the Y chromosome except those directly related to
being male. Most of the genes on the Y have analogs
on the X that effectively do the same thing, or are
poorly characterized but are not linked to any known
trait. Yes, there are several that when mutated give
you crypto-gendered or hermaphroditic phenotypes, such
as SRY and TDFY that are required to be male, but it
is not like there are characterized gradations between
manly men, and
sit-and-belch-in-front-of-the-TV-watching-football men
and men-who-love-Judy-Garland that can be traced to
differences in the Y chromosome.
There is no such relationship between 'manliness' and
a
shared Y chromosome. Most of the characterized
difference in Y chromosomes are in regions that have
no role in gene regulation or phenotype at all."
'Manliness' was perhaps not the best word for things I
aimed to say. (Mayhap I was thinking our good Will
when thinking up that word...)
For example, I do not mean manliness in sense of
intersexual mutations and likes. They are not very
useful for any genealogy, seeing that often they
result in inability to procreate.
And for monarchical succession, I think they are
practically fatal: a warrior tribe rarely considers a
visibly intersexual person as its chief, whatever are
ancestral rights.
Todd, are you saying that there is no known thing in
behavioral traits that is shared within a patriline,
in distinction to other patrilines?
I have long thought about the prevalent pattern of
succession in quite a many cultures, separate from
each other. The so-called Salic Law (some cultures,
such as East Asian, did not naturally use that term,
but had the same inheritance pattern nevertheless).
And tried to find some reasons in genetics for such a
thing.
Perhaps I am not the best one to find such
explanations, seeing that personally I do not believe
in wisdom of Salic Law - it is really impractical and,
in long term, a doomed rule - and it is even more
precarious and fragile in light of hidden adultery
than other hereditary succession systems.
If the limitation to real agnates, as opposed to
inheritance by kinsmen also via female connections,
has had no basis in genetical heritage, why then is it
as common as it has been, in more or less separate
cultures.
The only fairly unaltered thing two distant agnates
have in common, is their Y chromosome. Somehow they
have been preferred as successors to each other,
despite of there being maternal grandsons or uterine
nephews available, with much more in common with the
predecessor.
Todd found the words initiative and fitness (to rule).
My earlier words included temperament, eagerness,
instinctiveness.
If there is no common traits inherited in the Y
chromosome except the anatomical gender, then it
should be and should have been immaterial whether a
ruler got succeeded by his brother's son or his
sister's son. And sister's son or own grandson via a
daughter, would have been usually preferable to a
remote agnatic male cousin. But still, brother's son
and/or remote agnatic cousin enjoyed preference very
often. Brother's son enjoyed preference practically
always.
Is it totally incorrect to think that those
male-gender-specific hormones which are triggered in
puberty (testosterone at least, but how about also
adrenaline, and some others?), are in some little way
different in different patrilines? Or, is testosterone
a standard thing, identical in every human male?
Those genes on the Y which have analogs on the X (and
do effectively same things), are they identical with
their analogs in X, or are there differences?
Differences which may translate to differences between
behavioral heritage of male and of female?
What traits then do the characterized differences in Y
chromosomes (other than anatomical gender) impact?
Todd, are you saying that boys and girls do not have
any genetic difference as to their instincts to
- start build a hut (though not necessarily decorate
its interior)
- go hunting
- go exploring
- take an instinctive stance against a threat.
I have thought, on basis of some read
popularized-science reports/ articles/ other sorts of
texts, that such instinctive tendencies are a part of
male heritage. That there is a difference between
human genders in those respects.
Perhaps I believe too much in the words of those who
say that, despite of modern PC thinking and the desire
to think in unisex terms; boys and girls do have other
in-born differences than only those certain anatomical
parts. Still, I do believe that. Even on basis of my
own layman observations of how kids seem to behave.
Extension: if such are a part of male heritage, and do
not result only of upbringing, instilled attitudes and
expectations..., then, where can such heritage reside
except in Y chromosome.
brother, agnatic successor, tends to exhibit fairly
similar temperament as the predecessor, because of
their common heritage.
"Well, yes, but this is the total genetic heritage
from all parts of the pedigree. Tell me, who did
Henry II resemble more in his initiative and fitness
to rule? His father, Geoffrey, or his maternal
grandfather, Henry I?"
Obviously, he resembled a lot Empress Maud and Henry
I. But he did not un-resemble Geoffrey or his paternal
grandfather, Fulk.
Did Henry II really have similar temperament as Henry
I or William the Conqueror? I think not that similar.
I have thought that Henry II's somewhat violent
temperament came from Angevins, some of whom had been
a tad worse killers in their time.
Perhaps it is only what I wanted to see, to explain
the heritage; but I saw Henry II as mixture of
Rollo-line competence and efficiency, and violent
Angevin temperament.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