Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Foreword
- Infanticide by males: prospectus
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Infanticide by males: case studies
- Part III Behavioral consequences of infanticide by males
- 10 Prevention of infanticide: the perspective of infant primates
- 11 Infanticide and the evolution of male–female bonds in animals
- 12 The other side of the coin: infanticide and the evolution of affiliative male–infant interactions in Old World primates
- 13 Female dispersal and infanticide avoidance in primates
- 14 Reproductive patterns in eutherian mammals: adaptations against infanticide?
- 15 Paternity confusion and the ovarian cycles of female primates
- 16 Social evolution in primates: the relative roles of ecology and intersexual conflict
- Part IV Infanticide by females
- Part V Conclusion
- References
- Species index
- Subject index
11 - Infanticide and the evolution of male–female bonds in animals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 November 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Foreword
- Infanticide by males: prospectus
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Infanticide by males: case studies
- Part III Behavioral consequences of infanticide by males
- 10 Prevention of infanticide: the perspective of infant primates
- 11 Infanticide and the evolution of male–female bonds in animals
- 12 The other side of the coin: infanticide and the evolution of affiliative male–infant interactions in Old World primates
- 13 Female dispersal and infanticide avoidance in primates
- 14 Reproductive patterns in eutherian mammals: adaptations against infanticide?
- 15 Paternity confusion and the ovarian cycles of female primates
- 16 Social evolution in primates: the relative roles of ecology and intersexual conflict
- Part IV Infanticide by females
- Part V Conclusion
- References
- Species index
- Subject index
Summary
Introduction
Sexual selection theory suggests that divergent reproductive interests of the sexes impede the evolution of enduring social bonds between males and females. Males are more likely to increase reproductive success by acquiring multiple mates whereas females enhance fitness more by discriminative choice of individual mate(s) (Darwin 1871; Trivers 1972). Consequently, insofar as postcopulatory bonds limit a male's sexual access to additional fertile females and are irrelevant to antecedent female mate choice, such bonds should be relatively rare. The mostly polygynous mammals, for example, fulfill this expectation: male mating effort generally exceeds paternal effort, and affiliative interactions between the sexes center on the period of copulation or female fertility (Clutton-Brock 1989b).
And yet, males and non-fertile or anestrous females maintain stable relationships with one another in some species. The same theoretical framework that predicts the rarity of persistent heterosexual bonds also highlights a primary context for their evolution: when a male restricts his mating to a single female, a postcopulatory relationship with her is not only less costly to him, but may also offer fitness advantages to both parties. The proposed benefit to the female is the extensive parental care she receives from a male that is now certain of paternity. Thus durable male–female relationships were originally viewed as part of a coevolved suite of behaviors including monogamy, biparental care, and, in gregarious animals, “nuclear families” of parents and offspring (Morris 1967; Wittenberger & Tilson 1980; Gubernick 1994). The primarily monogamous, biparental birds have long served as vivid examples of this system (Lack 1968).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Infanticide by Males and its Implications , pp. 239 - 268Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2000
- 36
- Cited by