In our TREE article [1], the Im:If values provided in Table 1 were unfortunately incorrect. We stated the correct formulae for calculating I in the notes that accompanied Table 1 (i.e., Im = variance in male RS divided by the square of the mean male RS, If = variance in female RS divided by the square of the mean female RS), but gave the incorrect Im:If values due to human error. As these values were not used in any of the analyses, this error does not affect any of the results or conclusions of the article. The correct Im:If values are provided in the table below, and all other values remain unchanged.
Table 1 Mean and variance in reproductive success (RS) of males and females in 18 populations (Nm, number of males; Meanm, mean male lifetime RS; Varm, variance in male RS; Nf, number of females; Meanf, mean female lifetime RS; Varf, variance in female RS; Vm:Vf, ratio of variance in male RS to female RS; Im:If, ratio of the ‘opportunity for selection’ in males and females, where I = variance in RS divided by the square of the mean RS; Refs, reference numbers are provided in the original article)
| Country | Population/ethnic group | Nm | Meanm | Varm | Nf | Meanf | Varf | Vm:Vf | Im:If | Mating system | Refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1745–1900 genealogies | 125 | 3.4 | 6 | 138 | 3.5 | 7.6 | 0.79 | 0.84 | Monogamy | 80 |
| Norway | 1700–1900 genealogies | 955 | 4.7 | 8.5 | 991 | 4.5 | 8.3 | 1.02 | 0.94 | Monogamy | 81 |
| Pitcairn Island | Genealogical records | 145 | 4.6 | 23.6 | 127 | 4.7 | 23.2 | 1.02 | 1.06 | Monogamy | 82 |
| Iran | Yomut Turkmen | 267 | 5.1 | 8.1 | 216 | 3.9 | 7.1 | 1.14 | 0.67 | Polygyny/monandry | 83 |
| Sweden | 1825–1896 genealogies | 1201 | 2.1 | 11.5 | 1050 | 2.4 | 9.7 | 1.18 | 1.55 | Monogamy | 84 |
| Dominica | Local population | 130 | 4.4 | 14.3 | 124 | 5 | 11.6 | 1.23 | 1.59 | Monogamy | 85 |
| Tanzania | Pimbwe | 138 | 6.0 | 9 | 154 | 6.1 | 7.3 | 1.24 | 1.27 | Serial monogamy | 36 |
| USA | General Social Survey | 1099 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 1344 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.27 | 1.28 | Monogamy | 86 |
| Central African Republic | Aka | 29 | 6.3 | 8.6 | 34 | 6.2 | 5.2 | 1.66 | 1.60 | Polygyny/monandry | 87 |
| Botswana | Dobe !Kung | 35 | 5.1 | 8.6 | 62 | 4.7 | 4.9 | 1.77 | 1.49 | Serial monogamy | 34 |
| Tanzania | Hadza | 54 | 4.3 | 9.8 | 44 | 3.6 | 5.1 | 1.93 | 1.35 | Polygyny/serial monandry | 88 |
| Venezuela | Yanomamo | 279 | 3.7 | 10.1 | 380 | 3.4 | 4.4 | 2.30 | 1.94 | Polygyny/monandry | 89 |
| Chad | Dazagada | 44 | 8.6 | 15.0 | 33 | 6.4 | 6.5 | 2.31 | 1.28 | Polygyny/monandry | 90 |
| Chad | Arabs | 23 | 10.3 | 14.4 | 22 | 8.3 | 5.1 | 2.82 | 1.83 | Polygyny/monandry | 90 |
| Brazil | Xavante | 62 | 3.6 | 12.1 | 44 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 3.10 | 3.10 | Polygyny/serial monandry | 39 |
| Kenya | Kipsigis | 82 | 10.9 | 24.4 | 260 | 6.6 | 5.9 | 4.18 | 1.52 | Polygyny/monandry | 91 |
| Paraguay | Ache | 48 | 6.4 | 15.1 | 25 | 7.8 | 3.6 | 4.22 | 6.23 | Serial monogamy | 35 |
| Mali | Dogon | 44 | 6.1 | 10.7 | 48 | 3.2 | 2.3 | 4.75 | 1.28 | Polygyny/serial monandry | 92 |
Reference
- 1.Brown G.R. Bateman's principles and human sex roles. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009;24:297–304. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]