"That would be a huge first step beyond animals, who care just for their young (and for a limited time)"

That comment comes across as anthropocentric arrogance, the kind displayed in the vile, evil, murderous . . .

"[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

. . .crap spouted at the start of the Bible. Whichever desert tribesman scribbled that bitter little bit of fiction is deserving of a whole heap of contempt and pity. Hmmm. Did He say 'us' back there? I copied this from the Vatican website.

Many animals have very strong extended family bonds and many care for juveniles evenn if they're not related i.e. meerkats, wolves. Animals are known to grieve (elephants, some corvids), laugh and have culture (many primates, some corvids), laugh, use and make tools (primates and corvids) and have the ability to recognised themselves indicating self-consciousness (apes and cetaceans). They have the ability to reason (many birds, some cephalopods), they sulk and throw tantrums (Orang-utans).

Given they show the gamut of emotions, I would suggest they can love too.