What Animals Species Will The Male Kill Their Young

Killing of young offspring past an developed creature of the same species

Panthera leo cubs may exist killed by males replacing other males in the pride.^[1]

In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature fauna of the same species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. The exercise has been observed in many species throughout the animal kingdom, especially primates (primate infanticide) simply including microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals.^[2] Infanticide can be practiced past both males and females.

Infanticide caused past sexual conflict has the general theme of the killer (oft male) becoming the new sexual partner of the victim's parent, which would otherwise be unavailable.^[iii] This represents a gain in fitness by the killer, and a loss in fettle by the parents of the offspring killed. This is a type of evolutionary struggle between the two sexes, in which the victim sexual activity may take counter-adaptations that reduce the success of this do.^[3] It may likewise occur for other reasons, such as the struggle for food betwixt females. In this case individuals may fifty-fifty kill closely related offspring.

Filial infanticide occurs when a parent kills its own offspring. This sometimes involves consumption of the young themselves, which is termed filial cannibalism. The behavior is widespread in fishes, and is seen in terrestrial animals every bit well. Homo infanticide has been recorded in almost every culture. A unique attribute of human infanticide is sex-selective infanticide.

Groundwork [edit]

Infanticide only came to exist seen as a significant occurrence in nature quite recently. At the fourth dimension it was first seriously treated by Yukimaru Sugiyama,^[iv] infanticide was attributed to stress causing factors similar overcrowding and captivity, and was considered pathological and maladaptive. Classical ethology held that conspecifics (members of the same species) rarely killed each other.^[5] By the 1980s it had gained much greater acceptance. Possible reasons it was not treated as a prevalent natural miracle include its abhorrence to people, the popular group and species selectionist notions of the time (the idea that individuals behave for the good of the group or species; compare with gene-centered view of evolution), and the fact that information technology is very difficult to observe in the field.^[6]

Infanticide involving sexual conflict [edit]

This form of infanticide represents a struggle between the sexes, where ane sex exploits the other, much to the latter's disadvantage. It is usually the male who benefits from this behavior, though in cases where males play similar roles to females in parental intendance the victim and perpetrator may be reversed (see Bateman'south principle for discussion of this asymmetry).

Past males [edit]

Hanuman langurs (or gray langurs) are Old World monkeys found in India. They are a social beast, living in groups that consist of a single ascendant male person and multiple females. The ascendant male has a reproductive monopoly within the grouping, which causes sub-ordinate males to take a much lower fitness value in comparison.^[7] To proceeds the opportunity to reproduce, sub-ordinate males attempt to take over the dominant role inside a grouping, normally resulting in an aggressive struggle with the existing ascendant male.^[8] If successful in overthrowing the previous male, unrelated infants of the females are and then killed.^[9] This infanticidal period is limited to the window just subsequently the grouping is taken over. Cannibalism, however, has not been observed in this species.

Infanticide not merely reduces intraspecific competition between the incumbent'southward offspring and those of other males but also increases the parental investment afforded to their own young, and allows females to go fertile faster.^[ten] This is because females of this species, as well as many other mammals, exercise not ovulate during lactation. It then becomes easier to sympathise how infanticide evolved. If a male person kills a female person's young, she stops lactating and is able to become pregnant again.^[11] Because of this, the newly dominant male is able to reproduce at a faster charge per unit than without the act of infanticide.^[viii] As males are in a constant struggle to protect their group, those that limited infanticidal behavior will contribute a larger portion to future cistron pools (see natural choice).

Similar behavior is also seen in male lions, among other species, who also kill immature cubs, thereby enabling them to impregnate the females. Unlike langurs, male person lions alive in pocket-sized groups, which cooperate to take control of a pride from an existing group.^[one] They volition attempt to impale any cubs that are roughly nine months old or younger, though as in other species, the female person will try to defend her cubs viciously. Males have, on average, only a ii-year window in which to pass on their genes, and lionesses only give birth one time every two years, so the selective pressure on them to conform to this behavior is strong. In fact it is estimated that a quarter of cubs dying in the first yr of life are victims of infanticide.^[1]

