Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-4vmf6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T23:03:11.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VI.—The Sex Ratio of the Domestic Fowl and its Bearing upon the Sex‐linked Lethal Theory of Differential Mortality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

F. A. E. Crew
F. A. E. Crew
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh
Get access

Extract

Of the explanations advanced in respect of the observed inequality in the viability and longevity of the sexes in man, the sex‐linked lethal theory advocated by Lenz (1923), Gunther (1923), Geiser (1924–5), Huxley (1924), Schirmer (1929), amongst others, has attracted most support. One reason for this is undoubtedly that it is a genetic theory promulgated at a time when biological thought was being profoundly influenced by the many spectacular discoveries which had been made in this particular science.

Type
Proceedings
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 58 , 1939 , pp. 73 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References to Literature

Byerley, T. C., and Jull, M. A., 1935. “Sex Ratio and Embryonic Mortality in the Domestic Fowl,” Poult. Sci., vol. xiv, pp. 217–220.Google Scholar
Callenbach, E. W., 1929. “The relation of antecedent Egg Production to the Sex Ratio,” Poult. Sci., vol. viii, pp. 230–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crew, F. A. E., 1937. “The Sex Ratio,” Brit. Assoc. Rep., Section D (Zoology), pp. 95–114.Google Scholar
Eaton, O. N., 1937. “A summary of Lethal Characters in Animals and Man,” Journ. Hered., vol. xxviii, pp. 320–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiser, S. W., 1924–5. “The Differential Death‐rate of the Sexes among Animals, with a suggested Explanation,” Wash. Univ. Studies, vol. xii, pp. 73–96.Google Scholar
Gunther, H., 1923. “Letaldispositionen und Sexualdispositionen,” Naturwissensch. Korresp., vol. i, p. 19.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S., 1924. “Sex‐determination and Related Problems,” Med. Sci. Abstr. and Rev., vol. x, pp. 91–124.Google Scholar
Jull, M. A., 1931. “The Sex Ratio in the Domestic Fowl in Relation to Size of Family,” Poult. Sci., vol. x, pp. 125–130.Google Scholar
Landauer, W., and Landauer, A. B., 1931. “Chick Mortality and Sex Ratio in the Domestic Fowl,” Amer. Nat., vol. lxv, pp. 492–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, F., 1923. “Die Uebersterblickhkeit der Knaben in Lichte der Erblich‐Keitslehre,” Arch. Hygiene, vol. xciii, pp. 126–150.Google Scholar
MacArthur, J. W., and Baillie, W. H. T., 1932. “Sex Differences in Mortality in Abraxas‐type Species,” Quart. Rev. Biol., vol. vii, pp. 313–325.Google Scholar
Schirmer, W., 1929. “Uber den Einfluss Geschlechtsgebundener Erbanlagen auf die Säuglingssterblichkeit,” Arch. Rass. Ges. Biol., vol. xxi, pp. 353–393.Google Scholar
Upp, C. W., and Waters, N. F., 1935. “A Sex‐linked Lethal Gene in the Single Comb White Leghorn Fowl,” Poult. Sci., vol. xiv, pp. 372–379.Google Scholar