I would caveat that "naturally monogamous" in animals isn't exactly what humans would interpret that to be or to mean. In mammals, complete genetic monogamy is extremely rare and usually tied to things like votes; coyotes are one of the largest 'strictly' monogamous ones, and that's still got one-in-twenty extra-couple mating. Even a lot of monogamous bird species aren't genetically monogamous: something like one in eight swan babies aren't genetically tied to the mother's 'husband'.
It's a meaningful category, still, to contrast species that where serial mating (eg, raccoons) or outright multiple paternity is common (eg, housecats), or where mating is 'indiscriminate' (rabbits), but the extent that the line gets fuzzy makes it hard to categorize humans, even before considering what extent humans have drifted from their historic environment.
p
I would caveat that "naturally monogamous" in animals isn't exactly what humans would interpret that to be or to mean. In mammals, complete genetic monogamy is extremely rare and usually tied to things like votes; coyotes are one of the largest 'strictly' monogamous ones, and that's still got one-in-twenty extra-couple mating. Even a lot of monogamous bird species aren't genetically monogamous: something like one in eight swan babies aren't genetically tied to the mother's 'husband'.
It's a meaningful category, still, to contrast species that where serial mating (eg, raccoons) or outright multiple paternity is common (eg, housecats), or where mating is 'indiscriminate' (rabbits), but the extent that the line gets fuzzy makes it hard to categorize humans, even before considering what extent humans have drifted from their historic environment.
More options
Context Copy link