References

• Abeelen J.H., van. 1966. Effects of genotype on mouse behavior // Animal Behaviour. Vol.14. No.2. P.218−225.
• Ambaryan A.B., Maltzev A.N. & Kotenkova E.V. 2015. [Relationship between characteristics of sexual behavior and male sperm competitive ability in taxa of superspecies complex Mus musculus sensu lato] // Zhurnal Obshchei Biologii. Vol.76. No.3. P.212–224 [in Russian, with English summary].
• Bardet J., Essen D.K., Feron C. & Gouat P.2007. Evaluation of the social bond: a new method tested in Mus spicilegus // Comptes Rendus Biologies. Vol.330. No.11. P.837–844.
• Baudoin C., Busquet N., Dobson F.S., Cheusi G., Feron Ch., Durand J-L., Heth G., Patris B. & Todrank J. 2005. Male-female associations and female olfactory neurogenesis with pair bonding in Mus spicilegus // Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Vol.84. No.3. P.323−334.
• Beach F.A. 1976. Sexual attractivity, proceptivity, and receptivity in female mammals // Hormones and Behavior. Vol.7. No.1. P.105–138.
• Bronson F.H. 1979. The reproductive ecology of the house mouse // The Quarterly Review of Biology. Vol.54. No.3. P.265–299.
• Brotherton P.N.M. & Komers P.E. 2003. Mate guarding and the evolution of social monogamy in mammals // Reichard U.H. & Boesch C. (eds.). Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P.42–58.
• Bulatova N.Sh., Kotenkova E.V. & Lyalyukhina S.I. 1986. [Fertility of hybrids and cytogenetic effect of hybrid dysgenesis in crossing in the mound-building mouse and laboratory mice] // Doklady Academii Nauk SSSR. Vol.288. No.4. P.1018–1020 [in Russian, with English summary].
• Carlsen M. 1993. Migrations of Mus musculus musculus in Danish farmland // Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde. Vol.58. No.3. P.172–180.
• Carter S., Vries C. & Getz L. 1995. Physiological substrates of mammalian monogamy: the prairie vole model // Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. Vol.19. No.2. P.303–314.
• Carter C.S., Whitt M.D., Thompson G. & Carlstead K. 1988. Effects of hormonal, sexual, and social history on mating and pair bonding in prairie voles // Physiology and Behavior. Vol.44. No.6. P.691−697.
• Chatterjee S. & Singh B.N. 1989. Sexual isolation in Drosophila // Indian Review of Life Science. Vol.9. P.101–135.
• Chevret P., Veyrunes F. & Britton-Davidian J. 2005. Molecular phylogeny of the genus Mus (Rodentia: Murinae) based on mitochondrial and nuclear data // Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Vol.84. No.3. P.417–427.
• Clutton-Brock T.H., Guinness F.E. & Albon S.D. 1982. Red Deer: Behavior and Ecology of Two Sexes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 378 p.
• Clutton-Brock T.H. & Isvaran K. 2006. Paternity loss in contrasting mammalian societies // Biological Letters. Vol.2. No.4. P.513–516.
• Crowcroft P.1954. Mouse research in Suffolk // Transactions of the Suffolk Natural Society. Vol.8. P.185–187.
• Crowcroft P.1955. Social organization in wild mouse colonies // The British Journal of Animal Behaviour. Vol.3. No.1. P.1−36.
• Crowcroft P.& Rowe F.P. 1963. Social organization and territorial behavior in the wild house mouse (Mus musculus L.) // Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. Vol.140. No.3. P.517–531.
• Davis D.E. 1958. The role of density in aggressive behaviour in house mice // Animal Behaviour. Vol.6. No.3–4. P.207–210.
• Dewsbury D.A. 1981. On the function of the multiple-intromission, multiple-ejaculation copulatory patterns of rodents // Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. Vol.18. No.4. P.221–223.
• Dewsbury D.A. 1987. The comparative psychology of monogamy // Leger D.W. (ed.). Comparative Perspectives in Modern Psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Vol.35. Nebraska: Nebraska University Press. P.1–50.
• Dewsbury D.A., Oglesby J.M., Sandra L., Shea S.L., James L. & Connor J.L. 1979. Inbreeding and copulatory behavior in house mice: a further consideration // Behavior Genetics. Vol.9. No.3. P.151−163.
• Dixon A.F. 2012. Primate Sexuality. Comparative Studies of the Prosimians, Monkeys, Apes and Humans. New York: Oxford Academic Press. 742 p.
• Dobson F.S. & Baudoin C. 2002. Experimental tests of spatial association and kinship in monogamous mice (Mus spicilegus) and polygynous mice (Mus musculus domesticus) // Canadian Journal of Zoology. Vol.80. No.6. P.980–986.
• Dobson F.S., Way B.M. & Baudoin C. 2010. Spatial dynamics and the evolution of social monogamy in mammals // Behavioral Ecology. Vol.21. No.4. P.747–752.
• Emlen S.T. & Oring L.W. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems // Science. Vol.197. No.4300. P.215–223.
• Estep D.Q., Lanier D.L. & Dewsbury D.A. 1975. Copulatory behavior and nest building behavior of wild house mice (Mus musculus) // Animal Learning and Behavior. Vol.3. No.4. P.329–336.
• Feron C. & Gouat P.2007. Paternal care in the mound-building mouse reduces inter-litter intervals // Reproduction, Fertility and Development. Vol.19. No.3. P.425–429.
• Fitzgerald R.W. & Madison D.M. 1983. Social organization of a free-ranging population of pine voles, Microtus pinetorum // Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. Vol.13. No.3. P.183–187.
• Frynta D., Slábová M. & Vohralík V. 2009. Why do male house mice have such small testes? // Zoological Science. Vol.26. No.1. P.17–23.
• Frynta D., Volfová R., Franková-Nováková M. & Stejskal 2010. Oestrous females investigate the unfamiliar male more than the familiar male in both commensal and non-commensal populations of house mice // Behavioural Processes. Vol.83. No.1. P.54–60.
• Getz L.L., Hofmann J.E. & Carter C.S. 1987. Mating system and population fluctuations of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster // American Zoologist. Vol.27. No.3. P.909–920.
• Gouat P.& Feron C. 2005. Deficit in reproduction in polygynously mated females of the monogamous mound-building mouse Mus spicilegus // Reproduction, Fertility and Development. Vol.17. No.6. P.617–623.
• Gouat P., Katona K. & Poteaux C. 2003. Is the socio-spatial distribution of mound-building mice, Mus spicilegus, compatible with a monogamous mating system? // Mammalia. Vol.67. No.1. P.15–24.
• Grant E.C. & Mackintosh I.H. 1963. A comparison of social posture of some common laboratory rodents // Behavior. Vol.21. No.3–4. P.246−259.
• Hamar M. & Sutova-Hamar M. 1969. Estimation of rodent home ranges in different agrosystems // Energy Flow Through Small Mammal Population. Proceedings of IBP Meeting on Secondary Productivity in Small Mammal Populations. Oxford. P.99–109.
• Harcourt A.H., Harvey P.H., Larson S.G. & Short R.V. 1981. Testis weight, body weight and breeding system in primates // Nature. Vol.293. No.5827. P.55–57.
• Harvey P.H. & Harcourt A.H. 1984. Sperm competition, testes size, and breeding systems in primates // Smith R.L. (ed.). Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems. New York: Academic Press. P.589–600.
• Heske E.J. & Ostfeld R.S. 1990. Sexual dimorphism in size, relative size of testes, and mating systems in North American voles // Journal of Mammalogy. Vol.71. No.4. P.510–519. Hurst J.L. 1986. Mating in free-living wild house mice (Mus domesticus) // Journal of Zoology. Vol.210. No.4. P.623–628.
