Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Health

Demography + Genetics → insight?

Gene ExpressionBy Razib KhanSeptember 27, 2008 5:22 PM

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Earlier I reviewed a new paper which made some species-wide grand claims about the nature of human demographic dynamics. Specifically, as it relates to the ratio and reproduction of males and females over time. But to me some of the less ambitious but more specific work in this area where demographics, anthropology and genetics intersect are nearly as interesting. From example, look at this figure:

F1.large.jpg

This distribution shows the confidence intervals estimated from genetic data in relation to sex-specific migration rates. Granted, as noted in the paper, Molecular analysis reveals tighter social regulation of immigration in patrilocal populations than in matrilocal populations, the distributions overlap, but the difference is great enough to make a plausible case in terms of an inference. In short, patrilocal societies in the sample seem to limit male migration between demes. Matrilocal societies far less. It seems to pass the smell test, and the genetic data allows one to put some numbers and quantitatize differences. A more recent paper, Sex-Specific Genetic Structure and Social Organization in Central Asia: Insights from a Multi-Locus Study, has an event more detailed figure:

journal.pgen.1000200.g003.jpg

Nf/N

and

mf/m

are the proportion of females and the proportion of females migrating. Since they're proportions it stands to reason that the intervals will be 0 to 1, with biological plausibility being somewhere in the range of ~0.50 for humans because of the approximate 1:1 sex ratio at birth. A & B represent patrilineal nomads while C & D represent bilineal agriculturalists. The p-values are important because they illustrate the region of "parameter space" which can be rejected. That is, where p-values are ≤ 0.05, the blue region of the charts, are not supported by the data reported in the paper. Note the relative constriction of the parameter space for the patrilineal nomads; this suggests a relative excess of females to males in proportion in terms of both effective population size and migration. Is this biologically plausible in terms of what we know about the history, demography and anthropology of this region? I think so, but the final decision is up to the individual I suppose....

    2 Free Articles Left

    Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

    Want unlimited access?

    Subscribe today and save 70%

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In