Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T22:16:44.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Age of the Grandparent at the Birth of the Parent on the Number of Children born and their Sex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

R. J. Ewart
R. J. Ewart
Affiliation:
(From the Statistical Department of the Lister Institute.)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It has been already shown by Darwin and others that reproduction is a function of environment and that unfavourable conditions of life are likely to increase the number of seeds formed or offspring produced; hence so many are reproduced that the chance of the species being perpetuated is maintained, despite the unfavourable conditions for survival. To extend this idea, and say that a dying species tends to reproduce faster than one actively evolving, is a suggestion worthy of enquiry. It has been argued that the varying birth rates in man may to some extent reflect the future biological possibilities of his race. In so far as all environments are really functions of time, or, to put it another way, we measure the nature of an environment by the length of time it takes to produce a certain result, it is quite a natural sequence to consider the effect of time, that is, age on fertility. Dr Matthews Duncan and others have dealt with the immediate effect of time, that is personal age, and the question of the transmitted effect, if any, remains to be considered. If the idea that a species which is dying out tends to reproduce more rapidly, holds good for man, then our previous finding, that the later born do not on the average live so long as the earlier born, would suggest that they might possess as compensation an enhanced fertility. To solve this problem we must correlate the number of offspring produced by each unit with the age of the parents when he or she was born, the reproductive period being made constant.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , July 1915 , pp. 127 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1915

References

REFERENCES

Darwin, C.The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. London, ii. 1905.Google Scholar
Darwin, C.Origin of Species. London, 1872. 6th edition.Google Scholar
Duncan, M.Fecundity, Fertility, Sterility and Allied Topics. Edinburgh, 1866.Google Scholar
Heron, D.On the Relation of Fertility in Man to Social Status, etc. Drapers' Company Memoir, 1906.Google Scholar
Pearson, K., Lee, and Bramley, Moore. Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution. Reproductive Genetic Selection. Inheritance of Fertility, etc. Phil. Trans. cxcil. 1899.Google Scholar
Prinzing, F.Handbuch der medizinischen Statistik. Jena, 1906, chaps, II and III.Google Scholar
Spencer, H.Principles of Biology, ii. 1899, London.Google Scholar
Williams, L.Obstetrics. New York, 1904, chap. I.Google Scholar
Yule, G. U.On the Changes in the Marriage and Birth Rates. Journ. Royal Statis. Soc. 1906.Google Scholar
Annuaire Statistique de Paris 1901–1902 and 11.Google Scholar
Auerbach, Elias. Das wahre Geschlechtsverhältniss des Menschen. Arch. für Rassen und Gesellschafts Biologie, 1914, ix. p. 10.Google Scholar
Bertillon, J. De la mortalité par âge avant la naissance. Rev. d' Hyg., Paris, 1893, xv. pp. 535–552.Google Scholar
Cobb, J. A.The effects of errors of observation on the correlation coefficient. Biometrika, 1908, vi. p. 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, J. A.The Problem of the Sex Ratio. Eugenics Review, vi. No. 2, p. 157.Google Scholar
Düsing, K. Die Factoren welche die Sexualität entscheiden. Jenaische Ztschr. f. Natur., Jena, 1883, n. f. ix. pp. 428–464.Google Scholar
Geissler, J. Beiträge zur Frage des Geschlechtsverhältniss der Geborenen. Ztschr. des K. Sächs. Statist. Bureaus, Dresden, 1889, i. p. 24.Google Scholar
Gottstein, A.Beiträge zu dem Problem des Geburtenüberschusses der Knaben. Ztschr. f. Hyg. u. Infectionskrank. Leipzig, 1897, xxvi. pp. 337–352.Google Scholar
Heape, W.The proportion of the sexes produced by the whites and coloured peoples in Cuba. Proc. Roy. Soc. 1909, lxxxi. B. pp. 32–37.Google Scholar
Heape, W.Phil. Trans. Lond. 1909, B. cc. pp. 271–330.Google Scholar
Heron, D.On Inheritance of Sex Ratio. Biometrika, 1906, v. p. 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heron, D.Inheritance of Sex Ratio in the thoroughbred Racehorse. Biometrika, 1908, vi. p. 120.Google Scholar
Korosy, J. Neue Beiträge zur Sexualproportion der Geburten. Bull. de l' Inst. internat. de Statist., Berlin, 1905, xiv. livr. iv. pp. 8–18.Google Scholar
Lewis, A.Variation in Masculinity. Jour. Inst. Act. 1906, xl. p. 154.Google Scholar
Newcomb, S.The Probability of Causes of the Production of Sex in Human Offspring. Baltimore Press, 1904.Google Scholar
Newsholme, A., and Stevenson, T. H. C.The Decline of Human Fertility, etc. Jour. Roy. Stat. Soc. lxix. 1906.Google Scholar
Pearson, K.On Heredity in Sex. Remarks on Mr Cobb's note. Biometrika, 1908, vi. p. 109.Google Scholar
Prinzing, F.Handbuch der medizinischen Statistik. Jena, 1906, pp. 41–63.Google Scholar
Punnett, R. C.On Nutrition and Sex Determination in Man. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 1903, xii. p. 262.Google Scholar
Rauber, A.Der Ueberschuss an Knaben-Geburten und seine biologisehe Bedeutung. Leipzig, 1900.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, S.Die Sexualproportion in Oesterreich in den Jahren 1895 und 1896. Wien. Med. Bl. 1900, xxiii. pp. 634–637.Google Scholar
Sadler, W. T.The Law of Population. London, 1830.Google Scholar
Statistique Générale de la France. Imprimerie nationale, 1912. Statistique des Families en 1906, p. 57.Google Scholar
Weinberg, W.Zur Bedeutung der Mehrlings Geburten für die Frage der Bestimmung des Geschlechts. Arch. f. Rassen Biologie, 1909, vi. p, 28.Google Scholar
Woods, F. A.On Inheritance of Sex in Man. Biometrika, 1906, iv. p. 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar