Talk:Animal sexual behaviour/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Sexual verses reproductive

It seems to me the distinction should be kept clear between sexual behaviour and reproductive behaviour. The Oxford Dictionary defines them this way:

• Sexual: "relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals".[1]
• Reproductive: "relating to or effecting reproduction".[2]

Perhaps there could be a sister article to this one called something like Animal reproductive behaviour. Some behaviours would cross over into both articles, for example, some aspects of cuckoldry could be regarded as sexual strategies, while others could be regarded as reproductive strategies. Might the current section titled "Mating systems" be better renamed and refocused as "Sexual strategies"? There is a somewhat sketchy article called Reproduction. If that is meant to be a general article, it should be expanded to include things like the reproduction of plants, bacteria and archaea and the self-replication of robots. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

An Animal reproductive behaviour article would be an unnecessary WP:Content fork since animal sexual behaviour, when in the context of non-human animals, so often means animal reproductive behaviour, as we've discussed higher up on the talk page. When non-human animal sexual behavior is discussed, it is usually in terms of reproductive behavior; that can quite adequately be covered in the Animal sexual behaviour article, as it has been for years. We have the Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals article for animal sexual behavior that is not reproductive. And we have other WP:Spinout articles for other non-human animal sexual topics. WP:Spinout articles should ideally only be created when necessary. And like the Point of view (POV) forks section of WP:Content fork states, "Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In other words, we should not be unnecessarily causing our readers to go to more than one article when they can get that information in one article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't see what is sketchy about the Reproduction article, unless it's the Same-sex reproduction section that needs better sources. That article does include discussion of the reproduction of plants and bacteria. But as for the self-replication of robots? WP:Undue weight comes into play on the robot aspect; reproduction does not usually refer to robots. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to respond to what I say Flyer, please read what I said. Your response entirely misses the point. Some sexual behaviour is related to reproductive behaviour but much is not, and vica versa. For example, a lot of reproductive behaviour is to do with nurture. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The only inappropriate response in this section is your "21:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)" response. I read your comment and I comprehended it. And it still stands that an Animal reproductive behaviour article would be an unnecessary WP:Content fork; the Animal sexual behaviour and the Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals articles are clear that it would be. If you are going to respond to me, then leave your hostility regarding our disputes at WP:Anatomy and WP:Animal anatomy off this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving on: I will turn to sources for what I mean. I stated above, "When non-human animal sexual behavior is discussed, it is usually in terms of reproductive behavior." That is true. This is not a matter of "[s]ome sexual behaviour [being] related to reproductive behaviour"; it's about the fact that the term sexual behavior, when used in reference to non-human animals, is usually discussed in terms of reproductive behavior. And it's because of that fact that having an Animal reproductive behaviour article would be substantially redundant to the Animal sexual behaviour article. But when it comes to making a distinction between sexual behaviour and reproductive behaviour, the lead and lower parts of the Animal sexual behaviour article are clear that not all animal sexual behaviour is reproductively motivated. Some sources showing what I mean regarding the term sexual behavior usually being discussed in the context reproductive behavior when it comes to non-human animals are the following:

This Encyclopedia of Animal Science (Print) source from CRC Press, 2004, page 101, states, "Animal scientists study reproductive behavior for a variety of reasons, including seeking tools for obtaining direct economic benefit through improved reproductive performance. Learning how reproductive behavior develops and is regulated affords the ability to facilitate the expression of sexual behavior, a goal in many breeding systems." The source goes on to discuss a lot more reproductive behavior, often simply titling the activity "sexual behavior" or "sexual performance."

This Hormones and Reproduction of Vertebrates, Volume 1 source from Academic Press, 2010, page 119, states, "In species with sexual reproduction, 'sexual behavior' may be generally defined as the set of behavioral acts directed towards the goal of producing offspring [...] Classifying these behavioral acts into categories can be useful for descriptive purposes but in fishes the diversity of sexual displays challenges this classification."

This Motivation: Theory, Research, and Application source from Cengage Learning, 2012, page 24, states, "Some might argue that sexual motivation is not as important as the previously mentioned analysis suggests because many animals engage in sexual behavior only rarely, and sexual behavior usually occurs only when the female is receptive. These points, however, really show just the opposite; that is, reproduction is so important that the behaviors leading to impregnation must be reserved to those times when they are most likely to produce offspring. As Emilie Rissman (1995) notes, mammals evolved in the tropics when sexual receptivity tends to be year round, but researchers most often study animals that live in temperature zones where seasonal changes in temperature, food, and so forth make successful reproduction more likely at certain times of the year than at others. As a result of these seasonal changes, it is thought that cyclic sexual receptivity evolved to restrict sexual behavior to those times when successful reproduction was most likely to occur."