Male person mice show groovy variation in beliefs over time. Later on fertilizing a female, they get aggressive towards mouse pups for 3 weeks, killing any they encounter. After this period yet, their beliefs changes dramatically, and they get paternal, caring for their own offspring. This lasts for well-nigh 2 months, merely later they become infanticidal again. Information technology is no coincidence here that the female gestation catamenia is 3 weeks besides, or that it takes roughly two months for pups to become fully weaned and leave their nest. The proximate machinery that allows for the correct timing of these periods involves cyclic rhythms (see chronobiology), each day and dark cycle affecting the mouse'due south internal neural physiology, and disturbances in the duration of these cycles results in unlike periods of time betwixt behaviors.^[12] The adaptive value of this beliefs switching is twofold; infanticide removes competitors for when the mouse does have offspring, and allows the female victims to be impregnated earlier than if they continued to care for their young, as mentioned above.

Gerbils, on the other manus, no longer commit infanticide once they have paired with a female, just actively impale and consume other offspring when young. The females of this species behave much like male person mice, hunting downwardly other litters except when rearing their own.^[13]

Prospective infanticide [edit]

Prospective infanticide is a subset of sexual competition infanticide in which young built-in after the arrival of the new male are killed. This is less common than infanticide of existing young, but can nonetheless increase fitness in cases where the offspring could not possibly have been fathered by the new mate, i.east. one gestation or fertility period. This is known to occur in lions and langurs, and has too been observed in other species such as firm wrens.^[14] In birds, however, the situation is more than complex, as female eggs are fertilized one at a time, with a 24-60 minutes delay between each. Males may destroy clutches laid 12 days or more after their arrival, though their investment of around threescore days of parental intendance is large, so a high level of parental certainty is needed.^[14]

Past females [edit]

Jacana jacana females carry out infanticide.

Females are as well known to display infanticidal behavior. This may appear unexpected, as the conditions described to a higher place do not apply. Males are non always an unlimited resources though—in some species, males provide parental intendance to their offspring, and females may compete indirectly with others by killing their offspring, freeing up the limiting resource that the males represent. This has been documented in research by Stephen Emlen and Natalie Demong on wattled jacanas (Jacana jacana), a tropical wading bird.^[15] In the wattled jacana, information technology is exclusively the male sexual practice that broods, while females defend their territory. In this experiment Demong and Emlen establish that removing females from a territory resulted in nearby females attacking the chicks of the male person in most cases, evicting them from their nest. The males and then fertilized the offending females and cared for their young.^[16] Emlen describes how he "shot a female person one dark, and ... past first low-cal a new female was already on the turf. I saw terrible things—pecking and picking up and throwing downwardly chicks until they were expressionless. Inside hours she was soliciting the male, and he was mounting her the same day. The next night I shot the other female person, so came out the next morning and saw the whole thing once again."^[17]

Infanticide is besides seen in giant h2o bugs.^[18] Lethocerus deyrollei is a large and nocturnal predatory insect found in all the same waters about vegetation. In this species the males take intendance of masses of eggs past keeping them hydrated with water from their bodies. Without a male person caring for the eggs similar this, they go desiccated and will not hatch. In this species, males are a scarce resources that females must sometimes compete for. Those that cannot find a complimentary male ofttimes stab the eggs of a brooding one. Every bit in the above case, males then fertilize this female and care for her eggs. Noritaka Ichikawa has found that males only moisten their eggs during the first 90 seconds or and then, later on which all of the wet on their bodies has evaporated. However, they guard the egg masses for as long as several hours at a fourth dimension, when they could be hunting prey. They exercise not seem to foreclose further evaporation by staying guard, as males that only guarded the nest for short periods were seen to have similar hatching rates in a controlled experiment where in that location were no females present. It seems rather that males are more than successful in fugitive infanticidal females when they are out of the water with their eggs, which might well explain the ultimate cause of this behavior.^[xviii]

Female rats volition eat the kits of strange females for a source of nutrition, and to accept over the nest for her ain litter.^[19]

Resource competition [edit]

The Black-tailed prairie domestic dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)

Black-tailed prairie dogs are colonially-living, harem-polygynous squirrels found mainly in the United States. Their living organisation involves i male person living with four or so females in a territory defended by all individuals, and underground nesting. Black-tails only take ane litter per year, and are in estrous for only a single day around the beginning of spring.

