Morphometric Patterns Among Microtine Rodents. I. Sexual Selection Suggested by Relative Scent Gland Development in Representative Voles (Microtus)

  • Frederick J. JannettJr.


Chemical communication research is lacking in theoretical approaches (see, for example, Perrigo and Bronson, 1983; Sokolov et al., 1984). It should proceed within the context and theory of organic evolution, in which an active area of research has been sexual selection. Sexual selection depends on the advantage which certain individuals have over other individuals of the same sex and species in exclusive relation to reproduction, and it can affect an animal’s glands for emitting odours (Darwin, 1871). Recent comments on sexual selection in mammals (Blaustein, 1981; Arnold and Houck, 1982) have stressed the possible role of scent communication without citing any comparative analyses of closely related species.


Sexual Selection Gland Weight Testosterone Propionate Anal Gland Scent Gland 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aksenova, T. G., 1973, The structure of accessory male glands in some species of the genus Microtus (Rodentia, Cricetidae), Zool. Zh., 52: 1843.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S., 1960, The baculum in microtine rodents, Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kans., 12: 181.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, S. J., and Houck, L. D., 1982, Courtship pheromones: Evolution by natural and sexual selection, in: “Biochemical Aspects of Evolutionary Biology,” M. H. Nitecki, ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Blaustein, A. R., 1981, Sexual selection and mammalian olfaction, Amer. Nat., 117: 1006.Google Scholar
  5. Corbet, G. B., and Hill, J. E., 1980, “A World List of Mammalian Species,” British Museum ( Natural History ), London.Google Scholar
  6. Darwin, C., 1871, “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex,” John Murray, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ebling, F. J., 1977, Hormonal control of mammalian skin glands, in: “Chemical Signals in Vertebrates,” D. Muller-Schwarze, and M. M. Mozell, eds., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Ellerman, J. R., and Morrison-Scott, T. C. S., 1951, “Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals 1758 to 19.46,” British Museum ( Natural History ), London.Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, R. A., 1930, “The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection,” Clarendon Press, Oxford.MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. FitzGerald, R. W., and Madison, D. M., 1983, Social organization of a free- ranging population of pine voles, Microtus pinetorum, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 13: 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Getz, L. L., 1972, Social structure and aggressive behavior in a population of Microtus pennsylvanicus, J. Mamm., 53: 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Getz, L. L., and Carter, C. S., 1980, Social organization in Microtus ochrogaster populations, Biologist, 62: 56.Google Scholar
  13. Gromov, I. M., and Polyakov, I. Ya., 1977, “Microtinae,” Fauna SSSR, Mammals (Nauka, Moscow - Leningrad), 3: 1.Google Scholar
  14. Hinton, M. A. C., 1926, “Monograph of the Voles and Lemmings (Microtinae) Living and Extinct,” British Museum ( Natural History ), London.Google Scholar
  15. Hooper, E. T., and Hart, B. S., 1962, A synopsis of recent North American microtine rodents, Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich., 120: 1.Google Scholar
  16. Jannett, F. J., Jr., 1977, “On the Sociobiology of the Montane Vole, Microtus montanus nanus (Rodentia: Muridae),” Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Jannett, F. J., Jr., 1978a, The density-dependent formation of extended maternal families of the montane vole, Microtus montanusnanus, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 3: 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jannett, F. J., Jr., 1978b, Dosage response of the vesicular, preputial, anal, and hip glands of the male vole, Microtus montanus (Rodentia: Muridae), to testosterone propionate, J. Mamm., 59: 772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jannett, F. J., Jr., 1980, Social dynamics of the montane vole, Microtus montanus, as a paradigm, Biologist, 62: 3.Google Scholar
  20. Jannett, F. J., Jr., 1981a, Scent mediation of intraspecific, interspecific, and intergeneric agonistic behavior among sympatric species of voles ( Microtinae ), Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 8: 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jannett, F. J., Jr., 1981b, Sex ratios in high-density populations of the montane vole, Microtus montanus, and the behavior of territorial males, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 8: 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jannett, F. J., Jr., 1982, Nesting patterns of adult voles, Microtus montanus, in field populations, J. Mammal., 63: 495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jannett, F. J., Jr., and Jannett, J. Z., 1974, Drum-marking by Arvicola richardsoni and its taxonomic significance, Amer. Midl. Nat., 92: 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jannett, F. J., Jr., and Jannett, J. Z., 1981, Convergent evolution in the behavior of a shrew and a rodent, Mammalia, 45: 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jannett, J. A., 1976, “The Behavior of the Water Vole, Arvicola richardsoni DeKay, with Notes on Growth, Reproduction, and Scent Glands,” M. S. thesis, Syracuse University, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Kodric-Brown, A., and Brown, J. H., 1984, Truth in advertising: The kinds of traits favored by sexual selection, Amer. Nat., 124: 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lidicker, W. Z., Jr., 1980, The social biology of the California vole, Biologist, 62: 46.Google Scholar
  28. Ludwig, D. R., 1984a, Microtus richardsoni, Mammalian Species, 223: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ludwig, D. R., 1984b, Microtus richardsoni microhabitat and life history, Spec. Publ. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist., 10: 319.Google Scholar
  30. Madison, D. M., 1980, Space use and social structure in meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 7: 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Markl, H., 1985, Manipulation, modulation, information, cognition: Some of the riddles of communication, in: “Experimental Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology,” B. Holldobler, and M. Lindauer, eds., Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, M. N., Orlov, V. N., and Skholl, E. D., 1972, On the nomenclature of 46- and 54-chromosome voles of the type Microtus arvalis, Zool. Zh., 51: 157.Google Scholar
  33. Perrigo, G., and Bronson, F. H., 1983, Communication disparities between genetically-diverging populations of deermice, in: “Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 3,” D. Muller-Schwarze, and R. M. Silverstein, eds., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Quay, W. B., 1968, The specialized posterolateral sebaceous glandular regions in microtine rodents, J. Mammal., 49: 427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SAS Institute, Inc., 1982, “SAS Userfs Guide: Basics,” SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  36. Siegel, S., 1956, “Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences,” McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Sokolov, V. E., Aleinikov, P. A., and Zinkevich, E. P., 1984, Chemical communication of mammals: A challenge to a biologist, a semioticist and a chemist, Acta Zool. Fennica, 171: 35.Google Scholar
  38. Vrtis, V., 1929a, The anal glands and the anus of the field-vole (Microtus arvalis [Pall.]), Biol. Spisy, Brno., 8 (11): 1.Google Scholar
  39. Vrtis, V., 1929b, The development of the sebaceous anal glands of the field-vole (Microtus arvalis [Pall.]) and their changes during breeding season and aging, Biol. Spisy, Brno., 8 (12): 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederick J. JannettJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyThe Science Museum of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations