CATASTROPHIC SEX RATIO

The senior generation of Nauka i Zhizn [Science and Life] readers must remember the two brilliant articles that actually made a revolution in the common for the 1960s ideas about the objective mission of the bisexual type of reproduction. The author of the both articles Vigen Geodakyan, a specialist in cybernetics, proved that the two sexes are not so much the means of multiplication, as they are an efficient instrument of the evolution. Proceeding from the basic difference between sexes – the male sex is more differentiated in all features than the female sex – Geodakyan came to the conclusion that males (men) comprise the experimental, exploring component of the system that adjusts the historical movement of the species. Females (women), on their part, perform the stabilizing function, aimed at preserving the genetic assets of the species. The evidences of the role of sexes in the evolution shown by Geodakyan, made it possible to explain the avant-garde role of males in acquiring new features and the rear-guard mission of females. It started to become clear why on the average the male sex is more vulnerable, and why males statistically live shorter lives than females.

The basics of the theory of sexes have been put at the disposal of scientists and just curious readers.

* * *

Logically thinking, the next step was supposed to be the explanation of the so-called phenomenal secondary sex ratios (the secondary sex ratio is the percentage of the number of males to the number of females at the moment of birth; the primary sex ratio is the percentage of males to females at the moment of conception).  By that time there had been recorded more than a dozen of statistically valid deviations from the normal proportion between the newborn boys and girls (which is approximately 105 male to 100 female births). Let me point at some of them.

First and foremost, we need to mention the phenomenon of the war years, which consists in the increase of the number of the newborn boys compared to the number of girls during a war and after it.  Then, we need to speak about a group of phenomena that have to deal with the age of parents: the older they are, the less is the possibility of having a son for them. The biggest deviations have to do with the phenomena of unhealthy fathers.  From fathers, who suffer from diabetes, oncological, cardiovascular, and else diseases, 120 to 130 boys are born for every 100 girls. The major (of the recorded) phenomenon in this row seems to have occurred in Great Britain, where after the accident at Sellafield nuclear center in 1957 the radiated men during the 30 following years became fathers of 143 girls and 202 boys. The secondary sex ratio, therefore, went as high as 141.

The author of these lines, who started his research in the field of the theory of sexes at the same time as Geodakyan, has managed to explain the above phenomena. Yet, now we will not spend time on them. The reader will find the solutions for the “riddles of sexes” in my recently published book [Искрин В. Диалектика полов. – СПб., 2001, 2005 (the complete text in Russian can be found at iskrin.narod.ru )]. Here let me focus on the hardest nut to crack… I have to admit it was not easy. But after I did it, you will see what amazing prospects appeared in front.

However, before looking at the phenomenon of astrophysicists and its surprising “branches”, we have to get a super brief study in the theory of sexes.

* * *

It is known that under normal usual conditions roughly 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. The number of boys conceived is even bigger. According to various estimates, for each 100 female conceptions there are 130 to 180 male conceptions. Other species as a rule also produce a certain surplus of “men”. Why there exists such a disproportion? What for does nature stock this male surplus?

Has our reader ever noticed that the male sex is more scattered than the female? Among men there are more outstanding artists, composers, chefs, couturiers, hairdressers… At the same time, the opposite wing is not less representative. Women cannot “boast” of such a big number of extraordinary asocial persons, so many those lazy, dirty, clumsy, addicted to alcohol… As a sex, men are much more differentiated than women. The male sex, if the reader permits us this expression, is stretched along people’s characteristics, while the female sex is more compact and more resembles a monolith.  On the individual level the basic difference of the two sexes shows itself in the following way: a man is more specific and peculiar than a woman.

So for some reason nature bestows the most varied traits (qualities) upon men. If we absolutize the male being, we can rightfully state that a man is a carrier of some specific trait, feature, or quality. Is there any objective sense in it? Maybe, nature tests its innovations on men (males)? Are men nature’s “guinea-pigs”?

Yes, they really are. The evolution is performed blindly. Nobody can say what features will be useful in the future. For this very reason  (because of the spontaneous character of this process) there exists an objective need in the stock of the most different traits. In other words, qualities are stocked for any case. Time will come, and the traits that correspond the new trends in the changing environment will be claimed.  Those traits that do not meet the new requirements of the medium will be culled out.  A man, being the carrier of some unsatisfactory trait, will be culled out alike, however sad it may sound. It is known that death rate is higher for men in all age groups.

The rest of men (selected by the nature as well as by its agent, the woman) will be meeting the requirements of the medium to a greater or lesser extent. Having passed their traits to the next generation they will optimize the historic movement of the species providing its existence and progress. The line of the evolution will be continued.

This is the pattern of the evolution of all bisexual species. Females pass on to the next generation an array of data, which provides for the being of a species as such, males supply the “atoms” of information that provide for the adjustment of being. The adjustment depends on the specific changes of the living conditions. Females carry out a strategy, while males on-the-fly do the tactical job of tuning the qualities of the species to the requirements of the environment.

You will possibly ask: why does nature experiment on males, and not on females? It will not be difficult to explain this. Experimenting inevitably has to deal with losses. Females are basic “equipment”, which is more valuable.   The loss of it would cost much. It would be a threat for the existence of the species. You will come to the same conclusion if you analyze two hypothetical situations. In the first one, only one good quality male of some species is left with all the females, while all the rest are lost. In the second mental experiment, the species has lost all females but one who is left with all the males. In what situation are the chances of survival of the species higher?

* * *

Males (men) adjust the being of the species according to the changes in the living conditions. What is supposed to happen if the conditions, that used to be changing slowly and gradually, at some point drastically start to get worse? It looks clear that in this case the experimental weak sex, which is the male one, will be loosing more of its representatives than it does under normal conditions. In other words, the male death rate will rise. However, it turns out to be that in this situation the sex ratio will also rise: for each 100 girls there will be born not 105, but 106, 107, 108 boys …  Death of men, who have not been able to resist the pressure of the changing conditions means an increase of the quality of medium correspondence in the present generation. The rise of the secondary sex ratio widens the range of features to be selected from in the next generation, which in the perspective also works for the stabilization of quality. Death and birth are reaching for the same goal. This is how, through intensification of rotation of men (traits) a species at the cost of heavier losses than under normal conditions, finds the optimal line of development.  

At a steep turn, so that engine of adjustment (the male sex) could convey a stronger impulse, a bigger amount of expendable experimental material (men) has to be produced and spent. This is what we observe in the reality.

If the living conditions are getting better, the male rotation decreases: the male death rate falls and the part of newborn boys also becomes less. This can be observed within the last decade in some European countries, and also Canada and the USA.  The membership in the “golden billion”, which dominates the world, shifts the sex ratio by a several tenths of a percentage point to the side of girls. Girls are a sign of well-being, while the boys point at privations.

* * *

The fluctuations of the sex ratio to the one or the other side off the norm are set in the male organism at the gamete stage, in the process of production of sperm cells, before the conception. Under deteriorated conditions the hormonal composition of semen, changed via psychobiochemical mechanisms, blocks a bigger than normal number of prerequisites for girls (X sperm cells), so a larger part of prerequisites for boys (Y sperm cells) is being admitted for conception. If the pressure of the environment gets less hard, less X sperm cells than normally are blocked, so the primary as well as the secondary sex ratio decreases.

The part of theory which deals with the fact of blockage of sperm cells, can be rightfully employed, as it is not just a hypothesis, but an evidence taken from practice. Life gives us examples of such dynasties where the powerful blockage of sperm cells has been taking place during several generations [See Наука и жизнь [Nauka i Zhizn], 1969, № 3, С. 151.].

The blockage of the girls-to-be is really a great invention of nature. Thus even before conception the female sex undergoes a selection, get consolidated and evened out. The male sex, on the contrary, avoiding the blockage comes into life scattered and variegated. This is what is needed to perform the adjusting function. Life and the future can claim the most different features.

So the blockage of the girls-to-be is a rule for the bisexual way of reproduction.

You will possibly ask: why do we not call it a law? It is not a law for the reason that laws cannot have exclusions, while rules can.

Now we have come to the topic announced in the headline.

* * *

In 1958 in some little-known scientific journal there appeared an article of the Armenian scientist V. Kamalyan.  The author wrote about the proportion of boys and girls in the families of men who worked in high mountains: at astrophysical stations, geological expeditions, etc. From these men there were born only 36 boys for 100 girls. Kamalyan suggested that this “highland anomaly” had to deal with anoxaemia, the deficiency of mineral salts in drinking water, increased radiation, and low pressure. The scientist also specifically pointed at the contrast between the place of permanent residence in the lowlands and the highlands [See Камалян В.Ш. Влияние высоты на соотношение пола потомства. // Известия АН Армянской ССР. Биол. и сельхоз. науки, 1958, Т. XI, № 4. [Kamalyan V.Sh. The impact of altitude on the sex ratio in the offspring.] ].

As a true scientist Kamalyan decided to prove his hypothesis and brought male rabbits to the mountains. How do you think, dear reader, did Kamalyan’s suggestion prove to be true or not, if after 1.5 months spent in the mountains the male rabbits gave the sex ratio of 68, while it was normally 96 when they were living at the farm?  Do not hurry with the answer. First read the following sentence.

