Table 6.

Comparison of allocare trends across hunter–gatherer societies

Populationa	Subadultsb	Unrelated	Siblings	Father	Grandmothers
Agta	54	32	29	17	2
BaYaka (Mbendjele)	54	30	32	10	8
Efec	56	34	32	10	4
BaYaka (Aka)d	NA	NA	30	11	15
Hadzae	62	40	28	19	10
Martuf	NA	NA	7g	3	21
!Kungh	NA	NA	NA	17	NA
Mean (Median)	56.5 (55)	34.0 (33.0)	26.3 (29.5)	12.4 (11)	10 (9)

Entries represent aggregate allomaternal contributions provided by each category of allomother.

^aSources cited either present the figures shown here or provide the data required to calculate the figures shown here. Details of how the calculations were conducted can be found in the supplementary material.

^bA subadult can also be a sibling or an unrelated campmate, hence row totals can exceed 100%.

^cIvey (2000).

^dHelfrecht et al. (2020).

^eThe Hadza data on the allomaternal contributions of siblings, fathers and grandmothers are from Marlowe (2005b). However, Marlowe (2005b) does not present the data required to calculate the contributions of unrelated and subadult allomothers. Therefore, the figures for unrelated and subadult allomothers are derived from a study that specifically examined which allomothers spent time holding infants and toddlers (Crittenden & Marlowe, 2008).

^fScelza (2009), as summarised in Kramer (2010).

^gThe author highlights that the low sibling contribution may be an underestimate resulting from features of the specific sample in the study – 40% of the focal children were first-borns and another 30% had no siblings over the age of five.

^hKruger and Konner (2010). This study did not examine all forms of allocare, rather it specifically focused on which allomothers respond to infant crying.