Talk:Infanticide (zoology)

Parental investment

Perhaps it would be good to note that this is again fitted into the Gene-centered view of evolution in that the males of females would not invest in offspring when they suspect cuckoldry. There should be some reference to extra pair mating and infanticide as well. Just some comments for a good start to a needed article. Shyamal 10:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Loss of fitness by female

Please use genders rather than just parent in this article. Also, you should explicate precisely how it is a loss of fitness of the female if she winds up with the same number of genes in the gene-pool, rather than actually losing any. Are there sources on this? Good article so far, a bit of opinion that needs edited out, not much, some ideas need better developed for the lay reader. KP Botany 18:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to use male and female unless it's necessary - for example in the introduction using only male omits the important detail that it is practiced by females as well. If there are any other places where it isn't specific please adjust as necessary. I moved the rape link into the article to avoid a one article see also section, though we don't really have an appropriate article to link to anyway. I've suggested there be a forced copulation article for the practice in animals.

As for fitness, a female is losing her own offspring, which is fairly closely connected with fitness. If she were somehow able to resist infanticide and other females could not, she would tend to propagate those traits by having more offspring than them, which explains false estrous, the extended guarding by the male water beetle etc. Individuals in an infanticide only species or a non-infanticidal species would be no more fit than each other, but an infanticidal male has an advantage over others that are not, and a female with counter-infanticide genes of some form also has an advantage. It's one of those 'tragedy of the commons' style situations that result from natural selection - overall the individuals are no better off, losing infants as well as gaining them. Perhaps I should add some mention of this to the article?

If there are any statements you feel are opinion please quote them here. I've included a few obvious deductions and generalizations to tie things into a coherent article, but many statements which might appear to be the opinion of the writer are often taken straight from the literature, e.g. 'It seems rather that males are more successful in avoiding infanticidal females when they are out of the water with their eggs, which might well explain the ultimate cause of this behavior.' is basically just a rewording of the conclusion of Dr. Ichikawa. I could add some citations in such cases if needed, though it gets tedious to keep citing the same paper at the end of every sentence, so I generally included them only once or twice in a more 'blanket' fashion. Much of it is based on Alcock as well, which I used as a primary reference and in which over half of the examples used are given.

The filial cannibalism definitely needs the most development, both in terms of more material and explaining the advantage of such behavior. Richard001 01:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Can this Easter creation be incorporated here - Egg tossing (behavior). Does not seem to be enough there for a distinct topic/article? Shyamal (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's too specific to merge here, but an article on ovicide/infanticide and siblicide in birds would be suitable. Someone would have to create one though. The book by Hausfater and Hrdy has a chapter on the subject. Richard001 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

important info

See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/killer-instinct.html --Espoo (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Would a section on abortion be relevant here?

Or is there a separate article for animals that deliberately destroy the fetus? It seems like it would be relevant but likely to cause problems because people might argue that abortion is not "infanticide", although the principle remains the same, and the morality of the action should have no place in a zoological article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.67.84 (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead image is not specific

The lead image is of a group of lions. However, they are not performing infanticide. I think a photo of animals performing infanticide might be beyond the acceptance of most readers, however, perhaps the "Ethology" box should be the lead image.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)