[Babase] Vumbi consort data in interact and parts

Daphne Onderdonk babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:53:49 -0500


Hi all,

Susan, the two males younger than 4 that have Cs in Interact are PNT c SUM on
6/2/81 and VUM c HEI on 29/3/87 (the one that Karen emailed about).  PNT's consort
date in Biograph does NOT reflect this consort - his consort date is 9/2/86.  VUM
does not yet have a consort date in Biograph.

Jeanne asked me to check the age at maturation for males to see if any matured
before age 4.  There were 5 males that reached testicular enlargement before age 4
- all from Lodge group.  In fact, when the males are ordered by age at maturation,
the first 16 are all from Lodge.  The youngest non-Lodge male to mature was WEU at
age 4.4.  Should the rule for inclusion in MCEs be that the males should be 4 years
old or have reached testicular enlargement, whichever comes first?

The five that reached testicular enlargement before age 4 did NOT come up in the
query I did of males with MCEs before age 4 - in other words, none of the males
that had MCEs before age 4 in Interact were in there because they had already
reached maturation.

Jeanne checked the monitoring guide about the age at which males are females are
first put on the maturational check sheets.  It currently says that both males and
females should start being checked at age 4 - there is nothing that indicates that
individuals from Lodge or other such groups should start being checked at age 3.
Do you want to add this?

So I will go ahead and delete all MCEs where the males were not yet age 4, or the
females had not yet reached menarche.  We can decide about the rules for inclusion
in MCEs, whether this is added to the valinter program, or done as periodic checks
like this.

Daphne


Susan Alberts wrote:

> Thanks Daphne,
>
> Yes that rule must have changed or gotten put in place around the
> time I started working on the project so I am fuzzy on the details.
> My view is that the Consortships should definitely be deleted if the
> male is less than 4, as we use first consortship as a maturational
> marker and having false "C"s in the records just confuses things.  I
> didn't know there were actually two of these -- can you just tell me
> who so that I can make sure it hasn't been taking as a real C date?
> I'm sure I would have picked up on it but let's be careful anyway.
>
> My inclination would be to also remove the M's where males were not
> yet 4 or females not yet reached menarche especially as they are
> currently idiosyncratic -- i.e. only collected for a limited time
> period and not any longer.  Let's leave it that we will delete these
> unless Jeanne thinks otherwise --
>
> And yes, do go ahead and delete the m-m and f-f MCEs.
>
> Thanks again for your careful tending of the data.
>
> Susan
>
> >Hello all,
> >
> >This got me doing more querying...  I checked Interact and Parts for
> >MCEs where
> >the females hadn't reached menarche, or the males were not yet 4 years old.
> >There are only 10 where the female has not reached menarche - all Ms.  All are
> >from the late 70s and early 80s.  Should these be deleted?
> >
> >There are lots more where the male is not yet 4 years old (421 to be exact).
> >They are mostly from the late 70s and early 80s, with only a handful from the
> >late 80s and early 90s.  Did the rule about recording only males over 4 and
> >females that have reached menarche change somewhere along the way?  Only 2 of
> >these are consorts (the one Karen found and one other).  Should
> >these be deleted?
> >
> >Haven't heard back about deleting the male-male or female-female MCEs - if I
> >don't hear otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete these.
> >
> >Daphne
> >
> >Karen Drysdale wrote:
> >
> >>  Hello Babase Mailing List,
> >>
> >>  Dear Daphne,
> >>
> >>  We have a record of VUM c HEI on the 29/3/87.  Vum was only 3.5
> >>yrs of age at
> >>  this date.  This data point should not have been collected and
> >>Susan wants it
> >>  deleted.  Any comments?
> >>
> >>  Thanks,
> >>
> >>  Karen Drysdale
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  Babase mailing list
> >>  Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
> >>  http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Babase mailing list
> >Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
> >http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Susan Alberts, Assistant Professor
> Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham NC 27708
> phone 919-660-7272  fax 919-660-7293
> _______________________________________________
> Babase mailing list
> Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
> http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase