Sex biases in bird and mammal natural history collections

royal society publishing ^ | 23 October 2019 | Natalie Cooper , Alexander L. Bond , more

[yesthatjallen]

Natural history specimens are widely used across ecology, evolutionary biology and conservation. Although biological sex may influence all of these areas, it is often overlooked in large-scale studies using museum specimens.

If collections are biased towards one sex, studies may not be representative of the species. Here, we investigate sex ratios in over two million bird and mammal specimen records from five large international museums.

We found a slight bias towards males in birds (40% females) and mammals (48% females), but this varied among orders. The proportion of female specimens has not significantly changed in 130 years, but has decreased in species with showy male traits like colourful plumage and horns. Body size had little effect. Male bias was strongest in name-bearing types; only 27% of bird and 39% of mammal types were female. These results imply that previous studies may be impacted by undetected male bias, and vigilance is required when using specimen data, collecting new specimens and designating types.

[Verginius Rufus]

Monty Python’s Norwegian blue (dead) parrot must have been a male. Beautiful plumage, you know.

[Gumdrop]

Number 1 said it all. Mae birds are more colorful and the description of the male is the primary way of identifying each avian species.

On the other hand. I really do not see why mammals would necessarily favor the males over the females in a display. In some mammals the males are distinguished from the females by their size, antlers, manes, etc. In those instances, both the male and female should be displayed.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[TigersEye]

I was just kidding to poke fun at the SJWs who come up with this stuff but it is logical that some specimens are easier to get and some are simply more interesting to put in a collection.