Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
22. It seems unlikely to me that a bottle-neck would lead to a change in species mating-systems
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 03:47 PM
Feb 2012

Bottle-necks result in reductions of genetic variability. Mating systems within a species are highly conserved and there probably isn't enough genetic variability in the controlling factors for mating systems to result in a shift when genetic variability is reduced. Two species that we know have gone through bottle-necks, elephant seals and cheetahs, have pretty much exactly the same mating systems as their near relatives that haven't experienced known bottle-necks.

I'd suggest that mating systems be considered solutions to past fitness tests

The genetics that make mating systems heritable may be assumed to always subject to mutation and selection, but the variations are also some of the most conserved heritable features of a species.

Mating systems (monogamous vs polygamous) emerge as the myriad simultaneous fitness problems are solved in the evolutionary history of a species. What is seen today is the current end-product of the 'ghost' of past fitness tests. Those fitness tests act on mating process, embryonic processes and post-embryonic developmental and maturation processes.

Selection pressure doesn't necessarily begin or end with number of sexual partners with which individuals successfully copulate.

The developmental condition of the offspring (altricial-relatively helpless at birth vs precocial-relatively independent at birth) places signigicant burderns on parent(s). Selection for survival of the offspring is not just on the 'infants' it is also on the adults via patterns of paternal care.
This characteristic developmental state of the newborn is both a solution to survival problems and a biotic platform that is acted upon by selection, for atricial offspring such as human babies, it can only work with the concomitant availability of 'workable' phenotypes produced by 'workable' genetic variation in the parent(s).

Parental care may include provisioning with food, providing protection, transportation or shelter. And particularly in humans, it includes the endowment of offspring with culture that promotes in broad ways to the fittness of the offspring and the perpetuation of the genetic lineage of both parent and offspring. The demands of parental care have many requirements/costs.

Mating systems represent workable solutions to the fitness costs and fitness benefits to producing a successful generation of offspring.

Monogamous mating systems, and variations on parental care that can include both-sexes cooperation in parenting are also representation of workable, heritable solutions.




Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Why are males and females 50%-50%? [View all] cthulu2016 Feb 2012 OP
Silly me, I learned the natural ratio at birth was 107 boys to 100 girls Brother Buzz Feb 2012 #1
That's birth, not conception. cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #2
Primary sex ratio up to 170 males to 100 females muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #8
Fair enough cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #12
I've read that there are more males than females are born in the U.S. Honeycombe8 Feb 2012 #19
I ammended the OP to reflect cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #23
Also, boys traditionally had a higher mortality rate. Arugula Latte Feb 2012 #7
Speak for yourself karynnj Feb 2012 #3
The ratio of boys to girls at birth ranges from 1.03 to 1.07 generally, depending on country FarCenter Feb 2012 #4
Sex ratio is a feature of a species natural history traits HereSince1628 Feb 2012 #5
Maybe it maximizes the experiment potential. gulliver Feb 2012 #6
Assume there is such a thing as truly random, then random coin flips are 50% heads 50% tails. retread Feb 2012 #9
By population, women in the US make up about 52%, partially by attrition. HopeHoops Feb 2012 #10
I think the ratio is about bottlenecks napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #11
That's attractive but cannot be right cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #13
Hmm, interesting. napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #15
No here is the answer, Fisher's principle. napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #17
Exactly (I was trying to say that in the OP but may have failed) cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #18
It's probably more complex than that, particularly in species which are polygynous and bear litters FarCenter Feb 2012 #20
Very true cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #24
Yeah, you're right... Here's a good article: napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #30
Again, note the "afford to gamble" factor cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #34
Yes indeed. Do you ever see this stuff holistically cthulu? napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #37
Me to. My approach to posting is atypical cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #39
You bring tough questions to the surface. napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #40
well said. n/t lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #28
It is not a gene quaker bill Feb 2012 #31
That process is not as random as it would seem though. napoleon_in_rags Feb 2012 #38
Unless you are a mouse, no you can't. quaker bill Feb 2012 #42
It seems unlikely to me that a bottle-neck would lead to a change in species mating-systems HereSince1628 Feb 2012 #22
Nicely written. cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #25
My theory is that it only became important to have sons when we became Cleita Feb 2012 #14
Here's a question. Igel Feb 2012 #16
For most species, the sex ratio is approximately 1:1 cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #21
This from an earlier post of mine TexasProgresive Feb 2012 #26
How a sperm cell is formed has to do with it. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #27
True, but that is not the mechanism cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #33
Mitochondrial DNA Another Bill C. Feb 2012 #29
Wikipedia has a sortable chart on gender ratio: more guys at birth, more gals after 65 yurbud Feb 2012 #32
And with the 1:1 crossover ocurring cthulu2016 Feb 2012 #35
I just realized this balances out a biological injustice: yurbud Feb 2012 #36
I have a question.... unkachuck Feb 2012 #41
Except now in some places... like India and China JCMach1 Feb 2012 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why are males and females...»Reply #22