mardi 31 janvier 2017

Fiche Wikipedia - Monogamie



La monogamie.


Chez les animaux, la monogamie est le fait de n'avoir qu'un seul partenaire.

Les orques,
les pigeons,
les manchots,
les hippocampes
les gerbilles,
...

La monogamie sociale: couple élevant seul une famille sans inférer d'une activité reproductrice et pouvant donc admettre plusieurs partenaires sexuels
la monogamie sexuelle ou monogamie génétique:
- monogamie sérielle - partenaires fidèles successifs
- monogamie vraie - partenaires fidèles à vie.
- monogamie temporaire limitée à une saison de reproduction
- monogamie prolongée
- monogamie permanente

Chez les humains

( absence de données statistiques)

Chez les animaux

La monogamie est rare chez les animaux, notamment en raison du degré important de l'investissement maternel dans la nutrition de l'embryon et la lactation6, ce qui explique la fréquence de la polygynie (35 % chez les mammifères)7. La monogamie sociale peut être répandue dans certaines classes d'animaux (90 à 92 % chez les oiseaux), ce qui permet d'élever un plus grand nombre de jeunes par couvée mais les monogamies sexuelles durables sont rares (choucas, cygnes, oies, pigeons, tourterelles…)8.
Les chercheurs estiment qu'elle est présente chez un invertébré sur dix mille (quelques insectes et crustacés), et évaluent de 3 à 10,5 % le nombre de mammifères n'ayant qu'un seul partenaire social. Celle-ci autorisant en fait plusieurs partenaires sexuels. La monogamie vraie, c'est-à-dire assortie d'une fidélité sexuelle serait encore plus rare, on l'estime inférieure à 1 % des espèces9.
La monogamie sociale serait d'abord une forme dérivée du conflit sexuel et de la guerre des sexes à partir de comportements d'accompagnement tels que le territoire ou le mate-guarding selon Thierry Lodé. La monogamie réelle répond ainsi à un contrôle de la sexualité des femelles par les mâles ou dans de rares cas, des mâles par les femelles. La sexualité exclusive n'existerait d'ailleurs pas dans la nature et la diversité des conduites sexuelles serait largement privilégiée par l'évolution biologique.[réf. nécessaire]
Selon une étude publiée en 2006 par Frank Cézilly (professeur à l'université de Bourgogne et membre du laboratoire Biogéosciences-Dijon, CNRS), l'observation des animaux conduit à penser que la monogamie répond avant tout à des impératifs économiques. Les animaux choisissent souvent un nouveau partenaire l'année suivante et chez les oiseaux monogames, dans 10 % à 70 % des cas selon les espèces, le père biologique des poussins n’est pas celui qui occupe le nid10.

Quelques animaux réputés monogames

Mammifères

Oiseaux

Divers



Monogamy (/məˈnɒɡəmi/ mə-NOG-ə-mee) is a form of relationship in which an individual has only one partner during his or her lifetime or at any one time (serial monogamy), as compared to polygyny, polyandry, or polyamory.[1] The term is also applied to the social behavior of some animals, referring to the state of having only one mate at any one time.

Contents

Overview

It is important to have a clear understanding of the nomenclature of monogamy because scientists use the term monogamy for different relationships. Biologists, biological anthropologists, and behavioral ecologists often use the term monogamy in the sense of sexual, if not genetic, monogamy.[2] Modern biological researchers, using the theory of evolution, approach human monogamy as the same in human and non-human animal species. They postulate the following four aspects of monogamy:
  • Marital monogamy refers to marriages of only two people.
  • Social monogamy refers to two partners living together, having sex with each other, and cooperating in acquiring basic resources such as shelter, food and money.
  • Sexual monogamy refers to two partners remaining sexually exclusive with each other and having no outside sex partners.[3]
  • Genetic monogamy refers to sexually monogamous relationships with genetic evidence of paternity.[3]
When cultural or social anthropologists and other social scientists use the term monogamy, the meaning is social or marital monogamy.[2][3] Marital monogamy may be further distinguished between:
  1. marriage once in a lifetime;
  2. marriage with only one person at a time (serial monogamy), in contrast to bigamy or polygamy;[1]
Human monogamy's legal aspects are taught at faculties of law. There are also philosophical aspects in the field of interest of e.g. philosophical anthropology and philosophy of religion, as well as theological ones.

Etymology

The word monogamy comes from the Greek μονός, monos which means alone, and γάμος, gamos which means marriage.[1]

Frequency of monogamy in humans


Bronze sculpture of an elderly Kashubian married couple located in Kaszubski square, Gdynia, Poland. Their relationship went through a test of his temporary work emigration to the USA.[4] The percentage of people who confide only in family increased in the USA from 57% to 80%, and the number who depend totally on a spouse is up from 5% to 9%.[5]

Distribution of social monogamy

According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies from around the world noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.[6] However, this does not take into account the relative population of each of the societies studied, and the actual practice of polygamy in a tolerant society may actually be low, with the majority of aspirant polygamists practicing monogamous marriage.[7]
Many societies that we consider monogamous in fact allow easy divorce. In many western countries divorce rates approach 50%. Those who remarry do so on average 3 times.[citation needed] Divorce and remarriage can thus result in "serial monogamy", i.e. multiple marriages but only one legal spouse at a time. This can be interpreted as a form of plural mating, as are those societies dominated by female-headed families in the Caribbean, Mauritius and Brazil where there is frequent rotation of unmarried partners. In all, these account for 16 to 24% of the "monogamous" category.[8]

Prevalence of sexual monogamy

The prevalence of sexual monogamy can be roughly estimated as the percentage of married people who do not engage in extramarital sex. The Standard Cross-Cultural Sample describes the amount of extramarital sex by men and women in over 50 pre-industrial cultures.[9][10] The amount of extramarital sex by men is described as "universal" in 6 cultures, "moderate" in 29 cultures, "occasional" in 6 cultures, and "uncommon" in 10 cultures. The amount of extramarital sex by women is described as "universal" in 6 cultures, "moderate" in 23 cultures, "occasional" in 9 cultures, and "uncommon" in 15 cultures. These findings support the claim that the reported amount of extramarital sex differs across cultures and across genders.
Recent surveys conducted in non-Western nations have also found cultural and gender differences in extramarital sex. A study of sexual behavior in Thailand, Tanzania and Côte d'Ivoire suggests about 16–34% of men engage in extramarital sex while a much smaller (unreported) percentage of women engage in extramarital sex.[11] Studies in Nigeria have found around 47–53% of men and to 18–36% of women engage in extramarital sex.[12][13] A 1999 survey of married and cohabiting couples in Zimbabwe reports that 38% of men and 13% of women engaged in extra-couple sexual relationships within the last 12 months.[14]
The issue of extramarital sex has been examined frequently in the United States. Many surveys asking about extramarital sex in the United States have relied on convenience samples. A convenience sample means surveys are given to whoever happens to be easily available (e.g., volunteer college students or volunteer magazine readers). Convenience samples do not accurately reflect the population of the United States as a whole, which can cause serious biases in survey results. It should not be surprising, therefore, that surveys of extramarital sex in the United States have produced widely differing results. These studies report that about 12–26% of married women and 15–43% of married men engage in extramarital sex.[15][16][17] The only way to get scientifically reliable estimates of extramarital sex is to use nationally representative samples. Three studies have used nationally representative samples. These studies have found that about 10–15% of women and 20–25% of men engage in extramarital sex.[18][19][20]
Research by Colleen Hoffon of 566 homosexual male couples from the San Francisco Bay Area found that 45% had monogamous relationships. That study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.[21] However, the Human Rights Campaign has stated, based on a Rockway Institute report, that "GLBT young people... want to spend their adult life in a long-term relationship raising children." Specifically, over 80% of the homosexuals surveyed expected to be in a monogamous relationship after age 30.[22]
A majority of married people remain sexually monogamous during their marriages. The number of married partners who engage in extramarital sex never exceeds 50% in studies using large or nationally representative samples. Yet, the incidence of sexual monogamy varies across cultures. People in some cultures are more sexually monogamous than people in other cultures.[citation needed]

Prevalence of genetic monogamy

The incidence of genetic monogamy may be estimated from rates of extrapair paternity. Extrapair paternity is when offspring raised by a monogamous pair come from the female mating with another male. Rates of extrapair paternity have not been extensively studied in people. Many reports of extrapair paternity are little more than quotes based on hearsay, anecdotes, and unpublished findings.[23] Simmons, Firman, Rhodes, and Peters reviewed 11 published studies of extra-pair paternity from various locations in the United States, France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and among the Yanomamo Indians of South America.[24] The rates of extrapair paternity ranged from 0.03% to 11.8% although most of the locations had low percentages of extrapair paternity. The median rate of extrapair paternity was 1.8%. A separate review of 17 studies by Bellis, Hughes, Hughes, and Ashton found slightly higher rates of extrapair paternity.[25] The rates varied from 0.8% to 30% in these studies, with a median rate of 3.7% extrapair paternity. A range of 1.8% to 3.7% extrapair paternity implies a range of 96% to 98% genetic monogamy. Although the incidence of genetic monogamy may vary from 70% to 99% in different cultures or social environments, a large percentage of couples remain genetically monogamous during their relationships. A review paper surveying 67 other studies of nonpaternity reporting rates of nonpaternity in different societies ranging from 0.4% to over 50% was recently published by Kermyt G. Anderson.[26]
Pedigree errors are a well-known source of error in medical studies. When attempts are made to try to study medical afflictions and their genetic components, it becomes very important to understand nonpaternity rates and pedigree errors. There are numerous software packages and procedures that exist for correcting research data for pedigree errors.[27][28][29]

Evolutionary and historical development of monogamy in humans


A pair of New Zealand kaka parrots at Auckland Zoo.

Biological arguments

Monogamy, or at least social monogamy, does exist in many societies around the world,[30] and it is important to understand how these marriage systems might have evolved. In any species, there are three main aspects that combine to promote a monogamous mating system: paternal care, resource access, and mate-choice;[3] however, in humans, the main theoretical sources of monogamy are paternal care and extreme ecological stresses.[2] Paternal care should be particularly important in humans due to the extra nutritional requirement of having larger brains and the lengthier developmental period.[31][32][33] Therefore, the evolution of monogamy could be a reflection of this increased need for bi-parental care.[31][32][33] Similarly, monogamy should evolve in areas of ecological stress because male reproductive success should be higher if their resources are focused on ensuring offspring survival rather than searching for other mates.[2] However, the evidence does not support these claims.[2] Due to the extreme sociality and increased intelligence of humans, H. sapiens have solved many problems that generally lead to monogamy, such as those mentioned above.[2] For example, monogamy is certainly correlated with paternal care, as shown by Marlowe,[32] but not caused by it because humans diminish the need for bi-parental care through the aid of siblings and other family members in rearing the offspring.[2] Furthermore, human intelligence and material culture allows for better adaptation to different and rougher ecological areas, thus reducing the causation and even correlation of monogamous marriage and extreme climates.[2]
Paleoanthropology and genetic studies offer two perspectives on when monogamy evolved in the human species: paleoanthropologists offer tentative evidence that monogamy may have evolved very early in human history[34] whereas genetic studies show that monogamy evolved much more recently, less than 10,000 to 20,000 years ago.[35][36]

Orangutan males are not monogamous and compete for access to females.
Paleoanthropological estimates of the time frame for the evolution of monogamy are primarily based on the level of sexual dimorphism seen in the fossil record because, in general, the reduced male-male competition seen in monogamous mating results in reduced sexual dimorphism.[37] According to Reno et al., the sexual dimorphism of Australopithecus afarensis, a human ancestor from approximately 3.9–3.0 million years ago,[38] was within the modern human range, based on dental and postcranial morphology.[34] Although careful not to say that this indicates monogamous mating in early hominids, the authors do say that reduced levels of sexual dimorphism in A. afarensis “do not imply that monogamy is any less probable than polygyny”.[34] However, Gordon, Green and Richmond claim that in examining postcranial remains, A. afarensis is more sexually dimorphic than modern humans and chimps with levels closer to those of orangutans and gorillas.[35] Furthermore, Homo habilis, living approximately 2.3 mya,[38] is the most sexually dimorphic early hominid.[39] Plavcan and van Schaik conclude their examination of this controversy by stating that, overall, sexual dimorphism in australopithecines is not indicative of any behavioral implications or mating systems.[40]
The genetic evidence for the evolution of monogamy in humans is more complex but much easier to interpret. While female effective population size (the number of individuals successfully producing offspring thus contributing to the gene pool), as indicated by mitochondrial-DNA evidence, increased around the time of human (not hominid) expansion out of Africa about 80,000–100,000 years ago, male effective population size, as indicated by Y-chromosome evidence, did not increase until the advent of agriculture 18,000 years ago. This means that before 18,000 years ago, many females would be reproducing with the same few males.[36]

Cultural arguments


Plough agriculture. The castle in the background is Lusignan. Detail from the calendar Les très riches heures from the 15th century. This is a detail from the painting for March.
Despite the human ability to avoid sexual and genetic monogamy, social monogamy still forms under many different conditions, but most of those conditions are consequences of cultural processes.[2] These cultural processes may have nothing to do with relative reproductive success. For example, anthropologist Jack Goody's comparative study utilizing the Ethnographic Atlas demonstrated that monogamy is part of a cultural complex found in the broad swath of Eurasian societies from Japan to Ireland that practice social monogamy, sexual monogamy and dowry (i.e. "diverging devolution", that allow property to be inherited by children of both sexes).[41] Goody demonstrates a statistical correlation between this cultural complex and the development of intensive plough agriculture in those areas.[42] Drawing on the work of Ester Boserup, Goody notes that the sexual division of labour varies in intensive plough agriculture and extensive shifting horticulture. In plough agriculture farming is largely men's work and is associated with private property; marriage tends to be monogamous to keep the property within the nuclear family. Close family (endogamy) are the preferred marriage partners to keep property within the group.[43] A molecular genetic study of global human genetic diversity argued that sexual polygyny was typical of human reproductive patterns until the shift to sedentary farming communities approximately 10,000 to 5,000 years ago in Europe and Asia, and more recently in Africa and the Americas.[44] A further study drawing on the Ethnographic Atlas showed a statistical correlation between increasing size of the society, the belief in "high gods" to support human morality, and monogamy.[45] A survey of other cross-cultural samples has confirmed that the absence of the plough was the only predictor of polygamy, although other factors such as high male mortality in warfare (in non-state societies) and pathogen stress (in state societies) had some impact.[46]

Woman farming, using a digging stick in the Nuba Mountains, South Sudan.
Betzig postulated that culture/society can also be a source of social monogamy by enforcing it through rules and laws set by third-party actors, usually in order to protect the wealth or power of the elite.[2][47][48] For example, Augustus Caesar encouraged marriage and reproduction to force the aristocracy to divide their wealth and power among multiple heirs, but the aristocrats kept their socially monogamous, legitimate children to a minimum to ensure their legacy while having many extra-pair copulations.[47] Similarly—according to Betzig—the Christian Church enforced monogamy because wealth passed to the closest living, legitimate male relative, often resulting in the wealthy oldest brother being without a male heir.[48] Thus, the wealth and power of the family would pass to the “celibate” younger brother of the church.[48] In both of these instances, the rule-making elite used cultural processes to ensure greater reproductive fitness for themselves and their offspring, leading to a larger genetic influence in future generations.[47][48] Furthermore, the laws of the Christian Church, in particular, were important in the evolution of social monogamy in humans.[48] They allowed, even encouraged, poor men to marry and produce offspring which reduced the gap in reproductive success between the rich and poor, thus resulting in the quick spread of monogamous marriage systems in the western world.[48] According to B. S. Low, culture would appear to have a much larger impact on monogamy in humans than the biological forces that are important for non-human animals.[2]
Other theorists use cultural factors influencing reproductive success to explain monogamy. During times of major economic / demographic transitions, investing more in a fewer offspring (social monogamy not polygyny) increases reproductive success by ensuring the offspring themselves have enough initial wealth to be successful.[2] This is seen in both England and Sweden during the industrial revolution[2] and is currently being seen in the modernization of rural Ethiopia.[49] Similarly, in modern industrialized societies, fewer yet better-invested offspring, i.e. social monogamy, can provide a reproductive advantage over social polygyny, but this still allows for serial monogamy and extra-pair copulations.[2]

Arguments from outside the scientific community

Karol Wojtyła (later, Pope John Paul II) in his book Love and Responsibility postulated that monogamy, as an institutional union of two people being in love with one another, was an embodiment of an ethical personalistic norm, and thus the only means of making true human love possible.[50]

Ancient societies

The historical record offers contradictory evidence on the development and extent of monogamy as a social practice. Laura Betzig argues that in the six large, highly stratified early states, commoners were generally monogamous but that elites practiced de facto polygyny. Those states included Mesopotamia, Egypt, Aztec Mexico, Inca Peru, India and China.[51]

Ancient Mesopotamia and Assyria

Both the Babylonian and Assyrian families were monogamous in principle but not entirely so in practice since polygyny was frequently practiced by the rulers.
In the patriarchal society of Mesopotamia the nuclear family was called a "house". In order "to build a house" a man was supposed to marry one woman and if she did not provide him with offspring, he could take a second wife. The Code of Hammurabi states that he loses his right to do so if the wife herself gives him a slave as concubine.[52] According to Old Assyrian texts, he could be obliged to wait for two or three years before he was allowed to take another wife. The position of the second wife was that of a "slave girl" in respect to the first wife, as many marriage contracts explicitly state.[53]

Ancient Egypt

Although an Egyptian man was free to marry several women at a time, and some wealthy men from Old and Middle Kingdoms did have more than one wife, monogamy was the norm.[54] There may have been some exceptions, e.g. a Nineteenth Dynasty official stated as proof of his love to his deceased wife that he had stayed married to her since their youth, even after he had become very successful (P. Leiden I 371). This may suggest that some men abandoned first wives of a low social status and married women of higher status in order to further their careers although even then they lived with only one wife. Egyptian women had right to ask for a divorce if her husband took a second wife. Many tomb reliefs testify to monogamous character of Egyptian marriages, officials are usually accompanied by a supportive wife. "His wife X, his beloved" is the standard phrase identifying wives in tomb inscriptions. The instruction texts belonging to wisdom literature, e.g. Instruction of Ptahhotep or Instruction of Any, support fidelity to monogamous marriage life, calling the wife a Lady of the house. The Instruction of Ankhsheshonq suggests that it is wrong to abandon a wife because of her barrenness.[55]