A vii-year natural experiment by John Hoogland and others from Princeton University revealed that infanticide is widespread in this species, including infanticide from invading males and immigrant females, besides as occasional cannibalism of an individual'due south own offspring.^[2] The surprising finding of the report was that by far the most common type of infanticide involved the killing of close kin'due south offspring. This seems illogical, as kin pick favors behaviors that promote the well-being of closely related individuals. It was postulated that this grade of infanticide is more successful than trying to kill young in nearby groups, as the whole grouping must be bypassed in this case, while within a group only the mother need exist evaded. Marauding beliefs is evidently adaptive, as infanticidal females had more than and healthier young than others, and were heavier themselves also. This behavior appears to reduce competition with other females for food, and time to come competition among offspring.

Similar behavior has been reported in the meerkat (Suricata suricatta), including cases of females killing their mother's, sister's, and girl'south offspring. Infanticidal raids from neighboring groups besides occurred.^[20]

Other [edit]

Bottlenose dolphins have been reported to impale their immature through impact injuries.^[21] Dominant male langurs tend to impale the existing young upon taking control of a harem.^[22] There take been sightings of infanticide in the leopard population.^[23] The males of the Stegodyphus lineatus species of spider have been known to showroom infanticide as a manner to encourage females to mate again.

In mammals, male infanticide is almost often observed in non-seasonal breeders.^[24] There is less fitness advantage for a conspecific to carry out infanticide if the interbirth period of the mother will not be decreased and the female volition not return to estrous. In Felidae, birthing periods can happen anytime during the year, as long as at that place is not an unweaned offspring of that female. This is a contributor to the frequency of infanticide in carnivorous felids.^{[25] [24]} Some species of seasonal breeders have been observed to commit infanticide. Cases in the snub-nosed monkey, a seasonal breeding primate, accept shown that infanticide does lessen the interbirth menstruum of the females and can allow them to breed with the next breeding grouping.^[26] Other cases of seasonal breeding species where the infanticidal characteristic is observed has been explained as a way of preserving the mother'due south resource and energy in turn increasing the reproductive success of upcoming breeding periods.^[27]

Costs and defenses [edit]

Costs of the behavior [edit]

While it may be beneficial for some species to behave this way, infanticide is not without risks to the perpetrator. Having already expended energy and maybe sustained serious wounds in a fight with another male, attacks from females who vigorously defend their offspring may be telling for harem-polygynous males, with a risk of infection. It is also energetically costly to pursue a female parent's young, which may try to escape.

Costs of the behavior described in prairie dogs include the take chances to an individual of losing their own young while killing another's, not to mention the fact that they are killing their own relatives. In a species where infanticide is common, perpetrators may well be victims themselves in the futurity, such that they come up out no better off; but as long as an infanticidal individual gains in reproductive output by its behavior, it will tend to become common. Farther costs of the behavior in full general may be induced by counter-strategies evolved in the other sex, equally described below.

[edit]

Taking a broader view of the black-tailed prairie dog situation, infanticide can exist seen as a price of social living.^[ii] If each female were to have her own private nest away from others, she would be much less probable to accept her infants killed when absent. This, and other costs such equally increased spread of parasites, must be fabricated up for by other benefits, such as grouping territory defense and increased awareness of predators.

An avian example published in Nature is acorn woodpeckers. Females nest together, possibly because those nesting alone have their eggs constantly destroyed by rivals. Even so, eggs are consistently removed at first by nest partners themselves, until the entire group lays on the same twenty-four hours. They so cooperate and incubate the eggs as a group, but past this time a significant proportion of their eggs have been lost because of this ovicidal beliefs.^[28]

Counter-strategies [edit]

Because this form of infanticide reduces the fettle of killed individuals' parents, animals have evolved a range of counter-strategies against this behavior. These may be divided into two very different classes - those that tend to forbid infanticide, and those that minimize losses.

