For starters, these behaviors are mostly isolated and no way representative of the species behavior at large. All it shows is that some individuals will engage in them. This does not describe the generality that each and every members of the species will engage into. So this is to be kept in mind.

Then I'd like to remind that as of now, intelligence isn't even properly defined, and that all systematic attempts at having it be described in a system that is capable to account for all its nuances following a scientific method have failed to be 100% so far. Animal intelligence and hence the intellectual superiority of some of them is also hard to define. For the sake of the argument I'm going to use Leary's interpretation of intelligence under the 8 circuit system. I feel this is relevant because it describes symbolic-tool-using intelligence not as the finality of intelligence, but as one of its component. A cherry on the cake that likes to imagine itself as the whole cake. Much the same way that being capable to articulate ideas under symbols, plan things on, make maps, languages and use them effectively is an intellectual feat that does not guarantee that an individual will shine in the other aspects of intelligence, such as emotional-territorial or moral intelligence. This way, while a person can be a genius of mathematics and referred to as 'superior', he might be a complete dumbass in other areas of life. I think in the case of these species, the same pattern can be relevant. Belonging to a species generally considered more intelligent does not guarantee that members of this species will not engage in destructive, deviant, or plain unintelligent behaviors. If anything it just highlights that these behaviors are to be dissociated from the development of intelligence overall, because these acts serve no intelligent purposes. Thanks for reading my fancy blog post I hope your mom dies in her sleep tonight.