Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-pkt8n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T07:22:08.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identical twins and developmental stability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 1962

C. S. Taylor
C. S. Taylor
Affiliation:
F.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh, 9
Get access

Extract

1. The stability with which dairy cattle develop in body size up to 2 years of age was studied in 60 pairs of uniformly treated identical twins, i.e. an assessment was made of the influence of season, genotype, mean size of twin pair, age and degree of maturity on the level of within-pair variability.

2. The frequency distributions of size differences shown by one-egg twins were in many cases decidedly leptokurtic.

3. The similarity in size of the identical twins studied was only slightly, if at all, influenced by season. Within-pair variability under free outdoor grazing was certainly not any greater than under semi-controlled conditions indoors.

4. The stability with which cattle grew appeared to depend on their genotype. Identical twins of the Shorthorn breed were somewhat more alike in size than were the twins of other breed-types; crossbreds were, on average, 50 % less stable than purebreds in average size () ; although crossbreds grew with somewhat greater stability ().

5. Whatever their mean size, all pairs of identical twins of the same breed appeared to grow postnatally with more or less equal stability (). Small, slow growing pairs showed a greater disparity in average size ().

6. Stability of development continually changed with age but not violently. Each body measurement appeared to have its own characteristic age trend. It is false to believe that variation automatically increases with increasing age. As they grew older, identical twins tended to become less alike in their later maturing body measurements whereas their early maturing body measurements tended to decline in variability. There was an overall trend with degree of maturity; variability steadily increased to a maximum and subsequently declined.

7. It is suggested that environmentally induced instability of development may remain at a minimum level so long as growth curves are not seriously distorted from their exponential path to maturity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , February 1962 , pp. 144 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Ashoub, M. R., Biggers, J. D., Mclaren, A. & Michie, D., 1958. The effect of the environment on phenotypic variability. Proc. Roy. Soc. B., 148: 192.Google Scholar
2Bartlett, M. S., 1937. Cited in Biometrika Tables for Statisticians. 1954. Vol. 1, p. 57. Ed. Pearson, E. S. and Hartley, H. O.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
3Biggers, J. D.Mclaren, A. & Michie, D., 1958. Variance control in the animal house. Nature (Lond.), 182: 77.Google Scholar
4Bonnier, G. & Hansson, A., 1946. Studies on monozygous cattle twins. V. The effect of different planes of nutrition on growth and body development of dairy heifers. Ada Agric. suec, 1: 171.Google Scholar
5Bonnier, G., Hansson, A. & Skjervold, H., 1948. Studies on monozygous cattle twins. IX. The interplay of heredity and environment on growth and yield. Ada Agric. suec, 3: 1.Google Scholar
6Brody, S., 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York.Google Scholar
7Brumby, P. J. & Hancock, J., 1956. A preliminary report of growth and milk production in identica and fraternal twin dairy cattle. N.Z. J. Sci. Tech., Agric, 38: 184.Google Scholar
8Crichton, J. A., Aitken, J. N. & Boyne, A. W., 1960. The effect of plane of nutrition during rearing on growth, production, reproduction and health of dairy cattle. II. Growth to maturity. Anim. Prod., 2: 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Dickinson, A. G., 1961. The genetical basis of conformation in cattle as revealed by crossbreeding. Z. Tierz. ZuchtBioi, 15: 262.Google Scholar
10Donald, H. P., 1953. A study of variation in twin cattle. I. General description. J. Dairy Res., 20: 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Donald, H. P., 1959. Conformation of twin and quadruplet freemartins. Anim. Prod., 1: 75.Google Scholar
12Donald, H. P. & Watson, J. H., 1961. Variance of yield and composition of milk within pairs of twin and single-born cattle. Z. Tierz. ZiichtBiol., 75: 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13England, D. C & Winters, L. M., 1952. The effect of genetic diversity and performance of inbred lines per se on hybrid vigor in swine. J. Anim. Sci., 11: 740.Google Scholar
14Finney, D. J., 1958. The efficiency of alternative estimators for an asymptotic regression equation. Biometrika, 45: 372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Geary, R. C, 1935. Cited in Biometrika Tables for Statisticians. 1954. Vol. 1, p. 62. Ed. Pearson, E. S. and Hartley, H. O.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
16Hammond, J., 1932. Growth and the Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh and London.Google Scholar
17Hammond, J. C & Bird, H. R., 1942. The effect of nutrition on variability in the growth of chickens. Poultry Sci., 21: 230.Google Scholar
18Hancock, J., 1950. Studies in monozygotic twins. V. Uniformity trials: growth. N.Z. J. Sci. Tech., Agric, 33 (4): 17.Google Scholar
19Hansson, A., Brannang, E. & Claesson, O., 1953. Studies on monozygous cattle twins. XIII. Body development in relation to heredity and intensity of rearing. Acta Agric. scand., 3: 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Hansson, A. & Claesson, O., 1960. Report on research with monozygous cattle twins. 1th Study meeting ofE.A.A.P., Stockholm. (Unpublished mimeograph.)Google Scholar
21Jinks, J. L. & Mather, K., 1955. Stability in development of heterozygotes and homozygotes. Proc. Roy. Soc B., 143: 561.Google ScholarPubMed
22King, J. W. B. & Donald, H. P., 1955. A study of variation in twin cattle. III. Growth. J. Dairy Sci., 22: 1.Google Scholar
23Lerner, I. M., 1954. Genetic Homeostasis. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh and London.Google Scholar
24Lewis, D., 1954. Gene-environment interactions: a relationship between dominance, heterosis, phenotypic stability and variability. Heredity, 8: 333.Google Scholar
25Lewis, D., 1955. Gene interaction, environment and hybrid vigour. Proc. Roy. Soc. B., 144: 178.Google ScholarPubMed
26Mather, K., 1950. The genetical architecture of heterostyle in Primula sinensis. Evolution, 4: 340.Google Scholar
27Mather, K., 1953. Genetical control of stability in development. Heredity, 7: 297.Google Scholar
28Mclaren, A. & Michie, D., 1956. Variability of response in experimental animals. A comparison of the reactions of inbred, F1 hybrid and random-bred mice to a narcotic drug. J. Genet., 54: 440.Google Scholar
29Patterson, H. D., 1958. The use of autoregression in fitting an exponential curve. Biometrika, 45: 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Reeve, E. C. R. & Robertson, F. W., 1952. Heterozygosity, environmental variation and heterosis. Nature (Lond.), 170: 286.Google Scholar
31Reeve, E. C. R. & Robertson, F. W., 1953. Analysis of environmental variability in quantitative inheritance. Nature (Lond.), 171: 874.Google Scholar
32Shreffler, D. C & Touchberry, R. W., 1959. Effects of crossbreeding on rate of growth in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 42: 607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Thoday, J. M., 1953. Components of fitness. Symp. Soc. exp. Biol., No. 7, p. 96.Google Scholar
34Tibbits, J. P., 1957. The development of calves reared on varying amounts of whole milk. J. agric. Sci., 49: 329.Google Scholar
35Wiener, G., 1959. Growth of cattle twins on dairy farms with high and low yielding herds. Anim. Prod., 1: 61.Google Scholar