Ancient Israel

As against Betzig's contention that monogamy evolved as a result of Christian socio-economic influence in the West, monogamy appeared widespread in the ancient Middle East much earlier. In Israel's pre-Christian era, an essentially monogamous ethos underlay the Jewish creation story (Gn 2) and the last chapter of Proverbs.[56][57] During the Second Temple period (530 BCE to70 CE), apart from an economic situation which supported monogamy even more than in earlier period, the concept of "mutual fidelity" between husband and wife was a quite common reason for strictly monogamous marriages.[citation needed] Some marriage documents explicitly expressed a desire for the marriage to remain monogamous. Examples of these documents were found in Elephantine. They resemble those found in neighbouring Assyria and Babylonia.[56] Study shows that ancient Middle East societies, though not strictly monogamous, were practically (at least on commoners' level) monogamous.[53][54] Halakha of the Dead Sea Sect saw prohibition of polygamy as coming from the Pentateuch (Damascus Document 4:20–5:5, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls). Christianity adopted a similar attitude (cf. 1 Tm 3:2,12; Tt 1:6), which conformed with Jesus' approach.[56] Michael Coogan, in contrast, states that "Polygyny continued to be practised well into the biblical period, and it is attested among Jews as late as the second century CE."[58]
Under Judges and the monarchy, old restrictions went into disuse, especially among royalty, though the Books of Samuel and Kings, which cover entire period of monarchy, do not record a single case of bigamy among commoners — except for Samuel's father. The wisdom books e.g. Book of Wisdom, which provides a picture of the society, Sirach, Proverbs, Qohelet portray a woman in a strictly monogamous family (cf. Pr 5:15-19; Qo 9:9; Si 26:1-4 and eulogy of perfect wife, Proverbs 31:10-31). The Book of Tobias speaks solely of monogamous marriages. Also prophets have in front of their eyes monogamous marriage as an image of the relationship of God and Israel. (Cf. Ho 2:4f; Jer 2:2; Is 50:1; 54:6-7; 62:4-5; Ez 16). Roland de Vaux states that "it is clear that the most common form of marriage in Israel was monogamy".[57][59]
The Mishnah and the baraitot clearly reflect a monogamist viewpoint within Judaism (Yevamot 2:10 etc.). Some sages condemned marriage to two wives even for the purpose of procreation (Ketubot 62b). R. Ammi, an amora states:
Whoever takes a second wife in addition to his first one shall divorce the first and pay her kettubah (Yevamot 65a)
Roman customs, which prohibited polygamy, may have enhanced such an attitude[original research?] - especially after 212 AD, when all the Jews became Roman citizens.[56] However, some Jews continued to practice bigamy (e.g. up to medieval times in Egypt and Europe).[citation needed] Fourth-century Roman law forbade Jews to contract plural marriages.[60]
A synod convened by Gershom ben Judah around 1000 CE banned polygamy among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.[61]

Ancient Greece and ancient Rome

The ancient Greeks and Romans were monogamous in the sense that men were not allowed to have more than one wife or to cohabit with concubines during marriage.[61][62]

Early Christianity

Jesus Christ contended that core problem was faithfulness to the Torah. According to him, monogamy was a primordial will of the Creator described in Genesis, darkened by the hardness of hearts of the Israelites. As John Paul II interpreted the dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees (Gospel of Matthew 19:3–8), Christ emphasized the primordial beauty of monogamic spousal love described in the Book of Genesis 1:26–31, 2:4–25, whereby a man and woman by their nature are each ready to be a beautifying, total and personal gift to one another:
Jesus avoids entangling himself in juridical or casuistic controversies; instead, he appeals twice to the "beginning". By doing so, he clearly refers to the relevant words of Genesis, which his interlocutors also know by heart. (...) it clearly leads the interlocutors to reflect about the way in which, in the mystery of creation, man was formed precisely as "male and female," in order to understand correctly the normative meaning of the words of Genesis.[63]

Contemporary societies

International

Western European societies established monogamy as their marital norm.[64] Monogamous marriage is normative and is legally enforced in most of the world's highly developed countries.[65] Laws prohibiting polygyny were adopted in 1880 in Japan, 1953 in China, 1955 in India and 1963 in Nepal.[65]
The women's rights movements in these nations want to make monogamy the only legal form of marriage. The United Nations joined these efforts in 1979 when the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, an international bill of rights for women that over 180 nations have agreed to implement. Article 16 of the Convention requires nations to give women and men equal rights in marriage. Polygamy is interpreted as inconsistent with Article 16 when it extends the right of multiple spouses to men but not to women. The United Nations has established the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)[66] to monitor the progress of nations implementing the Convention. The United Nations is thus working through the Convention and CEDAW to promote women's equality by making monogamy the only legal form of marriage worldwide.

People's Republic of China

Main article: Marriage in the People's Republic of China
The founders of Communism believed monogamy oppressed women and had no place in communist society.[citation needed] However, the Communist revolution in China changed these ideas as the communist revolutionaries in China viewed monogamy as a means of giving women and men equal rights in marriage. The newly formed Communist government established monogamy as the only legal form of marriage.
"The 1950 Marriage Law called for sweeping changes in many areas of family life. It forbade any 'arbitrary and compulsory' form of marriage that would be based on the superiority of men and would ignore women’s interests. The new democratic marriage system was based on the free choice of couples, monogamy, equal rights for both sexes, and the protection of the lawful interests of women. It abolished the begetting of male offspring as the principal purpose of marriage and weakened kinship ties which reduced the pressure on women to bear many children, especially sons. With arranged marriages prohibited, young women could choose their own marriage partners, share the financial cost of setting up a new household, and have equal status in household and family decision-making. The Government then initiated an extensive campaign of marriage-law education, working jointly with the Communist Party, women’s federations, trade unions, the armed forces, schools and other organizations."[67]

Africa

The African Union has adopted the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa (the Maputo Protocol). While the protocol does not suggest making polygamous marriage illegal, article 6 of the protocol states that "monogamy is encouraged as the preferred form of marriage and that the rights of women in marriage and family, including in polygamous marital relationships are promoted and protected."[68][69] The protocol entered into force November 25, 2005.

