have a book here called “Sex and Suffering”, which is a history of the Royal Womwen’s Hospital in Melbourne, 1856 – 1996. One of the reasons it was set up was because the girls coming out from England were small framed because of poor nutrition, and once here they had much better nutrition. This meant their babies were bigger in utero, and because the women had narrow pelvises, there were problems with birthing. I think there is stuff in there about teaching the medical students to wash their hands between doing anatomy dissections in the morgue and intimately examining the pregnant/birthing women.

Just kidding Buffy.

Thanks for the links. I’m not going to read all the words either, but I will look at several thousand words worth of images.

Rev…do you have this link? It’s a reliable medical search. You still have to use a bit of commonsense, but in general it comes up with good stuff. I use the professionals tab.

https://www.hon.ch/med.html

buffy said:

Rev…do you have this link? It’s a reliable medical search. You still have to use a bit of commonsense, but in general it comes up with good stuff. I use the professionals tab.

https://www.hon.ch/med.html

Thanks for that, will have a look later (now other duties call).

Just re-reading what you said on the Melbourne hospital history, I wonder how significant that was in non-migrant areas; i.e. women small because of poor nutrition in their early years having better diet as an adult, and hence big babies.

Going back to the hunter/gatherer days of the human race, women would give birth where ever they were, sometimes with the assistance of other women or on their own. If the woman had deficiencies with the birthing process she would likely die. Harsh as this maybe, it did via natural selection produce women that were better suited for childbirth. Since those times and with increased knowledge, more women with deficiencies would survive and hence the self-regulation of suitable women for childbirth would decline. I would therefore think that there would be fewer deaths during childbirth in these hunter/gatherer times and due to medical intervention there would have a decline in the numbers of suitable women that could birth a child naturally.

High ranking females of a mountain gorilla troop will murder the babies of other females if they can.

So helping out with the birthing is not the general thing.

mollwollfumble said:

High ranking females of a mountain gorilla troop will murder the babies of other females if they can.

So helping out with the birthing is not the general thing.

You seem to be confusing Mountain Gorillas with Chimpanzees.

>>Isaro, who is 16 years old and already has a six-year-old and three-year-old, is raising the twins with the help of their father Isabukuru.

Winnie Eckardt, a research manager at Karisoke, added: ‘Isaro is lucky and can count on a lot of support in rising the twins by the dad, Isabukuru, who is one of the most actively involved in infant caring of all silverbacks, and from her older daughter, Keza, who is seeking any opportunity to gain maternal skills.’<<

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545131/They-growing-fast-Heartwarming-new-photographs-progress-twin-gorillas-born-Rwandan-jungle-mum-hugging-just-tightly-ever.html

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

High ranking females of a mountain gorilla troop will murder the babies of other females if they can.

So helping out with the birthing is not the general thing.

You seem to be confusing Mountain Gorillas with Chimpanzees.

>>Isaro, who is 16 years old and already has a six-year-old and three-year-old, is raising the twins with the help of their father Isabukuru.

Winnie Eckardt, a research manager at Karisoke, added: ‘Isaro is lucky and can count on a lot of support in rising the twins by the dad, Isabukuru, who is one of the most actively involved in infant caring of all silverbacks, and from her older daughter, Keza, who is seeking any opportunity to gain maternal skills.’<<

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545131/They-growing-fast-Heartwarming-new-photographs-progress-twin-gorillas-born-Rwandan-jungle-mum-hugging-just-tightly-ever.html

> You seem to be confusing Mountain Gorillas with Chimpanzees.

Oops, crash and burn. I probably am. I’m always mixing up Dian Fossey with Jane Goodall.