Talk:Polygynandry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polygynandry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Animals Low‑importance

Polygynandry is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Molecular Biology: Genetics C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Page creation

I have changed this page from being redirected to Group Marriage, because it does not fall under that category and is not typically used in reference to humans. Much more work needs to be added to the page and I would appreciate it if whoever adds to it focuses on the animal aspect of the mating system rather than the human aspect (and yes i know humans are technically animals) because there is already considerable discussion as well as numerous pages on the subject of humans and almost nothing in regards to this mating systems in other animals. thanks. Vackley 01:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonobo

I have trouble with the description of bonobo. It appears that polygynandry is "exclusive", and my impression of bonobo society is that it rather was promiscuous, i.e. not exclusive. Sort of like polyamory vis-a-vis swinging, to draw a human parallel. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree - as defined here, this term does not describe the sexual behaviour of bonobos. (One of the sources does say 'bonobos are polygynandrous', but it obviously means something different.) I'm not sure if this is even a notable term at all - are there any reliable sources about it? Robofish (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a case of the word being used in different ways in different places. The only thing even remotely exclusive about bonobo sexual behaviour would be the bit about mothers and sons not engaging in it. Probably someone saw "polygynandry" applied to them and put it here, but it doesn't fit the word as defined in the article. Such word confusion seems to be fairly common in anthropology and primatology (per Sex at Dawn, which discusses numerous examples relating to sex and marriage), very often injecting a bias toward exclusivity. Bonobos are promiscuous, and that's more or less the end of it. Shurhaian (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused

"Polygynandry occurs when two or more males have an exclusive relationship with two or more females."

If there are multiple partners involved, in what sense is it an "exclusive relationship"?

Does it mean that it is a relationship between the overall collection of males (considered as a collective husband) and the overall collection of females (considered as a collective wife) - but the union is between exactly those males and females and so new individuals can't join the relationship? — Smjg (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other animals that qualify

Lions are primarily polygynous, but some larger groups have multiple males that both/all get to mate with the lionesses. National Geographic puts them under the "Polygynandry" mating system rather than polygyny. Cheetahs may also count, as males living in small social groups take advantage of solitary females and take turns copulating. This is possibly an adaption to the extremely low genetic diversity. Heck, a lot of felids are promiscuous enough to qualify. --74.36.132.78 (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, made a mistake. It was BBC nature that classified lions as polygynandrous. 74.36.132.81 (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Example conflicts with definition on numbers

The page starts with "two or more males have an exclusive sexual relationship with two or more females" but gives an example of a thrush where "As many as four males may attend one female and her offspring". Those are in conflict; four males to one female is not 2+ of each. Is the example bad, or the definition? -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bees and ants

They have really polygynandry? My idea is that the male dies after the copulation, sometimes even with his sexual organs attached to the female; seems difficult to males to mate with more than one female. MiguelMadeira (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]