Loss minimization [edit]

Some females abort or resorb their own young while they are however in development after a new male person takes over; this is known equally the Bruce event.^[29] This may forestall their young from being killed after birth, saving the mother wasted time and energy. However, this strategy besides benefits the new male. In mice this can occur by the proximate machinery of the female smelling the odor of the new male's urine.^[thirty]

Preventive adaptations [edit]

Infanticide in burial beetles may have led to male person parental care.^[31] In this species males oftentimes cooperate with the female in preparing a piece of feces, which is buried with the eggs and eaten by the larvae when they hatch. Males may likewise baby-sit the site alongside the female person. It is credible from experiments that this behavior does non provide their young with any improve nourishment, nor is it of whatever apply in defending against predators. However, other burying bugs may effort to have their nesting space. When this occurs, a male-female person pair is over twice every bit successful in nest defense, preventing the ovicide of their offspring.

Female langurs may leave the group with their immature alongside the outgoing male, and others may develop a false estrous and permit the male person to copulate, deceiving him into thinking she is actually sexually receptive.^[32] Females may besides have sexual liaisons with other males. This promiscuous behavior is adaptive, because males will not know whether it is their own offspring they are killing or not, and may be more reluctant or invest less effort in infanticide attempts.^[33] Lionesses cooperatively guard against scouting males, and a pair were seen to violently attack a male afterwards it killed i of their immature.^[34] Resistance to infanticide is also costly, though: for instance, a female may sustain serious injuries in defending her young. At times it is simply more than advantageous to submit than to fight.^[35]

Infanticide, the destruction of offspring characteristic to many species, has posed so slap-up a threat that there accept been appreciable changes of behavior in respective female person mothers; more specifically, these changes exist every bit preventive measures. A common behavioral mechanism by females to reduce the risk of infanticide of future offspring is through the process of paternity confusion or dilution. In theory, this implies that a female person that mates with multiple males will widely spread the assumption of paternity across many males, and therefore brand them less likely to kill or attack offspring that could potentially carry their genes. This theory operates under the assumption that the specific males go on a retention of by mates, under a desire to perpetuate their own genes ^[36] In the Japanese macaque (macaca fuscata), female mating with multiple males, or dilution of paternity, was found to inhibit male-to-baby aggression and infanticide eight times less towards infants of females with which they had previously mated.^[37] Multi-male mating, or MMM, is recorded as a mensurate to forestall infanticide in species where young is altricial, or heavily dependent, and where there is a high turnover rate for dominant males, which leads to infanticide of the previous dominant male's young. Examples include, but are not express to; white-footed mice, hamsters, lions, langurs, baboons, and macaques.^[33] Forth with mating with multiple males, the mating of females throughout the entirety of a reproductive cycle also serves a purpose for inhibiting the take chances of infanticide. This theory assumes that males apply data on past matings to brand decisions on committing infanticide, and that females later manipulate that knowledge. Females which are able to appear sexually active or receptive at all stages of their bicycle, even during pregnancy with another male person'due south offspring, can confuse the males into believing that the subsequent children are theirs.^[36] This "pseudo-oestrus" theory applies to females within species that do non exhibit obvious clues to each stage of their cycle, such as langurs, rhesus macaques, and gelada baboons.^[36] An alternative to paternity confusion as a method of infanticide prevention is paternity concentration. This is the behavior of females to concentrate paternity to ane specific dominant male equally a means of protection from infanticide at the easily of less-ascendant males.^[33] This particularly applies to species in which a male person has a very long tenure every bit the dominant male, and faces footling instability in this bureaucracy. Females choose these dominant males as the best available grade of protection, and therefore mate exclusively with this male. This is especially mutual within small rodents.^[33] An additional behavioral strategy to preclude infanticide past males may be aggressive protection of the nest along with female presence. This strategy is commonly used in species such as European rabbits.^{[38] [39]} Aggressive protection of the nest in an effort to reduce infanticide is observed with the Black Rock Skink. Egernia saxatilis live in small families and adults defend their territories against conspecifics. The modest "nuclear families" alive in the same permanent shelter and the parents protect their infants from infanticidal conspecifics in this way. Adults attack unrelated juveniles just not their own offspring. The presence of a parent significantly reduces the rate of infanticide because conspecific adults ignore juveniles when a parent is present, likely because another adult is more threatening to the aggressive lizard. Therefore, a juvenile living within its parents' own territory will experience far less attacks from conspecific adults.^{[forty] [41]}

