Skip to main content
Log in

Inheritance of burrow building inPeromyscus

  • Published:
Behavior Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Burrow construction abilities of laboratory-reared oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus), deermice (P. maniculatus), and their F1 hybrids were compared using a spacious earth-filled test chamber. Mated paris with nursing litters were individually introduced into the chamber for 4 days in each test. Oldfield mice bred in metal or plastic cages for 20 or more generations constructed elaborate burrows, with entrance and escape tunnels, tunnel plugs, next chambers, and nests, essentially like those of wild mice of this species. Prairie deermice maintained for 25 or more generations in captivity constructed shallow or superficial burrows characteristic of deermice in nature. F1 hybrids made burrows like those of oldfield mice, complete in all particulars. First-generation backcross animals tested for burrow building exhibited a spectrum of performances. Species difference in burrow construction is principally genetic in origin, and during 20–25 generations in captivity no substantial loss of this ability occurred. F1 hybrid data indicate that the more complex burrow building exhibits genetic dominance, and backcross results show that at least two and probably more gene loci strongly influence the trait.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Blair, W. F. (1950). Ecological factors in speciation ofPeromyscus.Evolution 4:253–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, W. D. (1965). Fertility and size inheritance in aPeromyscus species cross.Evolution 19:44–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFries, J. C., and Hegmann, J. P. (1970). Genetic analysis of open-field behavior. In Lindzey, G., and Theissen, D. D. (eds.)Contributions to Behavior Genetic Anlaysis: The Mouse as a Prototype, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dice, L. R., Barto, E., and Clark, P. J. (1963). Modifications of behavior associated with inherited convulsions or whirling in three strains ofPeromyscus.Anim. Behav. 11:40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, P. (1986). Roman high- and low-avoidance rats: Present status of the Swiss sublines, RHA/Verh and RLA/Verh, and effects of amphetamine on shuttle-box performance.Behav. Genet. 16:355–364.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, J. F. (1963). The intraspecific social behavior of some cricetine rodents of the GenusPeromyscus.Am. Mid. Nat. 69:240–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, G. M. (1981). The Har strains of rats: Origins and characteristics.Behav. Genet. 11:445–468.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayne, D. W. (1936). Burrowing habits ofPeromyscus polionotus.J. Mamm. 17:420–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houtcooper, W. C. (1971). Rodent seed supply and burrows ofPeromyscus in cultivated fields.Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. 81:384–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavanau, J. L. (1967). Behavior of captive white-footed mice.Science 155:1623–1639.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • King, J. A., Price, E. O., and Weber, P. L. (1968). Behavior comparisons within the genusPeromyscus.Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts. Lett. 51:113–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layne, J. N., and Ehrhart, L. M. (1970). Digging behavior of four species of deer mice (Peromyscus).Am. Mus. Novit 2429:1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather, K. (1949).Biometric Genetics, Dover, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reading, A. J. (1966). Effect of the maternal environment on behavior of inbred mice.J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 62:437–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, C. W., and Schwartz, E. R. (1981).The Wild Mammals of Missouri, University of Missouri Press, Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. P., and Fuller, J. L. (1965).Genetics and Social Behavior of the Dog, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, R. L., Appel, S. H., and Fuller, J. L. (1965). Neurological mutants of the mouse.Science 150:513–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. H., and Criss, W. E. (1967). Effect of social behavior, sex, and ambient temperature on the endogenous diel body temperature cycle of the old field mouse,Peromyscus polionotus.Physiol. Zool. 40:31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, R. G. D., and Torrie, J. H. (1960).Principles and Procedures of Statistics, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summer, F. B., and Karol, J. J. (1929). Notes of the burrowing habits ofPeromyscus polionotus.J. Mamm. 10:213–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Abeelen, J. H. F. (1977). Rearing responses and locomotor activity in mice: Single locus control.Behav. Biol. 19:401–404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, D. G., Williams, M. H., Owens, R. D., Geiger, V. B., and Dewsbury, D. A. (1981). Digging behavior in 12 taxa of muroid rodents.Anim. Learn. Behav. 9:173–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitney, G. D. (1969). Vocalization of mice influenced by a single genetic unit effect.J. Hered. 60:337–340.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. L., and Esher, R. J. (1977). Burrowing behavior of oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus): A laboratory investigation.Biol. Behav. 2:343–351.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dawson, W.D., Lake, C.E. & Schumpert, S.S. Inheritance of burrow building inPeromyscus . Behav Genet 18, 371–382 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01260937

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01260937

Key Words

Navigation