2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.09.075
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Historical-Genetic Reconstruction of Human Extra-Pair Paternity

Abstract: Highlights d Combining genetic and genealogical data illuminates our ancestors' sexual behavior d Gene-genealogy mismatches imply extra-pair paternity (EPP) d Historical EPP rates were low overall (1%) but varied depending on social context d EPP rates were highest (6%) among urban families with low socioeconomic status

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this population, these psychological adaptations are unlikely to explain lineage differences: monogamy was strictly adhered to in this population, with the church forbidding divorce and enforcing punishment for adultery 60 (thus the social environment provided fathers with little reason to doubt paternity). Indeed, historical extra-marital paternity rates in Europe are estimated to have been very low during this period (less than 1.5%) 61,62 . The population parameter of paternity uncertainty is an ancestral, taxonwide parameter, but the impact this might have had on patrilineal grandmaternal behaviour is unknown and may be negligible.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In this population, these psychological adaptations are unlikely to explain lineage differences: monogamy was strictly adhered to in this population, with the church forbidding divorce and enforcing punishment for adultery 60 (thus the social environment provided fathers with little reason to doubt paternity). Indeed, historical extra-marital paternity rates in Europe are estimated to have been very low during this period (less than 1.5%) 61,62 . The population parameter of paternity uncertainty is an ancestral, taxonwide parameter, but the impact this might have had on patrilineal grandmaternal behaviour is unknown and may be negligible.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…A total of 130 males with their residence in Belgium or the Netherlands (the Low Countries) were selected from previous studies investigating extra-pair paternity rates, haplogroup-specific Y-STR mutation rates, parallel Y-STR evolution and chrY-surname correlation [ 17 , 27 , 30 , 44 , 70 , 71 ]. These samples are further subdivided into five non-related males, 61 genealogical pairs with confirmed biological kinship and four extensive deep-rooted pedigrees enclosing three or four paternally related males.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Followed by the first empirical demonstrations of their suitability for male relative differentiation (Ballantyne et al, 2012, 2014), many subsequent studies provided increasing evidence on the value of RM Y‐STRs for differentiating related, including closely related, and also unrelated men (Adnan, Ralf, Rakha, Kousouri, & Kayser, 2016; Alghafri, Goodwin, & Hadi, 2013; Boattini et al, 2016, 2019; Lang et al, 2017; Niederstätter, Berger, Kayser, & Parson, 2016; Robino et al, 2015; Salvador et al, 2019; Turrina, Caratti, Ferrian, & De Leo, 2016; Westen et al, 2015; Zgonjanin, Alghafri, Antov et al, 2017). In genetic genealogy too, RM Y‐STRs are advantageous as they provide improved differentiation of unrelated individuals (Ballantyne et al, 2014) and they allow distinguishing closely related from more distantly related males by taking the number of observed mutations into account (Larmuseau et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%