• Johnson Z. & Young L.J. 2015. Neurobiological mechanisms of social attachment and pair bonding // Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. Vol.3. P.38–44.
• Iossa G., Soulsbury C.D., Baker P.J. & Harris S. 2008. Sperm competition and the evolution of testes size in terrestrial mammalian carnivores // Functional Ecology. Vol.22. No.4. P.655–662.
• Isvaran K. & Clutton-Brock T. 2007. Ecological correlates of extra-group paternity in mammals // Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. Vol.274. No.1607. P.219–224. Kenagy G.J. & Trombulak S.C. 1986. Size and function of mammalian testes in relation to body size // Journal of Mammalogy. Vol.67. No.1. P.1–22.
• Kotenkova E.V. 2014. A comparative analysis of ethological and physiological mechanisms of precopulatory isolation // Biology Bulletin Reviews. Vol.134. No.5. P.488–518.
• Kotenkova E.V. & Munteanu A.I. 2006. [A comparative analysis of the spatial-ethological population structure of different species of house mice related to their mode of life] // Uspekhi Sovremennoi Biologii. Vol.126. No.5. P.513–528 [in Russian, with English summary].
• Kotenkova E.V. & Naidenko S.V. 1999. Discrimination of conand heterospecific odors in different taxa of the Mus musculus species group: olfactory cues as precopulatory isolating mechanism // Johnston R.E., Muller-Schwarze D. & Sorensen P.(eds.). Advances in Chemical Communication in Vertebrates. New York: Plenum Press. P.299–308.
• Kotenkova E.V., Osipova O.V. & Lyalyukhina S.I. 1989a. Behavioral elements and seasonal changes of behavior in mound-building mice (Mus hortulanus Nordm.) // Sokolov V.E., Kotenkova E.V., Krasnov B.R. & Meshkova N.N. (eds.). [The House Mouse]. Moscow: Institute of Evolutionary Animal Morphology and Ecology. P.256−272 [in Russian, with English summary]
• Kotenkova E.V., Osadchuck A.V. & Lyalyukhina S.I. 1989b. Precopulatory isolating mechanisms between the house and mound-building mouse // Acta Theriologica. Vol.34. No.22. P.315–324.
• Krasnov B.R. & Chochlova J.S. 1994. [Spatial ethological structure of groups] // Kotenkova E.V. & Bulatova N.Sh. (eds.). [The House Mouse: Origin, Distribution, Systematics, Behaviour]. Moscow: Nauka. P.188–214 [in Russian].
• Laconi M.R. & Castro-Vázquez A. 1998. Aggressive interactions during mating encounters in the corn mouse, Calomys musculinus (Muridae, Sigmodontinae) // Mastozoología Neotropical. Vol.5. No.1. P.21–28.
• Levine L., Barsel G.E. & Diakow G.A. 1966. Mating behavior of two inbred strains of mice // Animal Behaviour. Vol.14. No.1. P.1–6.
• Lidicker W.L. 1976. Social behavior and density regulation in house mice living in large enclosure // Journal of Animal Ecology. Vol.45. No.3. P.677–697.
• Lieberwirth C. & Wang Z. 2016. The neurobiology of pair bond formation, bond disruption, and social buffering // Current Opinion in Neurobiology. Vol.40. P.8–13.
• Lloyd I.A. 1975. Social structure and reproduction in two free-growing populations in house mice (Mus musculus) // Animal Behaviour. Vol.23. No.2. P.413–424.
• Mackintosh J.H. 1981. Behaviour of house mouse // Symposia of the Zoological Society of London. Vol.47. P.337–365.
• Mangels R., Tsung K., Kwan K. & Dean M.D. 2016. Copulatory plugs inhibit the reproductive success of rival males // Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Vol.29. No.11. P.2289–2296.
• Manno T.G. & Dobson F.S. 2008. Why are male Columbian ground squirrel’s territorial? // Ethology. Vol.114. No.11. P.1049–1060.
• Manno T.G., Nesterova A.P., Debarbieri L.M., Kennedy S.E., Wright K.S. & Dobson F.S. 2007. Why do male Columbian ground squirrels give a mating call? // Animal Behaviour. Vol.74. No.5. P.1319–1327.
• McGill Т.Е. 1962. Sexual behavior in three inbred strains of mice // Behaviour. Vol.19. No.4. P.341–350.
• McGill Т.Е. & Ranson T.W. 1968. Genotypic change affecting conclusions regarding the mode of inheritance of elements of behavior // Animal Behaviour. Vol.16. No.1. P.88–91.
• Mezhzherin S.V. 1994. [Taxonomy and modern views on the system of Palaearctic house mice] // Kotenkova E.V. & Bulatova N.Sh. (eds.). [The House Mouse: Origin, Distribution, Systematics, Behaviour]. Moscow: Nauka. P.15–36 [in Russian].
• Montoto L.G., Magana C., Tourmente M., Martin-Coello J., Crespo C., Luque-Larena J.J., Gomendio M. & Roldan E.R.S. 2011. Sperm competition, sperm numbers and sperm quality in muroid rodents // PLoS ONE. Vol.6. No.3. e18173.
• Mosig D.W. & Dewsbury D.A. 1976. Studies of the copulatory behavior of house mice (Mus musculus) // Behavioral Biology. Vol.16. No.4. P.463–473.
• Naumov N.P. 1940. [Ecology of mound-building mouse Mus musculus hortulanus Nordm.] // Trudy Instituta Evolutsionnoi Morfologii Akademii Nauk SSSR. Vol.3. P.33–76 [in Russian, with English summary].
• Nelson J.F., Felicio L.S., Randall P.K., Sims C. & Finch C.E. 1982. A longitudinal study of estrous cyclicity in aging C57BL/6J mice: I. Cycle frequency, length and vaginal cytology // Biology of Reproduction. Vol.27. No.2. P.327–39.
• Noordwijk M.A., van & Schaik C.P., van. 2004. Sexual selection and the careers of primate males: paternity concentration, dominance-acquisition tactics and transfer decisions // Kappeler P.M. & Schaik C.M., van. (eds.). Sexual Selection in Primates: New and Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P.208–221.
• Patris B. & Baudoin C. 1998. Female sexual preferences in Mus spicilegus and Mus musculus domesticus: the role of familiarization and sexual experience // Animal Behaviour. Vol.56. No.6. P.1465–1470.
• Patris B. & Baudoin C. 2000. A comparative study of parental care between two rodent species: implications for the mating system of the mound-building mouse Mus spicilegus // Behavioural Processes. Vol.51. No.1–3. P.35–43.
• Patris B., Gouat P., Jacquot C., Christophe N. & Baudoin C. 2002. Agonistic and sociable behaviors in the mound-building mouse, Mus spicilegus, a comparative study with Mus musculus domesticus // Aggressive Behavior. Vol.28. No.1. P.75–84.
• Pelikán J. 1981. Patterns of reproduction in the house mouse // Symposia of the Zoological Society of London. Vol.47. P.205–229.
• Pisareva M.E. 1948. [Ecology and systematic of mound-building mouse] // Sbornik Rabot Biologicheskogo Fakulteta Dnepropetrovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta: Uchenye Zapiski. Vol.32. P.68–71 [in Russian].
• Pitcher T.E., Dunn P.O. & Whittingham L.A. 2005. Sperm competition and the evolution of testes size in birds // Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Vol.18. No.3. P.557–567.
• Kenagy G.J. & Trombulak S.C. 1986. Size and function of mammalian testes in relation to body size // Journal of Mammalogy. Vol.67. No.1. P.1–22.

Download PDF