Do monogamous spp live longer than related pylygynous spp?

[littor...@gmail.com]

I googled "monogamy longevity", but found nothing of interest.
Were Miocene aquarboreal hominoids monogamous?

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:50:52 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> I googled "monogamy longevity", but found nothing of interest.
> Were Miocene aquarboreal hominoids monogamous?

Spell correctly, google can't find typos. Polygyny?

Hylobatids don't wade or swim, they swing below branches and walk upright on branches; they have long: lower backs/achilles tendons/shared vocalizations/paternal instruction/monogamy like humans but unlike all great apes.

Zoo hylobatids can live long, but in nature, not sure.

Generally small fauna die sooner than large fauna (naked mole rats exception: high CO2, low UV?).

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op donderdag 21 juli 2022 om 16:20:18 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op donderdag 21 juli 2022 om 16:20:18 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:50:52 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > I googled "monogamy longevity", but found nothing of interest.
> > Were Miocene aquarboreal hominoids monogamous?

> Spell correctly, google can't find typos. Polygyny?

Yes, polygynous.

> Hylobatids don't wade or swim, they swing below branches and walk upright on branches; they have long: lower backs/achilles tendons/shared vocalizations/paternal instruction/monogamy like humans but unlike all great apes.
> Zoo hylobatids can live long, but in nature, not sure.
> Generally small fauna die sooner than large fauna (naked mole rats exception: high CO2, low UV?).

Hylobatids had aquarboreal ancestors: tail loss, longer sacrum, broad pelvis, thorax & sternum (Hominoidea=Lati-sternalia), they're (still?) monogamous.

[I Envy JTEM]

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> I googled "monogamy longevity", but found nothing of interest.
> Were Miocene aquarboreal hominoids monogamous?

If there's anything to r/K selection then absolutely. And absolutely
not.

The real answer appears to be that some human populations were
sexually selected, kind of a sexual free for all, while some were
quite monogamous.

...it's important to note that "Monogamy" in these terms doesn't
necessarily mean what modern society thinks of as monogamy. It
was probably closer to gorillas, where you have a single male with
a group of females.

So "Monogamy" is in terms of females, is what I'm saying, not males.

There's zero sexual selection for larger penises, for example, UNLESS
females are selecting partners. If she's not selecting then it doesn't
matter how large the male's willy is. She's not saying "No."

So called "Moderns" in Africa: The ones we think of as Hss were
probably a sexually selected group. That's how they recovered faster
than anyone else, filled in the vacuum left behind by events like Toba
for example. Then as they entered areas previously occupied by
Neanderthals/Denisovan (etc) they eventually met & interbred with
the surviving populations...

I'm guessing, being sexually selected, they were considered more
attractive TO NEANDERTHALS (etc) and preferred over their own
females.

Let's face it; a Neanderthal female was a shorter version of a
Neanderthal male! Not a whole heck of a lot of differences.

ALSO: The DNA data, at least what little we are allowed to see,
assuming any of the reporting is accurate, is consistent with this.
If Neanderthal males find so called "Moderns" more attractive,
prefer to mate with them, and so called "Moderns" would have to
be gay to want to do the sex with Neanderthal females, say
"Goodbye" to Neanderthal mtDNA lines! AND THEN there's some
science that claims Neanderthal males would have difficulty
producing male offspring with so called "Modern" females, but
not a lot of trouble producing female babies... NO MORE Y
CHROMOSOME!

REMEMBER: Interbreeding always happens but it's never
symmetrical. It was white slave masters with black women
slaves. It was white soldiers and colonists with native tribes
peoples... Russian soldiers atop German women...

It's never symmetrical. But it always happens.

Neanderthals were built like a Sherman tank. They could
easily rip the arms of a so called modern out of their sockets.
Neanderthal males could do even more damage!





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/690317166813347840/that-anon-you-got-appears-to-have-been-sarcasm

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 3:08:01 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op donderdag 21 juli 2022 om 16:20:18 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:50:52 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I googled "monogamy longevity", but found nothing of interest.
> > > Were Miocene aquarboreal hominoids monogamous?
>
> > Spell correctly, google can't find typos. Polygyny?
> Yes, polygynous.
> > Hylobatids don't wade or swim, they swing below branches and walk upright on branches; they have long: lower backs/achilles tendons/shared vocalizations/paternal instruction/monogamy like humans but unlike all great apes.
> > Zoo hylobatids can live long, but in nature, not sure.
> > Generally small fauna die sooner than large fauna (naked mole rats exception: high CO2, low UV?).
> Hylobatids had aquarboreal ancestors:

Brachiation x upright arboreal bipedal traits of hominoid: tail loss, longer sacrum, broad pelvis, thorax & sternum

(Hominoidea=Lati-sternalia), they're (still?) monogamous.

Homo and hylobatids, not great apes.

[Primum Sapienti]

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> I googled "monogamy longevity", but found nothing of interest.
> Were Miocene aquarboreal hominoids monogamous?
>

Don't use quotes.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02237.x
Selection on male longevity in a monogamous human population: late-life
survival brings no additional grandchildren


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14564-polygamy-is-the-key-to-a-long-life/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(01)71444-4/fulltext
MONOGAMY IN ITS RELATION TO LONGEVITY AND THE DISEASES OF LATE LIFE.

Related...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5855/1443.abstract
Extended Male Growth in a Fossil Hominin Species

Abstract

In primates that are highly sexually dimorphic, males often reach
maturity later than females, and young adult males do not show the
size, morphology, and coloration of mature males. Here we describe
extended male development in a hominin species, Paranthropus
robustus. Ranking a large sample of facial remains on the basis of
dental wear stages reveals a difference in size and robusticity
between young adult and old adult males. Combined with estimates of
sexual dimorphism, this pattern suggests that male reproductive
strategy focused on monopolizing groups of females, in a manner
similar to that of silverback gorillas. However, males appear to
have borne a substantial cost in the form of high rates of
predation.


https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010.1740
Digit ratios predict polygyny in early apes, Ardipithecus, Neanderthals and
early modern humans but not in Australopithecus
03 November 2010

Abstract
Social behaviour of fossil hominoid species is notoriously difficult to
predict
owing to difficulties in estimating body size dimorphism from fragmentary
remains and, in hominins, low canine size dimorphism. Recent studies have
shown that the second-to-fourth digit ratio (2D : 4D), a putative biomarker
for prenatal androgen effects (PAEs), covaries with intra-sexual competition
and social systems across haplorrhines; non-pair-bonded polygynous taxa
have significantly lower 2D : 4D ratios (high PAE) than pair-bonded
monogamous species. Here, we use proximal phalanx ratios of extant and
fossil specimens to reconstruct the social systems of extinct hominoids.
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, Hispanopithecus laietanus and Ardipithecus
ramidus have ratios consistent with polygynous extant species, whereas the
ratio of Australopithecus afarensis is consistent with monogamous extant
species. The early anatomically modern human Qafzeh 9 and Neanderthals
have lower digit ratios than most contemporary human populations, indicating
increased androgenization and possibly higher incidence of polygyny. Although
speculative owing to small sample sizes, these results suggest that digit
ratios
represent a supplementary approach for elucidating the social systems of
fossil
hominins.