Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T17:23:39.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Twinning and the r/K Reproductive Strategy: A Critique of Rushton's Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

G. Allen ,
A.W. Eriksson ,
J. Fellman ,
P. Parisi  and
S.G. Vandenberg
G. Allen*
Affiliation:
U.S. Public Health Service (Ret.), Bethesda, Maryland, USA
A.W. Eriksson
Affiliation:
Institute of Human Genetics, Free University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
J. Fellman
Affiliation:
Folkhalsan Institute of Genetics, Helsinki, Finland
P. Parisi
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Italy
S.G. Vandenberg
Affiliation:
Institute of Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA
*
9326 W. Parkhill Drive, Bethesda, MD 20814-3967, USA

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The theory of r selection, favoring population growth, as opposed to K selection, favoring more efficient utilization of resources, has in recent years been applied by Rushton to contrast human ethnic groups in terms of their r/K reproductive strategies, suggesting the existence of a continuum from r groups, producing many offspring but providing little parental care, to K groups, producing few offspring but providing much parental care. Rushton's theory, which is largely based on ethnic differences in twinning rates, is here critically examined. It is pointed out that twinning rate differences are not necessarily genetic in origin since various environmental factors clearly play a role, and also that twinning, as a mode of reproduction, is not necessarily an r strategy, considering the high prenatal and perinatal selection to which it has been, and still is, associated. Moreover, Rushton misinterprets a number of relevant aspects related to the biology of twinning. The claim that ethnic differences in twinning rates provide evidence for an r/K typology in human populations with respect to reproductive strategies does not appear to be warranted.

Keywords

Reproductive strategySelectionLitter sizeTwinningEthnic differences
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 73 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1992

References

REFERENCES

1.Allen, G (1981): The twinning and fertility paradox. In Gedda, L, Parisi, P, Nance, WE (eds): Twin Research 3: Twin Biology and Multiple Pregnancy. New York: Alan R. Liss, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
2.Allen, G, Parisi, P (1990): Trends in monozygotic and dizygotic twinning rates by maternal age and parity — Further analysis of Italian data, 1949-1985, and rediscussion of US data, 1964-1985. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 39:317–328.Google Scholar
3.Anderson, WW, King, CE (1970): Age-specific selection. Proc US Nat Acad Sci 66:780–786.Google Scholar
4.Boklage, CE (1990): Survival probability of human conceptions from fertilization to term. Int J Fertil 35:75–94.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Bulmer, MG (1970): The Biology of Twinning in Man. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
6.Eriksson, AW (1964): Pituitary gonadotrophin and dizygotic twinning. Lancet 2:1298–1299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Eriksson, AW (1973): Human twinning in and around the Alan Islands. Commentationes Biologicae 64:1–159.Google Scholar
8.Eriksson, AW (1990): Twinning in families of triplets. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 39:279–293.Google Scholar
9.Eriksson, AW, Fellman, JO (1967): Twinning and legitimacy. Hereditas 57:395–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Eriksson, AW, Fellman, JO (1973): Differences in the twinning trends between Finns and Swedes. Am J Hum Genet 25:141–151.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Fellman, JO, Eriksson, AW (1987): Statistical models for the twinning rate. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 36:297–312.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Fellman, JO, Eriksson, AW (1990): Standardization of the twinning rate. Hum Biol 62:803–816.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Heuser, RL (1967): Multiple births, United States - 1964. Washington: US Government Printing Office (Public Health Service Publication No. 1000, Series 21, No. 14).Google Scholar
14.Hull, CL, Hovland, CI, Ross, RT, Hall, M, Perkins, DT, Fitch, FB (1940): Mathematico-Deductive Theory of Rote Learning. A study in Scientific Methodology. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
15.James, WH (1984): Coitus-induced ovulation and its implications for estimates of some reproductive parameters. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 33:547–555.Google ScholarPubMed
16.La Ferla, JJ, Labrum, H, Tang, K (1982): Psychoendocrine response to sexual arousal in human females, in Prill, HI, Stauber, MN (eds): Advances in Psychosomatic Obstetrics/Gynecology. Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag, p. 209.Google Scholar
17.Lynn, M (1989): Race differences in sexual behavior: A critique of Rushton and Bogaert's evolutionary hypothesis; and, Criticisms of an evolutionary hypothesis about race differences: a rebuttal to Rushton's reply. J Res Person 23:1–6, 21–34.Google Scholar
18.MacArthur, RH, Wilson, EO (1967): The theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
19.Nylander, PPS (1981): The factors that influence twinning rates. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 30:189–202.Google Scholar
20.Parisi, P, Caperna, G (1982): Twinning rates, fertility, and industrialization: a secular study. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Human Genetics, Jerusalem, 1981. New York: Alan R Liss, pp. 375–394.Google Scholar
21.Peller, S (1944): Studies on mortality since the Renaissance. D. Twins and singletons. Bull Hist Med 16:362–381.Google Scholar
22.Rushton, JP (1985): Differential K theory: The sociobiology of individual and group differences. Person Individ Diff 6:441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Rushton, JP (1987): Toward a theory of human multiple birthing: sociobiology and r/K reproductive strategies. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 36:289–296.Google Scholar
24.Rushton, JP (1988): Race differences in behaviour: a review and evolutionary analysis. Person Individ Diff 9:1009–1024.Google Scholar
25.Weinberg, W (1901–1902): Beiträge zur Physiologie und Pathologie der Mehrlingsgeburten beim Menschen. Arch Ges Physiol 88:346–430.Google Scholar
26.Wyshak, G (1981): Reproductive and menstrual characteristics of mothers of multiple births and mothers of singletons only: A discriminant analysis. In Gedda, L, Parisi, P, Nance, WE (eds): Twin Research 3, Part A, Twin Biology and Multiple Pregnancy, New York: Alan R Liss, pp 95–105.Google Scholar
27.Zuckerman, M, Brody, N (1988): Oysters, rabbits and people: A critique of “Race differences in Behavior” by J.P. Rushton. Person Individ Diff 9:1025–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar