[Babase] Vumbi consort data in interact and parts
Jeanne Altmann
babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:45:44 -0500
--=====================_245505718==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I like the idea of having a 'sub-adult by' category if it is readily done
and assuming it will only be used in a small number of cases.
Over the next year, we should probably update our knowledge of evidence on
timing of production of viable sperm, also see if our hormonal data become
useful in this regard. Perhaps Laurence or Patrick will want to check that
out soon, or Nelle for her sr thesis.
From a paternity standpoint, what is the current estimation of males being
dads and yet not seen as consorts? not having reached first consort?
jeanne
At 12:29 PM 2/23/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Thanks for the update on this.
>
>Leaving the rule as 4 years does risk including males that are, say, 4.2
>years and don't have enlarged testes in the consort records. And it will
>also risk EXcluding Lodge Group males that consort at 3.8 years and do
>have enlarged testes. However, neither of these is very likely as we've
>seen from the data -- males just really don't consort until they are big
>enough to fight other males, regardless of whether they have testes --
>very occassionally a juv male will "practice" consorting but we can filter
>most of those out in the field with the 4 year rule. So the overal error
>rate we are talking about with the 4-yr rule is very small.
>
>However, in principle I like the suggestion of including males in the MCE
>records only after their matured date -- this is conceptually cleaner. The
>problem with this currently is that males who immigrate as subadults or
>adults don't have matured dates but do consort, so there is no easy filter
>to create in babase to insure that only males with enlarged testes get
>included.
>
>POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION: We could institute a plan of having not only
>an "adult by" date for each male in biograph but also a "subadult by"
>date -- we've discussed the first but not the second. This would make it
>easy to create the necessary filter. Perhaps we should do so when Karl
>arrives here today or tomorrow.
>
>S
>
>
>
>>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:
>
>
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Susan Alberts, Assistant Professor
>Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham NC 27708
>phone 919-660-7272 fax 919-660-7293
--=====================_245505718==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
<body>
I like the idea of having a 'sub-adult by' category if it is readily done
and assuming it will only be used in a small number of cases.<br><br>
Over the next year, we should probably update our knowledge of evidence
on timing of production of viable sperm, also see if our hormonal data
become useful in this regard. Perhaps Laurence or Patrick will want
to check that out soon, or Nelle for her sr thesis.<br><br>
From a paternity standpoint, what is the current estimation of males
being dads and yet not seen as consorts? not having reached first
consort?<br><br>
jeanne<br><br>
At 12:29 PM 2/23/2004 -0500, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Thanks for the update on
this.<br><br>
Leaving the rule as 4 years does risk including males that are, say, 4.2
years and don't have enlarged testes in the consort records. And it will
also risk EXcluding Lodge Group males that consort at 3.8 years and do
have enlarged testes. However, neither of these is very likely as
we've seen from the data -- males just really don't consort until they
are big enough to fight other males, regardless of whether they have
testes -- very occassionally a juv male will "practice"
consorting but we can filter most of those out in the field with the 4
year rule. So the overal error rate we are talking about with the 4-yr
rule is very small.<br><br>
However, in principle I like the suggestion of including males in the MCE
records only after their matured date -- this is conceptually cleaner.
The problem with this currently is that males who immigrate as subadults
or adults don't have matured dates but do consort, so there is no easy
filter to create in babase to insure that only males with enlarged testes
get included.<br><br>
<b>POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION:</b> We could institute a plan of having not
only an "adult by" date for each male in biograph but
also a "subadult by" date -- we've discussed the first but not
the second. This would make it easy to create the necessary filter.
Perhaps we should do so when Karl arrives here today or
tomorrow.<br><br>
S<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Hi all,<br><br>
Susan, the two males younger than 4 that have Cs in Interact are PNT c
SUM on<br>
6/2/81 and VUM c HEI on 29/3/87 (the one that Karen emailed about).
PNT's consort<br>
date in Biograph does NOT reflect this consort - his consort date is
9/2/86. VUM<br>
does not yet have a consort date in Biograph.<br><br>
Jeanne asked me to check the age at maturation for males to see if any
matured<br>
before age 4. There were 5 males that reached testicular
enlargement before age 4<br>
- all from Lodge group. In fact, when the males are ordered by age
at maturation,<br>
the first 16 are all from Lodge. The youngest non-Lodge male to
mature was WEU at<br>
age 4.4. Should the rule for inclusion in MCEs be that the males
should be 4 years<br>
old or have reached testicular enlargement, whichever comes
first?<br><br>
The five that reached testicular enlargement before age 4 did NOT come up
in the<br>
query I did of males with MCEs before age 4 - in other words, none of the
males<br>
that had MCEs before age 4 in Interact were in there because they had
already<br>
reached maturation.<br><br>
Jeanne checked the monitoring guide about the age at which males are
females are<br>
first put on the maturational check sheets. It currently says that
both males and<br>
females should start being checked at age 4 - there is nothing that
indicates that<br>
individuals from Lodge or other such groups should start being checked at
age 3.<br>
Do you want to add this?<br><br>
So I will go ahead and delete all MCEs where the males were not yet age
4, or the<br>
females had not yet reached menarche. We can decide about the rules
for inclusion<br>
in MCEs, whether this is added to the valinter program, or done as
periodic checks<br>
like this.<br><br>
Daphne<br>
Susan Alberts wrote:</blockquote><br>
<br>
<pre>--
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>
Susan Alberts, Assistant Professor <br>
Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham NC 27708 <br>
phone 919-660-7272 fax 919-660-7293</blockquote></body>
</html>
--=====================_245505718==.ALT--