Infanticide by parents and caregivers [edit]

Damselfish may eat their own offspring.^[42]

Filial infanticide occurs when a parent kills its own offspring. Both male and female parents accept been observed to practice this, too as sterile worker castes in some eusocial animals. Filial infanticide is also observed as a form of brood reduction in some birds species, such equally the white stork.^[43] This may be due to a lack of siblicide in this species.^[44]

Maternal [edit]

Maternal infanticide occurs when newborn offspring are killed by their mother. This is sometimes seen in pigs,^[45] a behavior known as savaging, which affects upwardly to 5% of gilts. Similar behavior has been observed in various animals such as rabbits,^[46] hamsters^[47] and burial beetles.^[48]

Paternal [edit]

Paternal infanticide—where fathers eat their own offspring—may also occur. When young bass hatch from the spawn, the father guards the surface area, circling around them and keeping them together, as well equally providing protection from would-be predators. After a few days, most of the fish volition swim away. At this point the male's behavior changes: instead of defending the stragglers, he treats them every bit any other small-scale prey, and eats them.^[49]

Worker caste killing young [edit]

Beloved bees may become infected with a bacterial disease called foul brood, which attacks the developing bee larva while however living in the cell. Some hives however have evolved a behavioral adaptation that resists this disease: the worker bees selectively kill the infected individuals past removing them from their cells and tossing them out of the hive, preventing information technology from spreading. The genetics of this beliefs are quite circuitous. Experiments by Rothenbuhler showed that the 'hygienic' behavior of the queen was lost by crossing with a non-hygienic drone. This means that the trait must be recessive, only existence expressed when both alleles incorporate the gene for hygienic beliefs. Furthermore, the beliefs is dependent on two separate loci. A backcross produced a mixed upshot. The hives of some offspring were hygienic, while others were not. At that place was also a third blazon of hive where workers removed the wax cap of the infected cells, only did nothing more. What was not apparent was the presence of a fourth group who threw diseased larvae out of the hive, but did non have the uncapping gene. This was suspected by Rothenbuhler however, who manually removed the caps, and establish some hives proceeded to clear out infected cells.^{[50] [51]}

Humans and infanticide [edit]

Family unit structure is the well-nigh important risk gene in child abuse and infanticide. Children who live with both their natural (biological) parents are at low risk for corruption. The risk increases greatly when children live with step-parents or with a single parent. Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more than likely to exist abused than children who live with both biological parents.^{[ citation needed ]}

Children who alive with a single parent that has a alive-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of kid abuse than children living with both biological parents.^[52]

Infanticide is a subject that some humans may find discomforting. Cornell University ethologist Glenn Hausfater states that "infanticide has not received much study because it's a repulsive subject field [...] Many people regard it as reprehensible to fifty-fifty retrieve almost information technology." Enquiry into infanticide in animals is in part motivated past the desire to understand man behaviors, such equally child abuse. Hausfater explains that researchers are "trying to see if there'south whatever connection betwixt brute infanticide and child abuse, neglect and killing by humans [...] Nosotros just don't know yet what the connections are."^[53]

Infanticide has been, and still is, adept by some human cultures, groups, or individuals.^{[ citation needed ]} In many past societies, certain forms of infanticide were considered permissible, whereas in well-nigh mod societies the practice is considered immoral and criminal. It withal takes place in the Western world usually because of the parent'south mental disease or violent behavior, in addition to some poor countries as a course of population control — sometimes with tacit societal acceptance. Female infanticide, a form of sex-selective infanticide, is more mutual than the killing of male offspring, especially in cultures where male children are more than desirable.

Come across too [edit]

• Human being infanticide
• Infanticide in carnivores
• Infanticide in primates
• Infanticide in rodents
• Parent–offspring conflict
• Parricide
• Paternal care
• Runt
• Sexual cannibalism
• Sexual choice
• Siblicide

Further reading [edit]

• Alcock, J. (1998). Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach (6th ed.). Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts. ISBN978-0-87893-009-viii.
• Parmigiani, South.; vom Saal, F.South. (1994). Infanticide and Parental Care. Harwood: London. p. 493. ISBN978-3-7186-5505-ii.
• van Schaik, C.P.; Janson, C.H. (2000). Infanticide By Males And Its Implications. Cambridge Academy Press. p. 569. ISBN978-0-521-77295-2.

