Communication Disparities between Genetically-Diverging Populations of Deermice

  • Glenn Perrigo
  • F. H. Bronson


In nature there is considerable genetic variation between populations belonging to the same species. Members of a population share a common gene pool. Gene pools, however, are uniquely dynamic, and since no two populations experience identical selection pressures, one expects that even closely related populations will diverge genetically with time. Developing reproductive isolation is a normal consequence of such divergence and, by classical definition, the process of speciation is complete when the populations can no longer interbreed. Speciation can be rapid if an abrupt chromosomal change occurs, or it can be a slow process involving the steady accumulation of subtle behavioral and physiological incompatibilities that progressively reduce the probability of successful reproduction between members of two populations.


Reproductive Isolation Bank Vole House Mouse Chemical Communication Uterine Weight 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, R. H. 1968. Habitats and distribution. In Biology of Peromyscus (J. A. King, ed.) Baker, R. H. 3, The American Society of Mammalogists.Google Scholar
  2. Bowers, J. M. and Alexander, B. K. 1967. Mice: IndividualGoogle Scholar
  3. Recognition by olfactory cues. Science 158:1208–1210. Bronson, F. H. 1979. The reproductive ecology of the house mouse. Quart. Rev. Biol. 54:265–299.Google Scholar
  4. Bronson, F. H. 1982. Chemical communication in house mice and deermice: functional roles in the reproduction of natural populations. In Recent Advances in the Study of Mammalian Behavior (J. F. Eisenberg and D. Kleiman, eds.) Spec. Pub. No. 7, The American Society of Mammalogists, in press.Google Scholar
  5. Bronson, F. H. and Desjardins, C. 1974. Circulating concentrations of FSH, LH, estradiol and progesterone associated with acute, male-induced puberty in female mice. Endocrinology 94: 1658–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronson, F. H. and Maruniak, J. 1975. Male-induced puberty in female mice: evidence for a synergistic action of social cues. Biol. Reprod. 13: 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dice, L. R. 1933. Fertility relationships between some of the species and subspecies of mice in the genus Peromyscus. J. Mammal. 14: 298–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dice, L. R. 1968. Speciation. In Biology of Peromyscus (J. A. King, ed.) Dice, L. R. 3, The American Society of Mammalogists.Google Scholar
  9. Doty, R. L. 1972. Odor preferences of female Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii for male mouse odors of P. m. bairdii and P. leucopus noveboracensis as a function of the estrous state. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 81: 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drickamer, L. C. 1974. Contact stimulation, androgenized females and accelerated sexual maturation in female mice. Behay. Biol. 12: 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisenberg, J. F. 1968. Behavior Patterns. In Biology of Peromyscus (J. A. King, ed.) Eisenberg, J. F. 3, The American Society of Mammalogists.Google Scholar
  12. Epple, G., Golob, N. F. and Smith, A. B. III. 1979. Odor communication in the tamarin Saquinus fuscicallis (Callitrichidae): Behavioral and chemical studies. In Chemical Ecology: Odour Communication in Animals (F. J. Ritter, ed.) Elsevier/ North Holland, pp. 117–130.Google Scholar
  13. Godfrey, J. 1958. The origin of sexual isolation between bank voles. Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edinburgh 27: 47–55.Google Scholar
  14. Grant, P. R. 1972. Interspecific competition among rodents. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3: 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoogland, J. L. 1982. Prairies dogs avoid extreme inbreeding. Science 215. 1639–1641.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howard, W. E. 1951. Relation between low temperatures and available food to survival of small rodents. J. Mammal. 32: 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moore, R. E. 1965. Olfactory discrimination as an isolation mechanism between Peromyscus maniculatus and Peromyscus polionotus. Am. Midl. Nat. 73: 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Müller -Schwarze, D. 1974. Olfactory recognition of species, groups, individuals and physiological states among mammals.Google Scholar
  19. In Pheromones (M. C. Birch, ed.) Elsevier/North Holland, pp. 316–326.Google Scholar
  20. Nevo, E., Bodmer, M. and Heth, G. 1976. Olfactory discrimination as an isolating mechanism in speciating mole rats. Experientia 32: 1511–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perrigo, G. and Bronson, F. H. 1982. Signaling and priming communication: Independent roles in the reproductive isolation of spatially-separated populations of rodents. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., in press.Google Scholar
  22. Roelof s, W. L. and Cardé, R. T. 1974. Sex pheromones in the reproductive isolation of lepidopterous species. In Pheromones (M. C. Birch, ed.) Elsevier/North Holland, pp. 96–114.Google Scholar
  23. Schwarz, E. and Schwarz, H. K. 1943. The wild and commensalGoogle Scholar
  24. stocks of the house mouse, Mus musculus L. J. Mammal. 24: 59–72.Google Scholar
  25. Stoddart, D. M. 1977. Two hypotheses supporting the social function of odorous secretions of some Old World rodents. In Chemical Signals in Vertebrates ( D. Müller -Schwarze and M. Mozell, eds.) Plenum Press, New York, pp. 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vandenbergh, J. G. 1969. Male odor accelerates female sexual maturation in mice. Endocrinology 84: 658–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vandenbergh, J. G., Finlayson, J. S., Dobrogosz, W. J., Dills, S. S., and Kost, T. A. 1976. Chromatographic separation of puberty accelerating pheromone from mouse urine. Biol. Reprod. 15: 260–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yamazaki, K., Boyse, E. A., Mike, V., Thaler, H. T., Mathieson, B. J., Abbot, J., Boyse, J., Zayas, Z. A. and Thomas, L. 1976. Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. J. Exp. Med. 144: 1324–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yamazaki, K., Yamaguchi, Y., Beauchamp, G. K., Bard, J., Boyse, E. A. and Thomas, L. 1981. Chemosensation: An aspect of the uniqueness of the individual. In Biochemistry of Taste and Olfaction ( R. H. Cagan and M. R. Kare, eds.) Academic Press, New York, pp. 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glenn Perrigo
    • 1
  • F. H. Bronson
    • 1
  1. 1.The Institute of Reproductive Biology, Department of ZoologyUniversity of TexasAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations