Comment on Barkow

Swetnam, John J.; Knack, Martha C.

doi:10.1525/aa.1979.81.1.02a00180

Cited by 20 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the next 10 years this provided the impetus leading to numerous theoretical refinements and scholarly and empirical investigations (Flinn 1981;Gaulin & Schlegel 1980;Greene 1978;Hartung 1981b;Kurland 1979). Although each of these investigations (including my own) can be criticized as indirect, insufficient, methodologically flawed, conceptually flawed, or otherwise less than convincing (see , Hartung 1982aSwetnam & Knack 1979;, together they lend substantial empirical support to one of the oldest hypotheses in social science.…”

Section: History and Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Matrilineal inheritance: New theory and analysis

Hartung

1985

Behav Brain Sci

206

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In most cultures, extramarital sex is highly restricted for women. In most of those cultures, men transfer wealth to their own sons (patrilineal inheritance). In some cultures extramarital sex is not highly restricted for women, and in most of those cultures, men transfer wealth to their sisters' sons (matrilineal inheritance). Inheritance to sisters' sons ensures a man's biological relatedness to his heirs, and matrilineal inheritance has been posited as a male accommodation to cuckoldry—a paternity strategy—at least since the 15th century. However, longitudinal analysis of the cumulative effect of female extramarital sex indicates that matrilineal inheritance is most advantageous for women and would be more accurately considered a grandmaternity strategy. That is, if the probability that men's putative children are their biological children (ρ = probability of paternity) is less than 1, the probabilistic degree of relatedness between a female and her matrilineal heirs is higher than her corresponding relatedness to her patrilineal heirs. The same holds true for men only if ρ is very low (< 0.46). The upshot is that for moderate levels of female extramarital sex, matrilineal inheritance, relative to patrilineal inheritance, is highly advantageous for women and disadvantageous for men. Consideration of female variance in reproductive success beyond the first generation, and of a man's network of obligation to the inclusive fitness of his relatives, suggests that although the establishment of matrilineal inheritance may require extremely high levels of female extramarital sex, once established, it is likely to be maintained at levels of ρ that reasonably characterize many societies in the ethnographic record. New analysis of previously published data shows a strong association between matrilineal inheritance and moderate to low probability of paternity, and an even stronger relationship between patrilineal inheritance and high probability of paternity.

show abstract

Section: History and Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Matrilineal inheritance: New theory and analysis

Hartung

1985

Behav Brain Sci

206

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a typographical error in paragraph two of the Swetnam and Knack (1979) * It is important here to repeat the distinction between exact and probabilistic coefficients of relationship (Barash, Holmes, and Greene 1978). The relatedness of parents to offspring is exactly 1/2, whereas the relatedness of full siblings averages 1/2 but may vary from zero to one from the random sampling of genes during meiosis.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thresholds thus calculated for instances of more than two potential biological fathers will fall in the interval (.268, .382), for example, the .333 value for p discussed by Swetnam and Knack (1979) when there are two mates in addition to the jural father, all equally likely to be the biological father of an offspring. However, in general, when a female mates with more than one male, the males will not be equally likely to be the biological father for a variety of reasons (e.g., differential frequency or timing of intercourse).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Paternity and the Avunculate

Greene

1980

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There is a typographical error in paragraph two of the Swetnam and Knack (1979) comment: the equation should read "0.5p = 0.125 + 0.125p2." The solutions given are correct.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

John Jones's Pregnancy: Some Comments on the Statistical‐Relevance Model of Scientific Explanation

Cartmill¹

1980

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comment on Barkow

Cited by 20 publications

References 2 publications

Matrilineal inheritance: New theory and analysis

Matrilineal inheritance: New theory and analysis

Paternity and the Avunculate

John Jones's Pregnancy: Some Comments on the Statistical‐Relevance Model of Scientific Explanation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About