Varieties of monogamy in biology

Recent discoveries have led biologists to talk about the three varieties of monogamy: social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy. The distinction between these three are important to the modern understanding of monogamy.
Monogamous pairs of animals are not always sexually exclusive. Many animals that form pairs to mate and raise offspring regularly engage in sexual activities with partners other than their primary mate. This is called extra-pair copulation.[70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84] Sometimes these extra-pair sexual activities lead to offspring. Genetic tests frequently show that some of the offspring raised by a monogamous pair come from the female mating with an extra-pair male partner.[83][84][85][86] These discoveries have led biologists to adopt new ways of talking about monogamy:
"Social monogamy refers to a male and female's social living arrangement (e.g., shared use of a territory, behaviour indicative of a social pair, and/or proximity between a male and female) without inferring any sexual interactions or reproductive patterns. In humans, social monogamy equals monogamous marriage. Sexual monogamy is defined as an exclusive sexual relationship between a female and a male based on observations of sexual interactions. Finally, the term genetic monogamy is used when DNA analyses can confirm that a female-male pair reproduce exclusively with each other. A combination of terms indicates examples where levels of relationships coincide, e.g., sociosexual and sociogenetic monogamy describe corresponding social and sexual, and social and genetic monogamous relationships, respectively." (Reichard, 2003, page 4)[87]
Whatever makes a pair of animals socially monogamous does not necessarily make them sexually or genetically monogamous. Social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy can occur in different combinations.
Social monogamy does not always involve marriage in humans. A married couple is almost always a socially monogamous couple. But couples who choose to cohabit without getting married can also be socially monogamous. The popular science author Matt Ridley in his book The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, described the human mating system as "monogamy plagued by adultery".

Serial monogamy

Serial monogamy is a mating practice in which individuals may engage in sequential monogamous pairings,[88] or in terms of humans, when men or women can marry another partner but only after ceasing to be married to the previous partner.[89]
One theory is that this pattern pacifies the elite men and equalizes reproductive success. This is called the Male Compromise Theory.[90] Such serial monogamy may effectively resemble polygyny in its reproductive consequences because some men are able to utilize more than one woman’s reproductive lifespan through repeated marriages.[91]
Serial monogamy may also refer to sequential sexual relationships, irrespective of marital status. A pair of humans may remain sexually exclusive, or monogamous, until the relationship has ended and then each may go on to form a new exclusive pairing with a different partner. This pattern of serial monogamy is common among people in Western cultures.[92][93]

Reproductive success

Evolutionary theory predicts that males would be apt to seek more mating partners than females because they obtain higher reproductive benefits from such a strategy.[91] Accordingly, males developed many behavior strategies that allow them to acquire more reproductively capable sexual partners.[91] Therefore, in order to monopolize periods of more than one female’s reproductive life span without being considered polygamous and thus breaking social norms of a monogamous society, males try to remarry women younger than themselves. A study done in 1994 found a significant difference between ages of remarried men and women because the men have a longer reproductive window.[94][95]

Breakup

Serial monogamy has always been closely linked to divorce practices. Whenever procedures for obtaining divorce have been simple and easy, serial monogamy has been found.[96] As divorce has continued to become more accessible, more individuals have availed themselves of it, and many go on to remarry.[97] Barry Schwartz, author of The Paradox of Choice: Why less is more, further suggests that Western culture's inundation of choice has devalued relationships based on lifetime commitments and singularity of choice. It has been suggested, however, that high mortality rates in centuries past accomplished much the same result as divorce, enabling remarriage (of one spouse) and thus serial monogamy.[98][99][100]

Mating system

Main article: Monogamous pairing in animals
Monogamy is one of several mating systems observed in animals. However, a pair of animals may be socially monogamous but that does not necessarily make them sexually or genetically monogamous. Social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and genetic monogamy can occur in different combinations.[87]
Social monogamy refers to the overtly observed living arrangement whereby a male and female share territory and engage in behaviour indicative of a social pair, but does not imply any particular sexual fidelity or reproductive pattern.[87] The extent to which social monogamy is observed in animals varies across taxa, with over 90 percent of avian species being socially monogamous, compared to only 3 percent of mammalian species and up to 15 percent of primate species.[79][101] Social monogamy has also been observed in reptiles, fish, and insects.
Sexual monogamy is defined as an exclusive sexual relationship between a female and a male based on observations of sexual interactions.[87] However, scientific analyses can test for paternity, for example by DNA paternity testing or by fluorescent pigment powder tracing of females to track physical contact. This type of analysis can uncover reproductively successful sexual pairings or physical contact. Genetic monogamy refers to DNA analyses confirming that a female-male pair reproduce exclusively with each other.[87]
The incidence of sexual monogamy appears quite rare in other parts of the animal kingdom. It is becoming clear that even animals that are overtly socially monogamous engage in extra-pair copulations. For example, while over 90% of birds are socially monogamous, "on average, 30 percent or more of the baby birds in any nest [are] sired by someone other than the resident male."[102] Patricia Adair Gowaty has estimated that, out of 180 different species of socially monogamous songbirds, only 10% are sexually monogamous.[103] Offspring are far more successful when both the male and the female members of the social pair contribute food resources.
An example of this was seen when scientists studied red winged blackbirds. These birds are known for remaining in monogamous relationships during the course of mating season. During the course of the study, the researchers gave a few select males vasectomies just before mating season. The male birds behaved like they do every season, establishing territory, finding a mate, and attempting to make baby birds. Despite apparent social monogamy, the female birds whose partners were surgically altered still became pregnant, indicating that overt social monogamy did not predict for sexual fidelity.[103] These babies were cared for by their sterile adoptive fathers.[104]
The highest known frequency of reproductively successful extra-pair copulations are found among fairywrens Malurus splendens and Malurus cyaneus where more than 65 percent of chicks are fathered by males outside the supposed breeding pair.[101] This discordantly low level of genetic monogamy has been a surprise to biologists and zoologists, as social monogamy can no longer be assumed to determine how genes are distributed in a species.
Elacatinus, also widely known as neon gobies, also exhibit social monogamy. Hetereosexual pairs of fish belonging to the genus Elacatinus remain closely associated during both reproductive and non-reproductive periods, and often reside in same cleaning station to serve client fish.[105]

Evolution in animals

See also: Social monogamy in mammalian species
Socially monogamous species are scattered throughout the animal kingdom: A few insects, a few fish, about nine-tenths of birds, and a few mammals are socially monogamous. There is even a parasitic worm, Schistosoma mansoni, that in its female-male pairings in the human body is monogamous.[106] The diversity of species with social monogamy suggests that it is not inherited from a common ancestor but instead evolved independently in many different species.
The low occurrence of social monogamy in placental mammals has been claimed to be related to the presence or absence of estrus—or oestrus—the duration of sexual receptivity of a female. This, however, doesn't explain why estrus females generally mate with any proximate male nor any correlation between sexual and social monogamy. Birds, which are notable for a high incidence of social monogamy, do not have estrus.
Researchers have observed a mixed mating system of monogamy and polygyny in the European pied flycatcher.[107]

Psychology of monogamy

Psychological studies of social monogamy have relied heavily on observations of married couples. These studies focus on relationship satisfaction, duration and attachment.