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b c} Pusey, A.East.; Packer, C. (1994). "Infanticide in lions". In Parmigiani, S.; vom Saal, F.S. (eds.). Infanticide and Parental Intendance. Harwood Academic Press, Chur, Switzerland. ISBN9783718655052.
2. ^ ^{a b c} Hoogland, J. Fifty. (1985). "Infanticide in prairie dogs: Lactating females kill offspring of close kin". Science. 230 (4729): 1037–1040. Bibcode:1985Sci...230.1037H. doi:ten.1126/science.230.4729.1037. PMID 17814930. S2CID 23653101.
3. ^ ^{a b} Palombit, Ryne A. (2015-06-01). "Infanticide every bit Sexual Conflict: Coevolution of Male Strategies and Female Counterstrategies". Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. seven (6): a017640. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a017640. ISSN 1943-0264. PMC4448612. PMID 25986557.
4. ^ Sugiyama, Y. (1965). "On the social change of Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus) in their natural conditions". Primates. vi (3–4): 381–417. doi:x.1007/BF01730356. S2CID 26758190.
5. ^ Lorenz, G. (1966). On Aggression. New York: Harcourt, Caryatid and Worl.
6. ^ Hausfater, Grand.; S.B. Hrdy (1984). Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives. New York, Aldine. ISBN978-0-202-02022-8.
7. ^ "Mating disharmonize in primates: infanticide, sexual harassment and female person sexuality".
8. ^ ^{a b} Lukas, Dieter; Huchard, Elise (2014). "The evolution of infanticide by males in mammalian societies" (PDF). Scientific discipline. 346 (6211): 841–4. Bibcode:2014Sci...346..841L. doi:10.1126/science.1257226. PMID 25395534. S2CID 206559886.
9. ^ Hrdy, D. B. (1977). "Infanticide as a primate reproductive strategy". American Scientist. 65 (1): 40–49. Bibcode:1977AmSci..65...40B. PMID 402873.
10. ^ Hausfater, Glenn (1984-08-01). "Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives". Current Anthropology. 25 (iv): 500–502. doi:ten.1086/203169. ISSN 0011-3204. S2CID 84753908.
11. ^ Hausfater, Glenn (1984-08-01). "Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives". Electric current Anthropology. 25 (4): 500–502. doi:x.1086/203169. ISSN 0011-3204. S2CID 84753908.
12. ^ Perrigo, G.; Bryant, W. C.; Vomsaal, F (1990). "A unique neural timing system prevents male mice from harming their own offspring". Animal Behaviour. 39 (iii): 535–539. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80419-1. S2CID 53200704.
13. ^ Hausfater, Thousand. (1984). "Infanticide: Comparative and evolutionary perspectives". Current Anthropology. 25 (4): 500–502. doi:10.1086/203169. JSTOR 2742911. S2CID 84753908.
14. ^ ^{a b} Freed, L. A. (1987). "Prospective infanticide and protection of genetic paternity in tropical house wrens". The American Naturalist. 130 (six): 948–954. doi:10.1086/284758. S2CID 84236418.
15. ^ Emlen, S. T.; Demong, N. J.; Emlen, D. J. (1989). "Experimental consecration of infanticide in female wattled jacanas" (PDF). Auk. 106 (one): i–7. doi:10.2307/4087750. JSTOR 4087750.
16. ^ For footage of this, see Attenborough, D. (1990) The Trials of Life, Episode 12, or Evolution, Episode iii "Why Sex?".
17. ^ Zimmer, Carl (1996-09-01). "First, kill the babies". Discover . Retrieved 2008-01-xix .
18. ^ ^{a b} Ichikawa, N. (1995). "Male counterstrategy against infanticide of the female person behemothic water issues Lethocerus deyrollei (Hemiptera: Belostomatidae)". Journal of Insect Behavior. 8 (2): 181–186. doi:ten.1007/BF01988903. S2CID 41306483.
19. ^ Infanticide in Norway rats. ratbehavior.org
