Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T18:30:19.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Statistical Study Of The Sex Ratio At Birth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

W. T. Russell
W. T. Russell
Affiliation:
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

That the number of male births always exceeds that of females is well known to students of vital statistics, but the biological law responsible for the phenomenon has not yet been adequately determined though various theories have been offered in explanation. It has been suggested that it resulted from a high male conception rate which, although modified by an excess mortality of male embryos, nevertheless produced a masculinity of matured births. In more recent times the conclusions drawn by MacDowell & Lord (1925, 1925 a) from their experimental studies with mice have failed to support this view. They claimed that there was no correlation between the pre-natal mortality and the masculinity of live births, that the primary ratio at conception was almost identical with that at birth. These contentions were criticized by Parkes (1923, 1926), who, whilst maintaining the doctrine that the ante-natal mortality of mice “falls preponderatingly upon the males”, stated “that it is quite obvious that a great deal more information is required before any coherent story of the factors governing the sex ratio at birth in the mouse (and all other mammals) can be put together”.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , July 1936 , pp. 381 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1936

References

REFERENCES

Ewart, R. J. (1915). J. Hygiene, 15, 127.Google Scholar
Heape, W. (1909). Proc. Roy. Soc. 81, B, 32.Google Scholar
Heron, D. (1906–7). Biometrika, 5.Google Scholar
Knibbs, G. H. (1917). Census of the Commonwealth of Australia. Appendix A, 1.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. N. & Lewis, J. N. (1906). Natality and Fecundity. A Contribution to National Demography. Edinburgh, London.Google Scholar
MacDowell, E. C. & Lord, E. M. (1925). Anat. Rec. 31, 131, 143.Google Scholar
MacDowell, E. C. & Lord, E. M. (1925 a). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 22, 389.Google Scholar
Parkes, A. S. (1923). Ann. Appl. Biol. 10, 287.Google Scholar
Parkes, A. S. (1926). Brit. J. Exp. Biol. 4, 93.Google Scholar
Vigor, H. D. & Yule, G. U. (1906). J. Roy. Statist. Soc. 69.Google Scholar
Wicksell, S. D. (1926). Sex proportion and parental age. Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, N.F., Avd. 2, 22, Nr. 6.Google Scholar
Wicksell, S. D. (1926 a). Kungl. Fysiografiska Sallskapets Handlingar, N.F., 37, Nr. 6.Google Scholar