From the reference group rabbits who were supposed to be compared with the rabbits-alpinists and had been kept at the farm pining without sexual contacts during the same 1.5 months, there were born 43 girls and 28 boys (which corresponds to the sex ratio of 65.)

It means that altitude has nothing to do with the explanation. So what, if not altitude, did rabbits and astrophysicists have in common? Yes, you are right, it was abstinence. Both people and animals had been for a long time pining without females. For a rabbit 1.5 months is a long time. As for the explorers, they are likely to have worked in the mountains during not less than 11 months until the annual leave, as they were supposed to according to the Labor Code. I will also take the courage to suggest that they did not practice masturbation.

By the way, cattle-breeders are well aware of the fact that separate keep and infrequent use of sires considerably decreases the secondary sex ratio.

Let us now leave the empiric data and come back to theory.

What living conditions can there be, except for favorable, normal, and unfavorable? Let us continue this row and answer our own question. Of course! The conditions can be catastrophic. This is the key to the “highland phenomenon”. It is a real catastrophe for a species if females are absent or there is a severe deficiency of them. Perceiving a catastrophic situation a male has to take relevant emergency measures. In case of a catastrophe there is no talk of adjusting the course and providing for the quality of medium correspondence. The very object of adjustment and innovating, which is the species, is on the edge of nonexistence. All the resources are to be paid for the rescuing and reimbursement of the quantitative side of being, the production of females (Males optimize the quality, while females, as they produce the offspring, “are responsible” for quantity). So quality is to be put off for a while, until the quantity is restored.

The male rescuer has an only means – the hormonal blockage of Y sperm cells. Deviating from their regular function, males take the female job of providing for the numeric, quantitative side of being. (Let me note in parentheses that the quality does not suffer a lot in this case, as the prerequisites for boys undergo a more severe selection than in normal conditions).

It is clear that all the “rescuing work” is done at the level psychobiochemical reflexes.

* * *

Putting forward his hypothesis Kamalyan did not know that unfavorable conditions work for the rise of the sex ratio, therefore, for the increase of the part of boys in the offspring. Few years had to pass till the articles of Geodakyan were published. As for the catastrophe endangering the species, the researcher did not notice it in the situation with astrophysicists and rabbits. Let us not blame him for that. We thank him for a representative database which helped us to reveal the catastrophic factor.

Catastrophes can be of different kind. It turns out to be that this banal statement opens broad horizons for further research. What else, besides the absence of females, can threaten the existence of a species? Let us travel from the animal kingdom to the vegetable reign.

There are bisexual species among plants as well. Such plants are called dioecious, and within this group we can name poplar, aspen, sea-buckthorn, sago palm, etc. Some of these can change their sex, which you can test yourself.

Take a garden pruner and try to slightly trim a female poplar plant, the one that every summer fills your apartment with fluff. It is very likely that next year the tree will turn into a “man”. In case you deshoot a male tree leaving just the trunk with a couple of branches, after some time it will bloom with female flowers. Why? The answer is rather simple.

The plant perceives a slight trimming as an unfavorable factor, while severe deshooting is a catastrophe for it. Under unfavorable conditions there is a need for “men”, the adjusters: in a catastrophe there is a need for “women”, the foundation of life.

In principle there is no difference in the reaction of the male poplars turned into stubs and the astrophysicists torn away from their wives. The only difference is that men (males) having experienced a long abstinence shift the sex ratio of the next generation, while the mutilated trees change the sex ratio of their own present generation.

* * *

Those who grow cucumbers know that a cucumber plant first gives male, and only then female flowers. To get cucumbers as soon as possible there is no need in waiting for all these male flowers. Instead one has to pinch the main sprout and thus speed up and increase the crop. If you pinch the main sprout it will be a stimulus for the appearance of female flowers. These facts lie on the surface. Let us try to get deeper.

By all means the plant perceives the brutal procedure of pinching as a catastrophe. The top of the sprout is vitally important for a plant. So in full correspondence with the theory the plant feminizes and the sex ratio between flowers shifts in the female direction.

Cucumber lovers from the town of Klin have been since long time ago subjecting their plants to another torture. They expose the plants that grow in a greenhouse to carbon monoxide. As early as in 1940s the biology scientist E. Minina made a research on the Klin way of boosting the fertility. It resulted that the young plants after being twice exposed to the atmosphere saturated with carbon monoxide during 11-12 hours, not just give the female flowers in the first place, but also give tenfold more of female flowers. Her experiments spread on spinach, Palma Christi, corn, pumpkin, and other vegetable cultures. In all the cases she got the same result [See Минина Е.Г. Можно ли управлять полом растений. // Наука и жизнь. 1949. № 10. С. 38.].