20. ^ Clutton-Brock, T. H.; P. North. M., B.; Smith, R.; McIlrath, Chiliad. M.; Kansky, R.; Gaynor, D.; O'Riain, G. J.; Skinner, J. D. (1998). "Infanticide and expulsion of females in a cooperative mammal". Proceedings: Biological Sciences. 265 (1412): 2291–2295. doi:x.1098/rspb.1998.0573. JSTOR 51272. PMC1689533. PMID 9881475.
21. ^ Milius, S. (July 18, 1998). "Infanticide reported in dolphins". Scientific discipline News. Vol. 154, no. 3. p. 36. doi:x.2307/4010610. JSTOR 4010610. Retrieved 2007-05-22 .
22. ^ "The evolution of infanticidal mechanisms in male langurs" (PDF) . Retrieved 2007-05-22 . ^{[ permanent expressionless link ]}
23. ^ Fildes, Jonathan (2007-05-29). "Cheating cheetahs caught by Dna". BBC News . Retrieved 2007-05-30 .
24. ^ ^{a b} Lukas, Dieter; Huchard, Elise (2014-11-14). "The evolution of infanticide by males in mammalian societies" (PDF). Science. 346 (6211): 841–844. Bibcode:2014Sci...346..841L. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.1257226. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 25395534. S2CID 206559886.
25. ^ Balme, Guy A.; Hunter, Luke T.B. (2013-10-01). "Why leopards commit infanticide". Animal Behaviour. 86 (iv): 791–799. doi:x.1016/j.anbehav.2013.07.019. ISSN 0003-3472. S2CID 53266285.
26. ^ Yao, Hui; Yu, Huiliang; Yang, Banghe; Yang, Wangji; Xu, Haiqing; Grueter, Cyril C.; Li, Ming; Xiang, Zuofu (2016-02-02). "Male Infanticide in the Gilded Snub-Nosed Monkey (Rhinopithecus roxellana), a Seasonally Breeding Primate". International Journal of Primatology. 37 (two): 175–184. doi:ten.1007/s10764-016-9892-ii. ISSN 0164-0291. S2CID 14544830.
27. ^ Hrdy, Sarah; Hausfater, K (1984-01-01). "Comparative and evolutionary perspectives on infanticide: An introduction and overview". Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives.
28. ^ Mumme, R. L.; Koenig, Westward. D.; Pitelka, F. A. (1983). "Reproductive contest in the communal acorn woodpecker: Sisters destroy each other's eggs". Nature. 306 (5943): 583–584. Bibcode:1983Natur.306..583M. doi:ten.1038/306583a0. S2CID 19299353.
29. ^ Bruce, H. Grand. (1959). "An exteroceptive block to pregnancy in the mouse". Nature. 184 (4680): 105. Bibcode:1959Natur.184..105B. doi:10.1038/184105a0. PMID 13805128. S2CID 4200823.
30. ^ Labov, J. B. (1981). "Pregnancy blocking in rodents: Adaptive advantages for females". American Naturalist. 118 (3): 361–371. doi:10.1086/283828. JSTOR 2460637. S2CID 85020158.
31. ^ Scott, Thou. P. (1990). "Brood guarding and the evolution of male person parental intendance in burying beetles". Behavioral Environmental and Sociobiology. 26 (1): 31–forty. doi:ten.1007/BF00174022. JSTOR 4600371. S2CID 23748510.
32. ^ Hrdy, S.B. (1977). The Langurs of Abu . Harvard Academy Press, Cambridge, MA. ISBN978-0674510586.
33. ^ ^{a b c d} Agrell, J.; Wolff, J.; Ylönen, H.; Ylonen, Hannu (1998). "Counter-strategies to infanticide in mammals: Costs and consequences". Oikos. 83 (3): 507–517. doi:x.2307/3546678. JSTOR 3546678.
34. ^ Packer, C.; Pusey, A. (1983). "Adaptations of female lions to infanticide past incoming males". The American Naturalist. 121 (five): 716–728. doi:ten.1086/284097. S2CID 84927815.
35. ^ Yamamura, Due north.; Hasegawa, T.; Ito, Y. (1990). "Why mothers exercise not resist infanticide: A price-benefit genetic model" (PDF). Evolution. 44 (5): 1346–1357. doi:ten.2307/2409294. JSTOR 2409294. PMID 28563893.
36. ^ ^{a b c} Hrdy, Southward. B. (1979). "Infanticide among animals: A review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females". Ethology and Sociobiology. ane: 13–eighteen. doi:ten.1016/0162-3095(79)90004-9.
