評(píng)論
打印
Now, it was so bad that this was the headline of the "New York Times" science section, August, 1990.
這件事情的影響如此廣泛，使它成為了《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》1990年8月刊科學(xué)板塊的頭條。
"Mating for Life? It's not for the Birds or the Bees." We had to come up with new definitions.
“終身廝守？鳥類和蜜蜂才不適用。”我們需要想出一個(gè)新的定義。
The situation where an individual would change partners,
鳥類換掉他們的伴侶，
either between breeding seasons or just simply because they didn't like their partner anymore?
要么是發(fā)生在交配的季節(jié)，要么僅僅只因?yàn)樗麄儾辉傧矚g各自的伴侶。
We now call this "serial monogamy." I didn't know it was going to be this funny.
我們現(xiàn)在把它稱作“系列一夫一妻制”。我不知道這個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)這么有趣。
The situation where we know the male and female pair together
我們知道雌雄配對(duì)在一起，
and all the babies belong to both partners? We call that "genetic monogamy."
那么所有的鳥寶寶都屬于這對(duì)父母，我們把它稱作“遺傳性一夫一妻制”。
And we now recognize that it only holds true for about 14 percent of the songbird species,
然而我們現(xiàn)在認(rèn)識(shí)到這個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)，在鳴禽種類中只有14%是正確的，
which we were very certain were truly monogamous. And with this reclassification,
而我們?cè)?jīng)確信這些鳥類是嚴(yán)格的一夫一妻制。隨著這次修正，
we realized that in a lot of those field observations where we saw a male and female sharing a nest,
我們意識(shí)到在野外觀察的大多數(shù)事例中，我們看到的雌雄鳥同居，
comaintaining a territory, even provisioning offspring together,
共同捍衛(wèi)自己的領(lǐng)土，甚至是共同養(yǎng)育后代，
often included a few baby birds that did not belong to the male partner.
這些幼鳥中通常有幾個(gè)不是雄鳥的后代。
We call this "social monogamy." And the mechanism responsible? Extra-pair copulation.
我們把這種情況稱為“社會(huì)性一夫一妻制”。其演化機(jī)制呢？額外配對(duì)。