Neuroendocrine bases of monogamy

The North American microtine rodent's (vole) complex social structure and social behavior has provided unique opportunities to study the underlying neural bases for monogamy and social attachment. Data from studies using the Microtis ochrogaster or prairie vole indicate that the neuroendocrine hormones, oxytocin (in female prairie voles) and vasopressin (in male prairie voles) play a central role in the development of affiliative connections during mating. The effects of intracerebroventricular administration of oxytocin and vasopressin have been shown to promote affiliative behavior in the prairie vole but not in similar, but non-monogamous montane voles. This difference in neuropeptide effect is attributed to the location, density, and distribution of OT and AVP receptors. Only in the prairie voles are OT and AVP receptors located along the mesolimbic dopamine reward pathway, presumably conditioning the voles to their mates odor while consolidating the social memory of the mating episode. This finding highlights the role of genetic evolution in altering the neuroanatomical distribution of receptors, resulting in certain neural circuits becoming sensitive to changes in neuropeptides.

See also

13 espèces d’animaux fidèles qui restent ensemble pour la vie

Sélectionsexuelle et stratégies reproductrices

Most Amazing Examples of Monogamy in Animal World - 12 Pictures

monogamy in mammals - Smithsonian Institution

https://repository.si.edu › bitstream › handle

Traduire cette page
de DG Kleiman - ‎1977 - ‎Cité 1597 fois - ‎Autres articles
3 mars 1977 - species are monogamous (Lack, 1968), the re- verse appears to be true for mammals, less than. 3 per cent of mammalian species having been.


1000+ Monogamous Animals Stock Images, Photos & Vectors ...

https://www.shutterstock.com › search › monogamous+...

Traduire cette page
Find monogamous animals stock images in HD and millions of other royalty-free stock photos, illustrations and vectors in the Shutterstock collection. Thousands ...





An estimated 90 percent of all bird species are monogamous. Monogamy is defined as one male mating with one female and forming a "pair bond." That bond may last for a single nesting (House Wrens), an entire breeding season (most bird species, including most passerines), several successive breeding seasons (observed in some pairs of American Robins, Tree Swallows, Mourning Doves, etc.), or life (albatrosses, petrels, swans, geese, eagles, and some owls and parrots).
Presumably monogamy evolved in situations where young have a much better chance of surviving if both parents cooperate in rearing them. Nonetheless, the amount of time and energy invested by monogamous male parents varies greatly. The Willow Ptarmigan male serves only as a sentinel watching for danger. The Eastern Bluebird male provides a site for the rearing of young (by defending a territory containing a nest cavity), but experimental removal of males has shown that they are not essential for successful brood-rearing. In some monogamous species, the male defends a territory in which his mate collects the food required by the offspring, but does not himself feed the nestlings. Levels of male parental investment are even higher in most passerines, where males feed brooding females and/or help to feed the young. In herons, egrets, some woodpeckers, and others, males not only provide food for the young but share in incubation as well. The ante is raised even further in such ground-nesting birds as geese, swans, gulls, terns, and shorebirds in which males also commonly place themselves in danger by vigorously defending the nest and young from predators.
The traditional view of why more or less permanent monogamous bonds are formed is changing, as interest has become focused on the parentage of offspring reared by "monogamous" pairs. Increasingly, ornithologists and behavioral ecologists have come to view monogamy as part of a "mixed" reproductive strategy in which matings may occur outside the primary pair bond, but both members of the pair still contribute substantially only to the care and feeding of the young from their own nest. Some species are viewed as facultatively monogamous; that is, if released from certain environmental constraints, they would typically exhibit some other form of mating system such as polygyny (one male mating with more than one female) or promiscuity (mating without forming pair bonds). According to this view, for example, North American dabbling ducks are monogamous only because males are unable to monopolize more than one female. These ducks breed synchronously and their populations typically contain more males than females.
Two lines of evidence have contributed to the shift in viewpoint about the nature of monogamy. First, ecologist Yoram Yom-Tov showed intraspecific nest parasitism ("egg dumping" by females in nests other than their own) to be much more frequent than previously assumed. Consequently, females of birds as different as Common Goldeneyes, Cliff Swallows, and Savannah Sparrows may often incubate clutches containing one or more eggs laid by another female that may or may not have been sired by her mate. The parasitic female may be monogamous, but she is "stealing" parental investment from another pair. Therefore the situation is not one in which mated pairs rear only their own offspring, as traditional use of the term monogamy has implied.
Second, a few recent studies employing new techniques of genetic analysis have allowed investigators to determine whether one or both members of a pair are the parents of all of the nestlings or fledglings they are rearing. Investigations of cooperatively breeding Acorn Woodpeckers and "monogamous" Eastern Bluebirds demonstrate conclusively that clutches with mixed parentage (containing offspring of more than one female, more than one male, or both) are not infrequent, indicating some infidelity by either or both sexes and/or egg dumping by females. Because so few species have been investigated using this technique, the results of future analyses may lead to a further reevaluation of the evolutionary significance of monogamy. At the moment it is perhaps best simply to consider monogamy as a social pattern in which one male and one female associate during the breeding season, and not to make too many assumptions about fidelity or parentage.
SEE: Polygyny; Cooperative Breeding; Promiscuity.
Copyright ® 1988 by Paul R. Ehrlich, David S. Dobkin, and Darryl Wheye.

On estime que 90% de toutes les espèces d'oiseaux sont monogames. La monogamie est définie comme un mâle s'accouplant avec une femelle et formant un «lien de paire». Ce lien peut durer pour une seule nidification (Wrens House), une saison de reproduction entière (la plupart des espèces d'oiseaux, y compris la plupart des passereaux), plusieurs saisons de reproduction successives (observées dans certaines paires de rouge-gorge d'Amérique, d'hirondelle bicolore, de tourterelle triste, etc.), ou la vie (albatros, pétrels, cygnes, oies, aigles et quelques hiboux et perroquets).

On peut supposer que la monogamie a évolué dans des situations où les jeunes ont de bien meilleures chances de survivre si les deux parents coopèrent pour les élever. Néanmoins, la quantité de temps et d'énergie investie par les parents masculins monogames varie considérablement. Le mâle du lagopède des saules ne sert que de sentinelle surveillant le danger. Le mâle Merlebleu de l'Est fournit un site pour l'élevage des jeunes (en défendant un territoire contenant une cavité de nidification), mais le retrait expérimental des mâles a montré qu'ils ne sont pas essentiels à la réussite de l'élevage des couvées. Dans certaines espèces monogames, le mâle défend un territoire dans lequel son compagnon recueille la nourriture nécessaire à la progéniture, mais ne nourrit pas lui-même les oisillons. Les niveaux d'investissement parental masculin sont encore plus élevés chez la plupart des passereaux, où les mâles nourrissent les femelles couveuses et / ou aident à nourrir les jeunes. Chez les hérons, les aigrettes, certains pics et d'autres, les mâles fournissent non seulement de la nourriture aux jeunes, mais participent également à l'incubation. L'ante est soulevée encore plus loin chez des oiseaux nichant au sol comme les oies, les cygnes, les goélands, les sternes et les oiseaux de rivage dans lesquels les mâles se mettent également en danger en défendant vigoureusement le nid et les jeunes contre les prédateurs.

La conception traditionnelle des raisons pour lesquelles des liaisons monogames plus ou moins permanentes se forment évolue, car l'intérêt s'est concentré sur la filiation des descendants élevés par des couples "monogames". De plus en plus, les ornithologues et les écologistes comportementaux en sont venus à considérer la monogamie comme faisant partie d'une stratégie de reproduction "mixte" dans laquelle des accouplements peuvent se produire en dehors du lien de la paire primaire, mais les deux membres de la paire ne contribuent encore que substantiellement aux soins et à l'alimentation des jeunes de leur propre nid. Certaines espèces sont considérées comme facultativement monogames; c'est-à-dire que s'ils étaient libérés de certaines contraintes environnementales, ils présenteraient généralement une autre forme de système d'accouplement tel que la polygynie (un mâle s'accouplant avec plus d'une femelle) ou la promiscuité (s'accoupler sans former de liens de paire). Selon ce point de vue, par exemple, les canards barboteurs d'Amérique du Nord ne sont monogames que parce que les mâles sont incapables de monopoliser plus d'une femelle. Ces canards se reproduisent de manière synchrone et leurs populations contiennent généralement plus de mâles que de femelles.

Deux éléments de preuve ont contribué au changement de point de vue sur la nature de la monogamie. Premièrement, l'écologiste Yoram Yom-Tov a montré que le parasitisme intraspécifique des nids («dumping d'œufs» par les femelles dans des nids autres que le leur) était beaucoup plus fréquent qu'on ne le pensait auparavant. Par conséquent, les femelles d'oiseaux aussi différentes que les Garrots à œil d'or, les Hirondelles à front blanc et les Bruant des savanes peuvent souvent incuber des couvées contenant un ou plusieurs œufs pondus par une autre femelle qui peut ou non avoir été engendrée par son compagnon. La femelle parasite peut être monogame, mais elle "vole" l'investissement parental d'une autre paire. Par conséquent, la situation n'est pas celle dans laquelle les couples accouplés n'éleveront que leur propre progéniture, comme le laisse supposer l'utilisation traditionnelle du terme monogamie.

Deuxièmement, quelques études récentes employant de nouvelles techniques d'analyse génétique ont permis aux enquêteurs de déterminer si un ou les deux membres d'une paire sont les parents de tous les oisillons ou des oisillons qu'ils élèvent. Les enquêtes sur la reproduction en collaboration des pics glands et des merles bleus "monogames" démontrent de façon concluante que les pontes à progéniture mixte (contenant des descendants de plus d'une femelle, de plus d'un mâle ou des deux) ne sont pas rares, indiquant une infidélité de l'un ou des deux sexes et / ou le dumping d'œufs par les femelles. Parce que si peu d'espèces ont été étudiées à l'aide de cette technique, les résultats des analyses futures pourraient conduire à une nouvelle réévaluation de l'importance évolutive de la monogamie. Pour le moment, il vaut peut-être mieux simplement considérer la monogamie comme un modèle social dans lequel un mâle et une femelle s'associent pendant la saison de reproduction, et ne pas faire trop d'hypothèses sur la fidélité ou la filiation.


Possible reasons for monogamy
The ultimate purpose of life for each individual animal on Earth is to reproduce, and each individual that reproduces successfully helps perpetuate its species. Building on these facts, some scientists believe that monogamy evolved in species whose members are more likely to achieve reproductive success through pair bonding than through promiscuity.
Such species may include those whose populations are relatively small and dispersed: in such cases, the male's investments in monogamous pair bonding may yield more offspring than would his investments in repeatedly searching for hard-to-find females.
Another theory: Monogamy may have evolved in some species in order to support their special caretaking needs. Consider, for example, emperor penguins.
Until an emperor chick becomes independent of its parents, it must be protected in its colony from the harsh Antarctic elements and from predators by one parent, while the other parent travels back and forth to distant seas to feed itself and gather food for the chick--dual responsibilities that a single mother could not possibly fulfill on her own.
Therefore, monogamy may have evolved in emperors in order to support the intense parental cooperation needed by emperor chicks. This theory is supported by the fact that once emperor chicks become independent of their parents and thereby outgrow their need for cooperative parental caregiving, the overwhelming majority of emperor parents (about 85 percent) permanently part ways. (Adult emperors practice serial monogamy, and usually form a new pair bond every breeding season.)
Also, some scientists believe that monogamy may have evolved in some species because their young can be cared for by both of their parents. Such species include bird species whose young survive on food brought to them by both of their parents, which are equally equipped for the task. Because the monogamy of such species supports fatherly caregiving, and thereby promotes reproductive success, the evolution of such species apparently favored some form of monogamy, as the theory goes.
By contrast, baby mammals must be fed via breast-feeding--a need that obviously can only be fulfilled by females. So, almost by definition, the males of most mammal species are generally unequipped to help feed their young. Therefore, such species would not necessarily benefit from a social structure that supports fatherly caregiving, and so their evolution would not necessarily have favored monogamy, as the theory goes.
However, theories about the evolution of monogamy that are based on its support for fatherly caregiving are countered by the fact that the males of some monogamous species do not typically help care for their young--even though the reverse is apparently true: All species in which males typically help care for their young are monogamous, as far as we know.
The joy of monogamy
While environmental factors may influence the evolution of monogamy, so too may genetic factors. Some possible genetic influences on monogamy have been discovered through recent research on prairie voles, which form lifelong social attachments. Specifically, this research identified special hormone receptors located in the reward centers of the brains of male prairie voles. Such special receptors may give the voles a sense of pleasure from monogamy and taking care of young, and thereby help promote these behaviors.
This research also involved transferring the special hormone receptors of prairie voles to other vole species that are promiscuous and do not form social attachments. The result: The promiscuous voles became monogamous, like prairie voles.
What's more, the prairie voles' special receptors are very similar to receptors found in the brains of humans and bonobos. Bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees, display empathy and maintain strong social bonds. By contrast, these receptors are not present in the brains of common chimpanzees, which are less empathetic and more aggressive.
These results suggest that the special hormone receptors may influence species-to-species differences in social structure. In addition, individual variation in these special receptors among human males may help explain some of the individual variation among men in their attitudes towards commitment, monogamy and marriage.
Probably because varied and complex combinations of genetic and environmental factors influence the reproductive behavior of each species, virtually every species that practices true monogamy or social monogamy expresses their monogamy in a unique way. (See slide show.)
Learn more about the biology of love and other animal emotions in an online chat featuring NSF program director Diane Witt.
--  Lily Whiteman, (703) 292-8070 lwhitema@nsf.gov
Raisons possibles de la monogamie