37. ^ Soltis, J.; Thomsen, R.; Matsubayashi, K.; Takenaka, O. (2000). "Infanticide by resident males and female person counter-strategies in wild Japanese macaques ( Macaca fuscata )". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 48 (iii): 195. doi:x.1007/s002650000224. S2CID 22485349.
38. ^ Rödel, H.G; Starkloff, A (2008). "Infanticide and maternal offspring defense force in european rabbits under natural breeding conditions". Ethology. 114 (1): 22–31. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01447.x.
39. ^ Yöken, H.; Haapakoski, A. (2017). "How do infanticidal male banking company voles (myodes glarelus) find the adjacent with pups?". Ethology. 123 (two): 105–112. doi:10.1111/eth.12579.
40. ^ O'Connor D, Smooth R (2004) Parental care protects against infanticide in the lizard Egernia saxatilis(Scincidae). Brute Behaviour 68, 1361–1369.
41. ^ O'Connor, D. and Polish, R. (2003), Lizards in 'nuclear families': a novel reptilian social system in Egernia saxatilis (Scincidae). Molecular Ecology, 12: 743-752. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01777.x
42. ^ Payne, A. G.; Smith, C.; Campbell, A. C. (2002). "Filial cannibalism improves survival and development of Beaugregory damselfish embryos". Proceedings: Biological Sciences. 269 (1505): 2095–2102. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2144. PMC1691142. PMID 12396483.
43. ^ Tortosa, Francisco Southward.; Redondo, Tomas (1992). "Motives for Parental Infanticide in White Storks Ciconia ciconia". Ornis Scandinavica (Scandinavian Periodical of Ornithology). 23 (2): 185–189. doi:10.2307/3676447. JSTOR 3676447.
44. ^ Zieliński, Piotr (December 2002). "Brood Reduction and Parental Infanticide — are the White StorkCiconia ciconiaand the Black StorkC. nigraexceptional?". Acta Ornithologica. 37 (2): 113–119. doi:ten.3161/068.037.0207. ISSN 0001-6454.
45. ^ North Carolina Pork Conference Archived 2007-08-20 at the Wayback Machine notes. 2002. North Carolina State University.
46. ^ Boyd, I. 50. (1985). "Investment in growth by pregnant wild rabbits in relation to litter size and sex of the offspring". The Journal of Creature Environmental. 54 (1): 137–147. doi:10.2307/4626. JSTOR 4626.
47. ^ "What Tin You Practice to Keep Your Hamster From Eating Its Own Babies?". The Spruce Pets . Retrieved 2022-06-15 .
48. ^ Trumbo, S. (1994). "Interspecific competition, brood parasitism, and the development of biparental cooperation in Burying beetles". Oikos. 69 (ii): 241–249. doi:10.2307/3546144. JSTOR 3546144.
49. ^ Elgar, M.A.; Crespi, B.J., eds. (1992). Cannibalism: Ecology and Evolution of Cannibalism among Diverse Taxa. Oxford Academy Press, New York. ISBN978-0-19-854650-iv.
50. ^ Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-286092-7.
51. ^ Rothenbuhler, W. C. (1964). "Behavior genetics of nest cleaning in beloved bees. IV. Responses of F₁ and backcross generations to disease killed breed". American Zoologist. iv (2): 111–123. doi:10.1093/icb/4.2.111. PMID 14172721.
52. ^ Sedlak, A.J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, 1000., Greene, A., and Li, S. (2010). Fourth National Incidence Study of Kid Abuse and Fail (NIS–4): Report to Congress, Executive Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Section of Health and Human being Services, Administration for Children and Families.
53. ^ Bayard Webster (1982-08-17). "Infanticide: Animal beliefs scrutinized for clues to humans". The New York Times . Retrieved 2008-01-18 .

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

Posted by: thiesputed1978.blogspot.com

Share this post