So I did some digging.
The original article is
here.
We really need Pie back to cope with this kind of maths, it is WAAAAAY beyond me.
BUT! There was a link to a criticial reply,
here.
They pointed out that the original paper had double-corrected for some factor and the true ratio is somewhat higher - where the original gives 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4, the correct figures should be 1.3, 2.2 and 2.6! Thus leading to the conclusion of:
Quote:
|
a female effective population size roughly twice that of males.
|
i.e females were rougly twice as likely to breed as males.
I should declare that the original authors then reply
here with a bunch of stuff I cannot fathom, but they acknowledge and agree with the reply about double correcting. Either way, there is pretty good genetic evidence for widespread polygynous polygamy in human history.
Given that many societies and individuals
have been monogamous, the remainder must have been definitely polygamous to make the averages work out like this.
It still does not address the serial polygyny question, though.