Le but ultime de la vie de chaque animal sur Terre est de se reproduire, et chaque individu qui se reproduit avec succès contribue à perpétuer son espèce. S'appuyant sur ces faits, certains scientifiques pensent que la monogamie a évolué chez les espèces dont les membres sont plus susceptibles de réussir leur reproduction par le biais de liaisons par paires que par la promiscuité.

Ces espèces peuvent inclure celles dont les populations sont relativement petites et dispersées: dans de tels cas, les investissements du mâle dans la liaison de paires monogames peuvent produire plus de progéniture que ne le feraient ses investissements dans la recherche répétée de femelles difficiles à trouver.

Autre théorie: la monogamie peut avoir évolué chez certaines espèces afin de subvenir à leurs besoins particuliers de gardiennage. Prenons par exemple les manchots empereurs.

Jusqu'à ce qu'un poussin empereur devienne indépendant de ses parents, il doit être protégé dans sa colonie des rudes éléments antarctiques et des prédateurs par un parent, tandis que l'autre parent voyage dans les mers lointaines pour se nourrir et rassembler de la nourriture pour le poussin. -les responsabilités doubles qu'une mère célibataire ne pourrait pas assumer seule.

Par conséquent, la monogamie peut avoir évolué chez les empereurs afin de soutenir la coopération parentale intense dont les poussins empereurs ont besoin. Cette théorie est appuyée par le fait qu'une fois que les poussins empereurs deviennent indépendants de leurs parents et dépassent ainsi leur besoin de soins parentaux coopératifs, l'écrasante majorité des parents empereurs (environ 85%) se séparent définitivement. (Les empereurs adultes pratiquent la monogamie en série et forment généralement un nouveau lien de paire à chaque saison de reproduction.)

De plus, certains scientifiques pensent que la monogamie peut avoir évolué chez certaines espèces parce que leurs petits peuvent être pris en charge par leurs deux parents. Ces espèces incluent les espèces d'oiseaux dont les jeunes survivent grâce à la nourriture apportée par leurs deux parents, qui sont également équipés pour la tâche. Parce que la monogamie de ces espèces soutient la prestation de soins paternelle et favorise ainsi le succès de la reproduction, l'évolution de ces espèces a apparemment favorisé une certaine forme de monogamie, comme le dit la théorie.

En revanche, les bébés mammifères doivent être nourris par l'allaitement maternel - un besoin qui ne peut évidemment être satisfait que par les femelles. Ainsi, presque par définition, les mâles de la plupart des espèces de mammifères ne sont généralement pas équipés pour aider à nourrir leurs petits. Par conséquent, ces espèces ne bénéficieraient pas nécessairement d'une structure sociale qui prend en charge la prestation de soins paternelle, et leur évolution n'aurait donc pas nécessairement favorisé la monogamie, comme le dit la théorie.

Cependant, les théories sur l'évolution de la monogamie qui sont basées sur son soutien à la prestation de soins paternels sont contrées par le fait que les mâles de certaines espèces monogames n'aident généralement pas à prendre soin de leurs jeunes - même si l'inverse est apparemment vrai: toutes les espèces de les hommes qui aident généralement à prendre soin de leurs petits sont monogames, à notre connaissance.

La joie de la monogamie

Alors que les facteurs environnementaux peuvent influencer l'évolution de la monogamie, les facteurs génétiques le peuvent aussi. Certaines influences génétiques possibles sur la monogamie ont été découvertes grâce à des recherches récentes sur les campagnols des Prairies, qui forment des liens sociaux à vie. Plus précisément, cette recherche a identifié des récepteurs hormonaux spéciaux situés dans les centres de récompense du cerveau des campagnols mâles des Prairies. Ces récepteurs spéciaux peuvent donner aux campagnols un sentiment de plaisir de la monogamie et de prendre soin des jeunes, et ainsi aider à promouvoir ces comportements.

Cette recherche a également impliqué le transfert des récepteurs hormonaux spéciaux des campagnols des Prairies à d'autres espèces de campagnols qui sont promiscuité et ne forment pas d'attachements sociaux. Résultat: les campagnols promiscueux sont devenus monogames, comme les campagnols des Prairies.

De plus, les récepteurs spéciaux des campagnols des Prairies sont très similaires aux récepteurs trouvés dans le cerveau des humains et des bonobos. Les bonobos, ou chimpanzés pygmées, font preuve d'empathie et entretiennent de solides liens sociaux. En revanche, ces récepteurs ne sont pas présents dans le cerveau des chimpanzés communs, qui sont moins empathiques et plus agressifs.

Ces résultats suggèrent que les récepteurs hormonaux spéciaux peuvent influer sur les différences d'espèce à espèce dans la structure sociale. En outre, la variation individuelle de ces récepteurs spéciaux chez les hommes peut aider à expliquer certaines des variations individuelles chez les hommes dans leurs attitudes envers l'engagement, la monogamie et le mariage.

Probablement parce que des combinaisons variées et complexes de facteurs génétiques et environnementaux influencent le comportement reproducteur de chaque espèce, pratiquement toutes les espèces qui pratiquent la vraie monogamie ou la monogamie sociale expriment leur monogamie d'une manière unique. (Voir diaporama.)

Apprenez-en plus sur la biologie de l'amour et d'autres émotions animales dans un chat en ligne avec Diane Witt, directrice du programme NSF.
- Lily Whiteman, (703) 292-8070 lwhitema@nsf.gov 
Publié par à

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire

Inscription à : Publier les commentaires (Atom)