
Scientists Identify Gene Pattern That Makes Some Animals Monogamous - laurex
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/patterns-genetic-activity-may-play-role-animal-monogamy-180971192/
======
owaty
Note: it's a gene _expression_ pattern. It's not like there's a monogamy gene
that you have or don't have; rather there are genes that are more active in
monogamous species (or vice versa).

So it won't show up on your 23andme test. It's a completely different type of
analysis called RNA-seq, and in order to perform it they had to obtain actual
brain tissue samples (not blood or saliva), because gene expression is
different in every tissue.

------
charleshmorse
One mating season is monogamous? Tell my wife that.

Also, this seems to make no mention of 'rearing complexity'. A more
developmentally complex brain should imply prolonged rearing and have a bias
of survival in favor of shared parenting.

I guess you can find anything you're looking for in gene expressions, if you
really want.

~~~
barry-cotter
> A more developmentally complex brain should imply prolonged rearing and have
> a bias of survival in favor of shared parenting.

Primates are significantly brainier than most of the rest of Mammalia, on
average, and humans and gibbons are the only primates that are more monogamous
than polygamous. Cetaceans and elephants also have comparatively large brains
and aren’t monogamous.

~~~
justtopost
>humans are more monogamous

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Got any citation for that?

~~~
barry-cotter
Humans aren’t obligate monogamous but our level of sexual dimorphism is less
than polygynous species like gorillas. Against this is the difference in upper
strength where men are about twice as strong as women. Also in hunter gatherer
societies we’re familiar with most men do not have multiple mates at one time
and from the varying patterns of inheritance of Y chromosomes and mitochondria
which are passed down solely along the male and female line respectively ~40%
of men leave descendants. That’s not compatible with polygyny. Humans are not
obligately monogamous or polygynous but all evidence points to more of the
first than the second.

~~~
amanaplanacanal
From what I can tell, hunter-gather societies, and possibly all of our pre-
agriculture ancestors, are serially monogamous with some fooling around on the
side. Children probably received support from the whole band or tribe.

The sexual part seems pretty familiar from looking around current society, and
the children support part isn't far off from now either.

------
basicplus2
coming soon.. Pre marital test..?

------
matte_black
Would be interesting if certain humans have these genes and some don’t. That
way couples could be tested before committing to marriage and be more
informed. Ideally though, people could know ahead of time what genes a partner
carries before going further with a relationship.

This is one example of how using genetics data for a dating network can help
produce better matches, and more calculated offspring.

~~~
steventhedev
Stop.

Seriously. Stop.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the reason you're getting
downvoted is because you're advocating something that is basically eugenics
wearing modern clothing. The practice of eugenics is generally associated with
Nazis. Yes, those Nazis. Not just the modern ones, but the Hitler 1920s-1945
ones who started a World War. They used "superior genetics" as a justification
for many of their actions before, during, and after the war.

Don't be a Nazi. Accept that this is fresh research, that genetics may set
someone out on a different path but that there are many other factors that
affect their life and choices. In this study[0], there is no human research,
and the definition of monogamy is limited to a single mating season. It's also
looking at gene expression, which means that a gene that everyone has is
either turned on or off. For reference, genes are expressed differently in
various parts of your body, and is a fairly good test for various types of
cancer.

[0]:
[https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/02/1813775116](https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/02/1813775116)

~~~
rjf72
I think the leap to eugenics there is not warranted. Eugenics is about
enforced selective breeding. Enforcement being the key. Imagine you are tall
and want a child that is also tall and so actively seek out a tall partner.
That's obviously not engaging in eugenics, but an enforced prohibition on
short individuals procreating would indeed be eugenics.

I would very much oppose any government ever enforcing genetic criterion on a
mass level. But I see no qualms about individuals themselves having genetic
preferences. Your argument might be that well nobody would want somebody with
[undesirable trait x] so it would exclude these individuals from the
collective gene pool, yet we see in real life that that's not how things work.
Being short is not very desired, is genetically linked, and is immediately
visible. Yet in spite of all of that, in practice it in no way stops people
from living great lives, raising families, and finding great partners.

~~~
everybodyknows
Dictionary tells us that the term applies even in the absence of enforcement
per se:

[https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Eugenics](https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Eugenics)

~~~
Sniffnoy
The dictionary will tell you only tell you about words, not the reality that
the words are meant to reflect. You cannot deduce, from what word a thing is
called, whether that thing is good or bad. You must address the thing itself,
and not assume that, just because it is called by the same name as some other
thing, that they are the same.

(See e.g. [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-
noncen...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-
fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world) for more on this.)