This The Encyclopædia of Sexual Behaviour, Volume 1 source from Elsevier, 2013, page 132, states, "Sexual behavior is one of the most basic and important types of social behavior, being directly associated with the process of reproduction. The most essential part of the process is, of course, the union of egg and sperm, in which the sperm moves toward and makes a connection with the egg." The source goes on to discuss a lot more animal sexual behavior, especially in the context of reproduction.

And as a bonus for wider discussion on the topic, this Comparative Psychology: A Handbook source from Taylor & Francis, 1998, discusses different sexual/reproductive systems. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Epipelagic that we need to keep the two terms distinct. To my mind, reproductive behaviour includes many other behaviours such as nest building, parenting, familial co-operation, social bonding, etc; sexual behaviour is a subset of reproductive behaviour. I rather dislike the Oxford Dictionary definition though....any definition which states or hints that a behaviour is largely (exclusively) instinctive should always be viewed critically.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Keeping the terms distinct is one thing; creating an unnecessary article is another. Per what I stated above, there is no need for an Animal reproductive behaviour article, and that article would indeed be a WP:Content fork; if it were created, I would seek to have it WP:Merged with the Animal sexual behaviour article exactly per what I have stated above. I would do that by starting a wide-scale WP:RfC, contacting all of the relevant WikiProjects and listing various sources to prove my point. Either way, we should be going by the sources, such as what the sources I listed above state. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, if one wants to state that sexual behaviour is a subset of reproductive behaviour, the reverse is obviously true -- reproductive behaviour is a subset of sexual behaviour. There are various sources stating the reverse, usually in the context of human sexuality, since, as I've been clear about, the sexual behavior of non-human animals is usually discussed in terms of reproduction. But I haven't seen as many sources making the case that sexual behaviour is a subset of reproductive behaviour. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

On second thought: If an Animal reproductive behaviour article were created and showed itself as significantly distinct from the Animal sexual behaviour article, I would be okay with its creation. I still don't feel that such an article is needed, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, I think what we need is to have a clear concept of what we want in this article, and stick to it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying Petter, and what it is that you agree with. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried (clumsily) to imply that the lede should start by saying what the article is about, and then stick narrowly to that. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sex for pleasure

The material in this subsection is all about normal reproductive behavior, but it's currently classified as "less common" and "non-reproductive". Since pleasure is a normal component and motivation for reproductive sexual behaviour, and not a type of behavior itself, I propose renaming the "Neurochemistry and hormones" section to "Motivations" and moving this subsection there. KateWishing (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to be extremely careful here. This is discussing emotions in animals which is fraught with difficulties. I think many people would accept that at least some mammalian species experience a positive emotion ("pleasure") from sexual behaviour (reproductive or not). However, you can not be certain that other animals (including other humans) experience emotions in the same way you do. Furthermore, where do we "draw the line" in the purported experience of "pleasure"? Do mating birds experience the same emotions as mammals? Do mating insects experience "pleasure"? Does a male fish shedding sperm into the water experience "pleasure"? If we are to go down this line we will need to be very sure of what we state. In the first instance, this must be better than verifying the subject-matter with a dead link to a source which looks like it is written in Dutch.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether we can get some good sources. The latest thinking seems to favour the "pleasure principle" as put forward by Paul Vasey (see here) at least for higher vertebrates. Ideally, we should have some pro- and contra literature to show that is is not a settled question. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that straight away, I would be asking "what are higher vertebrates?" and how do we know that their affective states differ from other vertebrates and invertebrates?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Ideally we'd want proper secondary sources. However, the field has mover quite fast, so we may have to use primary sources or interviews like the one I just posted.

DrChrissy, you caught me there. I was intentionally vague. To my knowledge (and this is not my area of expertise) almost all research of sex-as-pleasurable is centred on birds and mammals. By the logic of phylogenetic bracketing, if sex is nice for birds and mammals, it should be so for reptiles too. The brain anatomy of amphibians are quite similar to reptiles, so whatever goes on in their brains is likely to also go in in amphibian brains. The problems is that the only things we actually know (or at least can gone an informed opinion on) is birds and mammals. I don't know the field well enough to say anything about fish, and the brain architecture is so different in arthropods and molluscs to say anything definite. As for other chordates and other deutrostomes, the brain is more or less absent in the adult animal, and they tend to be indiscriminate spawners.

Sorry to catch you on the hop - having worked with a range of animal species and their emotions for many years, it is often the first question I ask. I am not convinced by the idea of comparing brain architecture and deciding that because brains are different, one animal can not have the same experience as another. This is like comparing sense organs. Consider the compound eye of insects. It has virtually no structures resembling the mammalian eye, but would we argue that insects can not see? The compound eye is an analagous structure to the mammalian eye. It is entirely possible that many animals other than the handful of animals studied regarding pleasure have analagous brain architecture which means they can experience pleasure. It might be worth looking at Pain in invertebrates.

Edit: This article seems relevant and is fairly new: http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/S0168-1591(09)00048-3/abstract. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the section should include the varied views of reliable sources, but I'm not seeing any reason to leave it classified as a non-reproductive, uncommon type of behavior. It's a proposed motivation for reproductive, common behavior. I'll move the section and expand it with other sources, like the one Petter provided. KateWishing (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@KateWishing. Unfortunately, your last edit has muddied the waters here. You were correct in saying as the very first part of this thread that this section was "all about normal reproductive behaviour". I agree, and the section at that moment should have been moved. However, you have now introduced non-reproductive sexual behaviour in this section. I am not disagreeing that "pleasure" probably motivates a dog to hump your leg, but I am saying we need to differentiate between these behaviours. The problem here is that pleasure probably motivates both reproductive mating and leg-humping. When a male dog mates with a female bitch, it is not motivated by thinking "I need to do this to pass on my genes and ensure my maximum level of biological fitness". Animals have evolved to behave in response to proximate stimuli, so the mating dog is responding to the smell of the female, the sight of her presenting herself, etc; not the long-term function of reproduction. Being capabile of experiencing pleasure is likely to have a very low cost to the animal, but it is an extremely powerful motivator. As such, I believe that experiencing pleasure as a consequence of mating is an ideal way of motivating the behaviour. The humping dog probably experiences a similar, if not identical, emotional state, but this, for whatever reason, is divorced from the function of reproduction and therefore needs to be discussed separately. Let's remember, not every dog humps legs, but almost every (entire) dog will mate a bitch in estrus.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it needs to be discussed separately. The article is about all sexual behavior, not only reproductive behavior. Anyway, the source for that statement is not specific to non-reproductive behavior; he just cites masturbation as the most convincing evidence that genital stimulation is pleasurable, which extends to all sexual behavior. KateWishing (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess what I am saying is that I do not see why this article should be about all sexual behaviour. Coverage of minor instances or subsets of behaviour need to be balanced or elsewehere. For instance, the article Aggression mentions rape only once and murder only twice. The article Courtship does not mention either rape or homosexualty. The article Mating does not mention rape or homosexuality. I did not have to look hard to find these and they are not "cherry-picked". By the way, I was using masturbation as a generic term for non reproductive sexual behaviour. Sorry to cause confusion.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the sentence: "Jonathan Balcombe argues that the prevalence of non-reproductive sexual behavior in certain species suggests that sexual stimulation is pleasurable." The conclusion is not about non-reproductive behavior, it's that "sexual stimulation is pleasurable". It only mentions non-reproductive behavior in order to make a general point about sex, reproductive or not. In my opinion, this article should focus on reproductive sex, but not to the extent that we're forbidden from even acknowledging other kinds outside of a ghettoized section. KateWishing (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. I would not for one moment consider that the more unusual or less common aspects of sexual behaviour should not be mentioned on here, it is just that at the moment, there is undue weight on these.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Angus John Bateman

The article conspicuously omits Bateman's principle, likely the single most fundamental theory governing sexual behaviour in animals. Any reason it is omitted? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes Bateman's principle governing reproductive success is important and should certainly be included somewhere. As should these key modes of reproduction which I would like to include somewhere. But it is difficult to establish any coherent balance and focus for the article unless we are allowed to achieve some clarification of the "sexual verses reproductive" issue I attempted to raise above. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Epiplagic here. I have become increasingly frustrated with the development of this article because there seems to be a resistance to the idea that most sexual behaviour in animals has a function - the passing of genes from one generation to another. Yes there are studies out there (many of which are case studies or of extremely dubious quality) saying dogs hump legs, but these are diluting this extremely important article. We have not touched on the wonderful courtship behaviour of so many animals, the difference between animals in their mating behaviour, or the titilating facts such as the average orgasm of a domestic boar last 9.5 mins and he produces 1.5 litres of semen. I am strongly of the mind to move this non-reproductive information to Non-reproductive sexual behaviour in animals. We can then get rid of the case-studies, headlines written by incompetent news-reporters, zoo blogs, comments by a Dutch committee with only 2 experts on it and which nobody can link to, and get on with writing an encyclopaedic article without undue weight on "unusualities"__DrChrissy (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As was stated in the #Abnormal animal sexual behaviour section above, non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals should be included in the Animal sexual behaviour article, but the vast majority of it should be in the article specifically about that topic -- Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention the modes of reproduction more than in passim, we're after the behaviour that follow from them, rather than reproduction modes themselves. We'll need to include things like spermatophores in salamanders and scorpions, spawning (already mentioned under "Seasonality") etc.

Non-reproductive sexual behaviour: I think it would work if we had a chapter on the "Pleasure principle", and there mention things like sex-as-social glue, sex-as-apeacement, masturbation etc. Quite a bit of sex-as-social glue shouold go under the "monogamy" heading. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

move "Less common non-reproductive sexual behaviour"

It seems to me that the information contained in "Less common non-reproductive sexual behaviour" in this article should be moved to Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals with only a brief summary here and of course a link.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't be too brief, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: The section used to be called "Types of activity", but someone added "less common" to the section title. Is the new section title based on original research, or has it been verified that all of these behaviors are "less common"? Jarble (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Placement of the Rape (sexual coercion) section

I meant to address this two or three days ago: The Rape section is currently placed as a subsection of the Less common sexual behaviours section. How do we know that rape (sexual coercion) is a less common sexual behavior among non-human animals? Read the Sexual coercion article and other texts on this topic, and it's easy to see that sexual coercion is very common among non-human animals...for the reasons that the lead of the Sexual coercion article currently states. Furthermore, given that the term rape is usually used in reference to humans (as a legal term) and not non-human animals, the Rape section should be titled Sexual coercion instead; titling it that would also obviously match the "Main article" link that that's there. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I would solve this by changing "Less common sexual behaviours" back to "Types of activity." Coercion, hermaphroditism, cuckoldry, sexual cannibalism, non-reproductive acts, etc. are all normal for many species. Most sexual behaviors (e.g., monogamy or vivipary) are "uncommon" in the sense that they occur in a minority of species, so I don't see a reason to segregate only these (without any source for their prevalence). KateWishing (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I have been trying to arrange these behaviours according to their commonality in the animal kingdom. But, there is often insufficient detail out there to make even an educated guess as to the commonality or frequency. For example, I suspect that hermaphroditism is perhaps the most frequent, given the number of invertebrates that are hermaphrodites. My question is where do we put topics such as Pavlovian Conditioning, which is largely brought about by human activites, and viewing panda porn? Suggestions are welcome.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

To avoid undue emphasis, perhaps we could remove the headers for "Prostitution", "Pavlovian conditioning" and "Viewing images", and combine them as "Other". KateWishing (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea to me!__DrChrissy (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Jarble, what you stated above is being discussed in section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Animal sexual behaviour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110514183645/http://www.mpg.de/1028786/W001_Biology-Medicine_062_067.pdf to http://www.mpg.de/1028786/W001_Biology-Medicine_062_067.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/fileadmin/downloads/Pressemeddelelser2006/d.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/fileadmin/downloads/Pressemeddelelser2006/d.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/fileadmin/downloads/Pressemeddelelser2006/d.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Animal sexual behaviour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070312214507/http://www.jm.dk:80/image.asp?page=image&objno=76595 to http://www.jm.dk/image.asp?page=image&objno=76595

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Animal sexual behaviour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121023202525/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1980376.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1980376.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Stags fighting" as an example of a sexual behavior

In this revision by User:DrChrissy, "stags fighting" was given as an example of a sexual behavior, although this description seems counter-intuitive. Is the description still accurate, and are there any WP:reliable sources that we can cite in order to verify it? Jarble (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is common knowledge that stags fight during the rut when they compete for access to females. Perhaps the caption needs re-wording. Is this what you think should have an RS? DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal sexual behaviour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128024605/http://www.mind.duke.edu/files/sites/platt/pub/2341148909.pdf to http://www.mind.duke.edu/files/sites/platt/pub/2341148909.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gayprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-A-Subs-4.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=3&rnd=452.5414171644969

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal sexual behaviour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319031546/http://www.catcollection.org/files/PenileSpines.pdf to http://www.catcollection.org/files/PenileSpines.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sexual coercion

The #Sexual coercion section mentions many things not mentioned in the Sexual coercion main article. Please add them there too. Jidanni (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Genetic evidence of interspecies sexual activity in humans: autosomes do not include the X

The section ends with, "Researchers found that the X chromosomes of humans and chimps may have diverged around 1.2 million years after the other chromosomes. One possible explanation is that modern humans emerged from a hybrid of human and chimp populations.[157] A 2012 study questioned this explanation, concluding that "there is no strong reason to involve complicated factors in explaining the autosomal data".[158]" However ... by definition autosomes are non-sex chromosomes. The reference is actually irrelevant to the point raised in the preceding sentence. IAmNitpicking (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)