After half a century we are able to explain the “behavior” of the poisoned plants.

* * *

A catastrophic factor can come in the form of grave thermal pressure. Let us illustrate the “thermal catastrophe” with the example of a species that “chooses” the sex at the fetal stage of its life.

The tests performed by the American researchers proved that the temperature at which the eggs of the Mississippian alligator are being developed determines the sex of the offspring. If the temperature is higher than 34C only males are hatched; if it is lower than 30C there are barely females. As for the temperature in between, there appears almost an equal number of hatchlings of each sex. The studies of the alligators’ nests in natural conditions confirmed the results of the experiments. In the warmest nests there appeared males, in the cool ones – females. From the nests that were warm in the middle and cool at the fringe regions there came mostly males from the center, and females from the periphery of circle. The article that gave us this information ends with a phrase: “Scientists still find difficulty in explaining this phenomeon” [See Крокодил или крокодилиха – зависит от температуры. // Наука и жизнь. 1983. № 7. С. 77.].

Having found a link between the catastrophic environmental pressure and feminization, we will take the risk of explaining the Mississippian phenomenon.

Between 30°C and 34°C the species under consideration finds itself in more or less comfortable (normal) conditions. In such conditions normal secondary sex ratio for this species is formed. If the temperature rises above 34C the conditions are perceived by fetuses as unfavorable. In this case there is an objective need for adjustment. So it is performed, by males, whose natural function is adjustment. At the temperatures below 30C the thermophilic alligators are under the threat of a catastrophe. The evident reaction of the species for this situation is reimbursement of quantity through production of females. 

The phenomenon of “choosing the sex” seems to perfectly fall into the theoretical pattern.

* * *

At last, let us speak about the fluctuations of the yield of rowan, a phenomenon which, at first sight, has nothing to do with the issues of sexes.

Have you heard that a rich yield of rowan-berries (as well as – to a lesser extent – of nuts, acorns, apples, etc.) predicts a cold winter? It is really so, in most cases after a fall rich in rowan-berries there comes a cold and snowy winter. Why? Scientists have not solved this problem yet. We will try to do it now.

Of course, rowan is not a meteorologist. It does not make forecasts for the future, yet it takes past “into account”.

So if the past, and first of all the previous winter – when the next generation (the flower buds) is being formed – has been normal in all respects, the yield will be normal, usual, average.

In case the previous winter has been unfavorable (for instance, slight thaws have been changed a couple of times by frosts), theoretically there have to be “born” more “boys”. We know that the rise of the sex ratio is a reaction on unfavorable conditions. However, since rowan is a unisexual plant, and “boys” are merged with “girls” in its flowers, the increase of the number of “boys” (widening of the spectrum of qualities) is to happen via the increase of the yield (fruit, seeds). This is what we observe in autumn after hardships, first and foremost, of the previous winter.

If the winter has been not just bad, but very bad, catastrophic (long thaws with snow completely melting many times changed by severe frosts), a species has to pay all its efforts on the production of “girls” (quantity). And, as far as rowan has “boys” and “girls” fused together, in this case also the reaction has to be a rich yield, maybe even super rich.

With unisexual plants, the same as with bisexual species, unfavorable factors cause a shift in the sex ratio to the male side, and catastrophic conditions cause a shift in the female direction. However, unisexual species have the same way of reacting in both cases, they react with overproduction of the offspring. (In parentheses, let me note that the next year after a rich crop, the exhausted plant is most likely to fruit with less than normal productivity, as they say, it needs some rest).

You will possibly ask: so why does a rich or a super rich yield of rowan-berries predict a cold snowy winter? Rowan failed to answer this question. However, there is no mystic. It is the probability theory that can give an explanation, according to which after a bad winter with thaws, an even cold snowy winter is more probable.

* * *

Let us make a conclusion embracing all the considered above, yet so different, situations and species. Actually, it is true not only for the cases studied by us, but also for everything divided into male and female.

Catastrophic pressure of the environment and a vital danger cause feminization of the species, which can be realized in different ways.

By the way, in people’s society the altruistic modification of this principle is spread on everyone, no matter if they are astrophysicists, engineers, construction workers, or farmers. This principle is inherent in public morals, which has the following formula: in case of a danger the first ones to be rescued are women and children. We do not need to add that men are implied in this formula as rescuers ready to sacrifice their lives.

BACK TO THEORY OF SEXES