Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 161–166 | Cite as

The monogamous mating system of Peromyscus californicus as revealed by DNA fingerprinting

  • David O. Ribble


I used DNA fingerprinting to assess mating exclusivity in Peromyscus californicus, a species presumed to be monogamous. Putative genealogical relationships were determined in the field from transfer of fluorescent pigments. The putative father was confirmed to be the genetic father for 82 offspring from 22 complete families. An additional 17 offspring from 5 families were tested in which samples from either the mother or father were not available. The offspring within each family were most likely full siblings and hence sired by only one father. An incestuous mating between brother and sister was also confirmed with DNA fingerprinting. Thus, all offspring from 28 families resulted from exclusive matings between single male and female pairs over a 2-year period. There were no instances of multiple paternity detected, and mate switches occurred only after one member of a pair disappeared. This is the first convincing demonstration of exclusive monogamy in a mammal.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agren G, Zhou Q, Zhong W (1989) Ecology and social behaviour of Mongolian gerbils, Meriones unguiculatus, at Xilinhot, Inner Mongolia, China. Anim Behav 37:11–27Google Scholar
  2. Barlow GW (1988) Monogamy in relation to resources. In: Slobodchikoff CN (ed) The ecology of social behavior. Academic, San Diego, pp 55–79Google Scholar
  3. Bowen BS (1982) Temporal dynamics of microgeographic structure of genetic variation in Microtus californicus. J Mammal 63:625–638Google Scholar
  4. Burke T (1989) DNA fingerprinting and other methods for the study of mating success. Trends Ecol Evol 4:139–144Google Scholar
  5. Burke T, Bruford MW (1987) DNA fingerprinting in birds. Nature 327:149–152Google Scholar
  6. Burke T, Davies NB, Bruford MW, Hatchwell BJ (1989) Parental care and mating behaviour of polyandrous dunnocks Prunella modularis related to paternity by DNA fingerprinting. Nature 338:249–251Google Scholar
  7. Chakraborty R, Meagher TR, Smouse PE (1988) Parentage analysis with genetic markers in natural populations. I. The expected proportion of offspring with unambiguous paternity. Genetics 118:527–536Google Scholar
  8. Chandler T (1979) Population biology of coastal chaparral rodents. Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen JE (1990) DNA fingerprinting for forensic identification: potential effects on data interpretation of subpopulation heterogeneity and band number variability. Am J Hum Genet 46:358–368Google Scholar
  10. Dewsbury DA (1981) An exercise in the prediction of monogamy in the field from laboratory data on 42 species of muroid rodents. Biologist 63:138–162Google Scholar
  11. Dewsbury DA (1988) The comparative psychology of monogamy. In: Leger D (ed) Nebraska symposium on motivation. Univ Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 1–50Google Scholar
  12. Dubach D (1986) Pinna tissue, a source of allozymic information. Southwest Nat 31:419–420Google Scholar
  13. Dudley D (1974a) Contributions of paternal care to the growth and development of the young in Peromyscus californicus. Behav Biol 11:155–166Google Scholar
  14. Dudley D (1974b) Paternal behavior in the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. Behav Biol 11:247–252Google Scholar
  15. Dueser RD, Rose RK, Porter JH (1984) A body-weight criterion to identify dispersing small mammals. J Mammal 65:727–729Google Scholar
  16. Dunbar R (1984) The ecology of monogamy. New Scientist 103:12–15Google Scholar
  17. Eisenberg JF (1962) Studies on the behavior of Peromyscus maniculatus gambelii and Peromyscus californicus. Behavior 19:177–207Google Scholar
  18. Elwood RW (1983) Paternal care in rodents. In: Elwood RW (ed) Paternal behavior of rodents. Wiley, New York, pp 235–257Google Scholar
  19. Foltz DW (1981) Genetic evidence for long-term monogamy in a small rodent, Peromyscus polionotus. Am Nat 117:665–675Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert DA, Lehman N, O'Brien SJ, Wayne RK (1990) Genetic fingerprinting reflects population differentiation in the California Channel Island fox. Nature 344:764–766Google Scholar
  21. Gowaty PA, Karlin AA (1984) Multiple paternity and maternity in single broods of apparently monogamous eastern bluebirds. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:91–95Google Scholar
  22. Greenwood PJ (1980) Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 28:1140–1162Google Scholar
  23. Gubernick DJ, Alberts JR (1987) The biparental care system of the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. J Comp Psych 101:169–177Google Scholar
  24. Gubernick DJ, Alberts JR (1989) Postpartum maintenance of paternal behaviour in the biparental California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. Anim Behav 37:656–664Google Scholar
  25. Gubernick DJ, Nelson RJ (1989) Prolactin and paternal behavior in the biparental California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. Hermon Behav 23:203–210Google Scholar
  26. Gyllensten UB, Jakobsson S, Temrin H (1990) No evidence for illegitimate young in monogamous and polygynous warblers. Nature 343:168–170Google Scholar
  27. Hill WG (1986) DNA fingerprint analysis in immigration testcases. Nature 322:290–291Google Scholar
  28. Jeffreys AJ, Morton DB (1987) DNA fingerprints of dogs and cats. Anim Genet 18:1–15Google Scholar
  29. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson T, Them SL (1985a) Hypervariable ‘minisatellite’ regions in human DNA. Nature 314:67–73Google Scholar
  30. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson V, Thein SL (1985b) Individual-specific ‘fingerprints’ of human DNA. Nature 316:76–79Google Scholar
  31. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson V, Thein SL, Weatherall DJ, Ponder BAJ (1986) DNA “fingerprints” and segregation analysis of multiple markers in human pedigrees. Ann J Hum Genet 39:11–24Google Scholar
  32. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson T, Kelly R, Taylor BA, Bulfield G (1987) Mouse DNA “fingerprints”: analysis of chromosome localization and germ-line stability of hypervariable loci in recombinant inbred strains. Nucleic Acids Res 15:2823–2836Google Scholar
  33. Kafatos FC, Jones CW, Efstratiadis A (1979) Determination of nucleic acid sequence homologies and relative concentrations by dot hybridization procedure. Nucleic Acids Res 7:1541–1552Google Scholar
  34. Kaufman GA (1989) Use of fluorescent pigments to study social interactions in a small nocturnal rodent, Peromyscus maniculatus. J Mammal 70:171–174Google Scholar
  35. Kleiman DG (1977) Monogamy in mammals. Q Rev Biol 52:39–69Google Scholar
  36. Kleiman DG, Malcolm JR (1981) The evolution of male parental investment in mammals. In: Gubernick DJ, Klopfer PH (eds) Parental care in mammals. Plenum Press, New York, pp 347–387Google Scholar
  37. Kurland JA, Gaulin SJC (1984) The evolution of male paternal investment: effects of genetic relatedness and feeding ecology and the allocation of reproductive effort. In: Taub DW (ed) Primate paternalism. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 259–308Google Scholar
  38. Maniatis T, Fritsch EF, Sambrook J (1982) Molecular cloning: a laboratory approach. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Maynard Smith J (1977) Parental investment: a prospective analysis. Anim Behav 25:1–9Google Scholar
  40. McCabe TT, Blanchard BD (1950) Three species of Peromyscus. Rood, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  41. McKinney F, Cheng KM, Bruggers DJ (1984) Sperm competition in apparently monogamous birds. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 523–545Google Scholar
  42. Ralls K, Harvey PH, Lyles AM (1986) Inbreeding in natural populations of birds and mammals. In: Soule ME (ed) Conservation biology. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 35–56Google Scholar
  43. Reeve HK, Westneat DF, Noon WA, Sherman PW, Aquadro CF (1990) DNA “fingerprinting” reveals high levels of inbreeding in colonies of the eusocial naked mole-rat. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:2496–2500Google Scholar
  44. Ribble DO (1990) Population and social dynamics of the California mouse (Peromyscus californicus). Unpublished dissertation, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  45. Ribble DO, Salvioni M (1990) Social organization and nest cooccupancy in Peromyscus californicus, a monogamous rodent. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:9–15Google Scholar
  46. Richardson PRK (1987) Aardwolf mating system: overt cuckoldry in an apparently monogamous mammal. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Wetenskap 83:405–410Google Scholar
  47. Sherman PL, Morton ML (1988) Extra-pair fertilizations in mountain white-crowned sparrows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:413–419Google Scholar
  48. Slobodchikoff CN (1984) Resources and the evolution of social behavior. In: Price PW, Slobodchikoff CN, Gaud WS (eds) A new ecology. Novel approaches to interactive systems. Wiley, New York, pp 227–251Google Scholar
  49. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  50. Westneat DF (1987) Extra-pair fertilizations in a predominantly monogamous bird — genetic evidence. Anim Behav 35:877–886Google Scholar
  51. Westneat DF (1990) Genetic parentage in the indigo bunting: a study using DNA fingerprinting. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:67–76Google Scholar
  52. Wetton JH, Carter RE, Parkin DT, Walters D (1987) Demographic study of a wild house sparrow population by DNA fingerprinting. Nature 327:147–149Google Scholar
  53. Wittenberger JF, Tilson RL (1980) The evolution of monogamy: hypotheses and evidence. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:197–232Google Scholar
  54. Wolff JO, Cicirello DM (1989) Field evidence for sexual selection and resource competition infanticide in white-footed mice. Anim Behav 38:637–642Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • David O. Ribble
    • 1
  1. 1.Museum of Vertebrate ZoologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations