Kin recognition cues of vertebrates

Halpin, Zuleyma Tang

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511525414.010

Cited by 85 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the brief association of siblings of consecutive litters in the second experiment failed to prevent sibling matings. Thus, the results of experiment 2 support those of the first experiment in that siblings from different litters did not have the opportunity to associate and learn the cues necessary to recognise kin (Halpin 1991). Clearly, R. pumilio identifies kin because of association during rearing.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 61%

The effects of sibling reproduction in the African striped mouse

Pillay

1999

Acta Theriol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neville PILLAY Pillay N. 1999. The effects of sibling reproduction in the African striped mouse. Acta Theriologica 44: 291-298.Sibling reproduction was studied in a captive population of the African striped mouse Rhabdomys pumilio (Sparrman, 1784) to establish the occurrence of inbreeding and whether early association prevents later matings. Sibling and nonsibling pairs were established by pairing animals at weaning (16 days), 30, and 60 days old. The reproductive success of weaning pairs (regardless of genetic relationship) and 30-and 60-day sibling pairs was poorer than that of nonsibling pairs. Inbreeding depression was indicated by high pre-weaning mortality and smaller mass of inbred compared to outbred litters. When pairings were made between sexually mature siblings of consecutive litters that had made brief contact previously, sibling pairs had similar reproductive performance compared to control pairs, but had significantly smaller litter sizes. It appears that incestuous matings in R. pumilio result in inbreeding depression, and that mating between kin or non-kin is prevented by prior association.Environmental Physiological Studies Research (ESPR) Programme,

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 61%

The effects of sibling reproduction in the African striped mouse

Pillay

1999

Acta Theriol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two mechanisms are generally thought to explain kin discrimination in animals: social familiarity (Walters, 1987;Halpin, 1991) and phenotype matching (Holmes & Sherman, 1983;Lacy & Sherman, 1983), or some combination of the two where phenotype matching is dependent on prior exposure to kin. Currently, we are unable to assess phenotype matching because of the limited availability of multi-generational pedigrees that would create precise coefficients of relatedness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cues to kinship and close relatedness during infancy in white-faced capuchin monkeys, Cebus capucinus

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to recognize kin has important impacts on fitness because it can allow for kinbiased affiliative behaviors and for avoidance of mating with close kin. While the presence and effects of kin biases have been widely studied, less is known about the process by which animals recognize close kin. Here we investigate potential cues that white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus capucinus) may use to detect half-siblings and closer kin. We focus on the first year of life in a sample of 130 infant (n=65 infant females) wild capuchins from the Lomas Barbudal population in Costa Rica. We show that (1) infant relatedness to juvenile and adult males at the level of half-sibling and higher can be predicted by male alpha status, spatial proximity, and age proximity, and that (2) infant relatedness to juvenile and adult females at the level of half-sibling or higher can be predicted by spatial proximity (but not age proximity). Furthermore, (1) the identities of infants' fathers can also be predicted by male alpha status and the spatial proximity between infants and adult males, and (2) age proximity (but not spatial proximity) is predictive of paternal sibship. These results suggest that infant capuchins have access to multiple cues to close relatedness and paternal kinship, though whether infants use these cues later in life remains to be explored in future research.Keywords: kin recognition, age proximity, early social familiarity, male dominance, The ability to recognize kin has many adaptive benefits. It can help organisms increase their inclusive fitness by allowing them to allot a disproportionate amount of affiliative behaviors and coalitionary support toward individuals with which they share a larger proportion of their genes (Hamilton, 1964). Furthermore, by allowing individuals to recognize kin and discriminate against them in a mating context, kin recognition mechanisms can facilitate avoidance of the deleterious effects of close inbreeding (Charlesworth & Charlesworth, 1987).We define kin recognition as the ability to identify and distinguish kin from non-kin, or more closely related kin from more distant kin, regardless of the mechanism or mechanisms through which it is accomplished, and regardless of whether it actually leads to differential treatment of individuals (i.e. kin discrimination). In this sense, we take on a broad as opposed to narrow definition of kin recognition (see Penn & Frommen, 2010). We consider the related term kin bias to be the differential treatment of kin versus non-kin (or close kin from distant kin), though not exclusively as the result of kin recognition.Kin recognition has been documented in a wide array of animal taxa, including, to name only a few: Artic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) (Winberg & Olsén, 1992;Olsén & Winberg, 1996), spadefoot toads (Scaphiopus bombifrons) (Pfennig et al., 1993), Golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) (Mateo & Johnston, 2000), and Belding's ground squirrels (Spermophilus beldingi) and Arctic ground squirrels (Spermophilus parryii) (Holmes & S...

show abstract

“…" [T]he fact that animals benefit from engaging in spatially mediated behaviors is not evidence that these animals can recognise their kin, nor does it support the conclusion that spatially-based differential behaviors represent a kin recognition mechanism (see also discussions by Blaustein, 1983;Waldman, 1987;Halpin 1991). In other words, from an evolutionary perspective it may well be advantageous for kin to aggregate and for individuals to behave preferentially towards nearby kin, whether or not this behaviour is the result of kin recognition per se" (Tang-Martinez 2001,25)…”

Section: Summary: Correlations and The Distinction Between Evolution mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship: Compatibility between Cultural and Biological Approaches

Holland

2004

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract''`ýýThe current thesis aims to clarify some aspects of the relationship between biology and social bonds. The central task is to demonstrate that, despite clear problems of some past approaches claiming to represent biology, there is non-reductive compatibility between the perspective from cultural approaches documenting processes of social bonding in humans and the perspective from basic biological theory. In demonstrating this compatibility, the thesis also attempts to contribute to delineating the utility and limits of applying insights from biology to understanding aspects of human social behaviour, and to sociological study in general. The areas of social bonding and social relationships under focus are mainly at the level of individuals and primary social groups, rather than a structural-functional approach often employed in classical sociology of the family and comparative sociology.The thesis initially reviews recent cultural approaches to understanding social bonding, and notes the potential academic value of a clarification of the association between social kinship and physical ('related by blood') kinship. In reviewing biological theory on social bonding and social behaviour, it is argued that classic sociobiological interpretations of this biological theory are erroneous in some crucial respects, and a different interpretation is argued for. Evidence on processes mediating social bonding in social mammals and particularly in primates is reviewed. It is demonstrated that circumstantial, social and contextual 'cues' typically mediate the formation of primary social bonds in these species, not genealogical relationship per se, and that these findings are compatible with basic biological theory. In the human case, it is demonstrated that the current interpretation of biological theory is also compatible with established disciplines closely associated with detailing mechanisms of social bonding (such as attachment theory). The consensus here is again that social bonds are mediated by various social and contextual cues rather than genealogical relationship per se. Various useful feedback has been provided by reviewers of earlier drafts of the thesis.My thanks especially to

show abstract

Kin recognition cues of vertebrates

Cited by 85 publications

References 0 publications

The effects of sibling reproduction in the African striped mouse

The effects of sibling reproduction in the African striped mouse

Cues to kinship and close relatedness during infancy in white-faced capuchin monkeys, Cebus capucinus

Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship: Compatibility between Cultural and Biological Approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About