Bah. Any scientist (regardless of their field) will tell you that theirs is the most complex and important field in the world, any it's never true. What we're seeing here is that lower primates are capable of evolving a system whereby abstract concepts can be communicated through specific combinations of sounds which do not neccesarily mean parts of the whole message. That's an extremely simple, but still syntaxic (is that a word?) language, and it's probably a useful analogue for how we developed our own language way back when.
It has nothing to do with linguistics being more complex or important than any other field. You can't just claim to have found language and then, when linguists explain to you why you have no reason to make that claim, just cover your ears. I'm not assuming that's the situation here, but I hope it's not radical of me to expect that people looking for animal language are trained in linguistics, and that hasn't always been the case. Honestly, I have no axe to grind about proto-linguistic structures in animal communication; if that's what's happening then that's what's happening. But as I said, a lot of people seem to want very badly for this to be true, and I think it's created a prime breeding ground for premature, and sometimes uninformed, conclusions.
