Advertisement

Differential Fertility and Human Evolution

  • James V. Neel
  • William J. Schull

Abstract

Human biological evolution, like evolution in any other species, is ultimately dependent on two phenomena, namely, changes in the gene pool of the species due to genetically based differences in the survival of individuals, and changes due to genetically based differences in reproductive performance. The higher the early mortality rates in a population, and the greater the spread in number of children reared to maturity by those reaching maturity, then the greater the rate at which genetic change can occur, given that there is some genetic basis for either of these phenomena. The truism was more elegantly and more mathematically stated by Fisher (1930) as follows: “The rate of increase in fitness of any organism at any time is equal to its genetic variance in fitness at that time.” This Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection, as he termed it, measures fitness in terms of reproductive value, that is, as the intrinsic rate of increase associated with a given genotype. This intrinsic rate of increase he has called the Malthusian parameter.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berent, J. 1953. Relationship between family sizes of two successive generations. Milbank Mem. Fund Quart., 31:39–50.Google Scholar
  2. For those who feel that with the above “policy” the population will still continue to expand, and that the emphasis should be on a family size of two, we suggest a possible compromise slogan: “Three is all right, but two is better.”Google Scholar
  3. Bresard, M. 1950. Mobilité sociale et dimension de la famille. Population, July-September (3):533–566.Google Scholar
  4. Crow, J. F. 1958. Some possibilities for measuring selection intensities in man. Hum. Biol., 30:1–13.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Crowe, F. W., W. J. Schull, and J. V. Neel. 1956. A CUnical, Pathological and Genetic Study of Multiple Neurofibromatosis. Springfield, Illinois, Charles C Thomas.Google Scholar
  6. Duncan, O. D., R. Freedman, J. M. Coble, and D. P. Slesinger. 1965. Marital fertility and size of family of orientation. Demography, 2:508–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fortes, M. 1954. A demographic field study in Ashanti. In Lorimer, F. ed., Culture and Human Fertility, pp. 253–324. Paris, UNESCO.Google Scholar
  9. Hostetier, H. 1912. Descendants of Jacob Hochstetler. The Immigrant of 1736. Elgin, Illinois, Brethren Publishing House.Google Scholar
  10. Huestis, R. R., and A. Maxwell. 1932. Does family size run in families? J. Hered., 23:77–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Imaizumi, Y., M. Nei, and T. Furusho. 1970. Variability and heritability of human fertility. Ann. Hum. Gent., 33:251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kantner, J. F., and R. G. Potter. 1954. Social and psychological factors affecting fertility. XXIV. The relationship of family size in two successive generations. Milbank Mem. Fund Quart., 32:294–311.Google Scholar
  13. Kirk, D. 1968. Patterns of survival and reproduction in the United States: Implications for selection. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 59:13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mitchell, J. C. 1949. An estimate of fertility in some Yao hamlets in Luwanda District of Southern Nyasaland. Africa, 19:293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moberg, S. 1950. Marital status and family size among matriculated persons in Sweden. Population Studies, 4:115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Neel, J. V. 1970. Lessons from a “primitive” people. Science, 170:815–822.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Neel, J. V. and N. A. Chagnon. 1968. The demography of two tribes of primitive relatively unacculturated American Indians. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 59:680–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pearson, K., and A. Lee. 1899. On the inheritance of fertility in mankind. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, [A], 192:279–290.Google Scholar
  19. Reed, T. E., and J. V. Neel. 1959. Huntington’s chorea in Michigan. 2. Selection and mutation. Amer. J. Hum. Genet., 11:107–136.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Roscoe, J. 1915. The Northern Bantu. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Schull, W. J., T. Furusho, M. Yamamoto, H. Nagano, and I. Komatsu. 1970. The effect of parental consanguinity and inbreeding in Hirado, Japan. IV. Fertility and reproductive compensation. Humangenetik, 9:294–315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schull, W. J., I. Komatsu, H. Nagano, and M. Yamamoto. 1968. Hirado: Temperai trends in inbreeding and fertility. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 59:671–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. 1966. Vital Statistics of the United States, 1964, Volume II, Part A. Washington, D. C, Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Meredith Corporation 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • James V. Neel
    • 1
  • William J. Schull
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Human GeneticsUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations