This. National Geographic was describing the work of credentialed scientists. This century it was discovered that psychology had a replication problem, but I don’t expect Nat Geo to be more clairvoyant than most psychologists in the field.
Note that there was vigorous debate about Koko et al in the late 1970s: it was dubbed “The Ape Wars” in the popular scientific press. My understanding was that at best Koko et al were nowhere near the level of a human 2 year old. I don’t find either position to be implausible a priori, though the Koko study lacked rigor and the conclusions as reported in the popular press were in error. (ETA: Erm, I see from wiki that some were claiming that Koko had an IQ of 70 or 90. I don’t recall claims that expansive.)
Semi relevant: today’s New York Times has an article about cross-specie communication between a caterpillar/butterfly and certain ant colonies: the former tricks the latter. Gifted.
“Trilobites: The Password That Lets Caterpillars Hide in an Ant’s Lair: Some butterfly species can’t grow unless they trick ants into taking them home with a complex rhythmic signal.”
See my multi-decade thread here and note the shifts in conventional wisdom: