Choice of kin in consanguineous marriages: Effects of altruism and ecological factors

References

• Al-Gazali IL, Bener A, Abdulrazzaq MY, Micallef R, Al Khayat AI, Gaber T. 1997. Consanguineous marriages in the United Arab Emirates. J Biosoc Sci. 29:491–497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alwan A, Modell B. 1997. Community control of genetic and congenital disorders EMRO Technical Publications Series. Geneva: WHO.
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous. 2009. Kinship terminology. http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Kinship-terminology [last updated 26 May 2009]..
   Google Scholar
• Audinarayana N, Krishnamoorthy S. 2000. Contribution of social and cultural factors to the decline of consanguinity in South India. Soc Biol. 47:189–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayoumi RA, Taha TS, Saha N. 1995. A study of some genetic characteristics of the Fur and Baggara tribes of the Sudan. Am J Phys Anthropol. 67:363–370.
   Google Scholar
• Bittles AH. 1994. The role and significance of consanguinity as a demographic variable. Popul Dev Rev. 30:561–584.
   Google Scholar
• Bittles AH. 2001. Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical. Genet Clin Genet. 60:89–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bittles AH, Grant JC, Sullivan SG, Hussain R. 2002. Does inbreeding lead to decreased human fertility?. Ann Hum Biol. 29:111–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bittles HA, Neel JV. 1994. The costs of human inbreeding and their implications for variations at the DNA level. Nat Genet. 8:117–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caballero A, Hill WG. 1992. Effects of partial inbreeding on fixation rates and variation of mutant genes. Genetics. 131:493–507.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cooper E, Zhang M. 1993. Patterns of cousin marriage in rural Zhejing and in Dream of the red chamber. J Asian Stud. 52:90–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawkins R. 1989. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Denic S, Frampton C, Nagelkerke N, Nicholls MG. 2007. Consanguinity affects selection of alpha thalassemia and the size of populations under selection pressure from malaria. Ann Hum Biol. 34:620–631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denic S, Nagelkerke N, Agarwal MM. 2008. Consanguineous marriages and endemic malaria: Can inbreeding increase population fitness?. Malaria J. 7:150.
   Google Scholar
• Denic S, Nicholls MG. 2007. Genetic benefits of consanguinity through selection of genotypes protective against malaria. Hum Biol. 79:145–158.
   Google Scholar
• Dronamraju KR, Khan PM. 1960. Inbreeding in Andhra Pradesh. J Hered. 51:239–242.
   Google Scholar
• Ember M, Ember CR. 1971. The conditions favoring matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. Am Anthropol. 73:571–594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillespie HJ. 1998. Population genetics: A concise guide. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Godoy R, Eisenberg TAD, Reyes-Garcia V, Huanca T, Leonard WR, McDade TW. 2008. Assortative mating and offspring well-being: Theory and empirical findings from a native Amazonian society in Bolivia. Evol Hum Behav. 29:201–210.
   Google Scholar
• Gunaid AA, Hummad NA, Tamin KA. 2004. Consanguineous marriage in the capital city Sana'a, Yemen. J Biosoc Sci. 36:111–121.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hafez M, El-Tahan H, Awadalla M, El-Khayat H, Abdel-Gafar A, Ghoneim M. 1983. Consanguineous matings in the Egyptian population. J Med Genet. 20:58–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton WD. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J Theoret Biol. 7:1–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heard-Bey F. 2001. The tribal society of the UAE and its traditional economy. In: Al Abed I, Hellyer P. editors. United Arab emirates: A new perspective. London: Trident Press.
   Google Scholar
• Helgason A, Palsson S, Guobjartsson DF, Kristjansson P, Sefansson K. 2008. An association between the kinship and fertility of human couples. Science. 319:813–816.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsiao TF. 2006. Peasant life in China. Read Books..
   Google Scholar
• Huber BR, Breedlove LW. 2007. Evolutionary theory, kinship, and childbirth in cross-cultural perspective. Cross Cult Res. 41:196–219.
   Google Scholar
• Hussain R. 1999. Community perceptions of reasons for preference for consanguineous marriages in Pakistan. J Biosoc Sci. 31:449–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins OB. 2006. People profile: The Fur of Sudan and Chad. http://strategyleader.org/profiles/fur.html [last updated 26 September 2008]..
   Google Scholar
• Khlat M. 1997. Endogamy in the Arab world. In: Teebi AS, Farag TI. editors. Genetic disorders among Arab populations. New York: Oxford University Press. 63–79.
   Google Scholar
• Khoury SA, Massad DF. 1992. Consanguineous marriage in Jordan. Am J Med Genet. 15:769–775.
   Google Scholar
• Lee RG. 1982. Family structure and interaction: A comparative analysis. Minneapolis, USA: University of Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Marlowe FW. 2004. Marital residence among foragers. Curr Anthropol. 45:277–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murdock GP. 1957. World ethnographic sample. Am Anthropol. 59:664–687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pashos A. 2009. Does paternal uncertainty explain discriminative grandparental solicitude? A cross-cultural study in Greece and Germany. Evol Hum Behav. 21:97–109.
   Google Scholar
• Qin Z. 2001. Rethinking cousin marriage in rural China. Ethnology. 40:347–360.
   Google Scholar
• Ramesh A, Srikumari CR, Sukumar S. 1989. Parallel cousin marriages in Madras, Tamil Nadu: New trends in Dravidian kinship. Soc Biol. 36:248–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao PS, Inbaraj SG. 1977. Inbreeding effects on human reproduction in Tamil Nadu of South India. Ann Hum Genet. 41:87–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retso J. 2002. Arabs in antiquity: Their history from the Assyrians to the Umayyads. New York, USA: Routledge Curzon.
   Google Scholar
• Roychoudhury AK. 1976. Incidence of inbreeding in different states of India. Demography India. 1/2:108–119.
   Google Scholar
• Sear R, Mace R. 2008. Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evol Hum Behav. 29:1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahid I. 1984. Byzantium and the Arabs in the fourth century. Washington, D.C., USA: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
   Google Scholar
• Temple R. 2007. The genius of China: 3,000 years of science, discovery and invention. London: Andre Deutsch.
   Google Scholar
• Trivers R. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B. editors. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
   Google Scholar
• Uberoi P. 1994. Family, kinship and marriage in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van den Berghe PL, Barash DP. 1977. Inclusive fitness and human family structure. Am Anthropol. 79:809–823.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Furer-Haimendorf C. 1985. Tribal populations and culture of the Indian subcontinent. Leiden: E.J. Bril.
   Google Scholar
• Wahab A, Ahmud M, Akram Shah Syed. 2006. Migration as a determinant of marriage pattern: Preliminary report of consanguinity among Afghans. J Biosoc Sci. 38:315–325.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson OE. 1975. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson OE. 1998. Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage Books.
   Google Scholar