IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v20y2009i2p245-250.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Family conflict and the evolution of sociality in reptiles

Author

Listed:
  • Geoffrey M. While
  • Tobias Uller
  • Erik Wapstra

Abstract

Mating systems and parental care are predicted to coevolve because the former dictates the cost--benefit ratio of the latter by affecting genetic relatedness between adults and offspring. Reptiles show only rudimentary forms of sociality and parental care and, hence, could provide important insights into the early stages of the evolution and maintenance of social systems. The skink genus Egernia exhibits the most complex form of sociality and parental care in lizards, with the formation of stable social groups typically consisting of a monogamous pair and their offspring. Here we show that, within a social group, offspring sired by males other than the social father are restricted to the area of the parental home range that is occupied exclusively by the mother. Thus, males rarely tolerate offspring within their home range that they are not genetically related to. This may increase the cost of multiple mating for females and offspring via increased risk of infanticide, reduced parental tolerance, and increased mother--offspring competition. We outline a verbal model for how this could generate a feedback loop in which selection favors reduced multiple mating by females and increased paternal care, thereby setting the stage for the evolution of complex sociality and genetic monogamy. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Geoffrey M. While & Tobias Uller & Erik Wapstra, 2009. "Family conflict and the evolution of sociality in reptiles," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(2), pages 245-250.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:2:p:245-250
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arp015
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:2:p:245-250. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.