Roleplaying Video Games Entertainment & Media Politics & Religion General
Worldbuilding Creative Forum The Sports Center Science, Math, & Technology The Nostalgia Forum
GTX0 is community-run. Do you have an issue or suggestion? add_comment Add one

Worldbuilding

Lineages, Names, & Marriage in 3-Sex 3-Parent Species

Posted Over 4 Years ago by chiarizio

Please also see the following threads:
http://gtx0.com/merge/thread/1478&highlight=three+three
http://gtx0.com/merge/thread/1473&highlight=three+three
http://gtx0.com/merge/thread/1474&highlight=three+three
http://gtx0.com/merge/thread/1471&highlight=three+three
http://gtx0.com/merge/thread/1477&highlight=three+three
http://gtx0.com/merge/thread/775&highlight=three+three
[color=#AA5500](edit) Also:
jump to http://gtx0.com/merge/post/20625#20625 for an afterthought intro to this thread. (/edit)

_______________________________________________________________

In this thread we'll be talking about the culture(s) of a species which has three sexes -- A, B, and C -- and in which each specimen has three parents, one of each sex.

The 3rd-person-singular pronouns for a person of sex A will be:
ne/nem/nis/nemself

The 3rd-person-singular pronouns for a person of sex B will be:
de/dem/dis/demself

The 3rd-person-singular pronouns for a person of sex C will be:
ve/vem/ver/vemself

I will use they/them/their/themsel(f/ve) for 3rd-persons of unspecified sex and also for plural 3rd-persons.

_______________________________________________________________

There can be eight kinds of lineages that a child can inherit from one of their parents, in a way that depends on the sex of the parent, and possibly also on the sex of the child;
in such a way that no-one belongs to more than one lineage of any given type.

Everyone can inherit their A-line from their A-parent.
Everyone can inherit their B-line from their B-parent.
Everyone can inherit their C-line from their C-parent.

There can be a set of AB-ropes for which:
every A-child inherits membership from nis B-parent; and
every B-child inherits membership from dis A-parent.
(Individuals of sex C don't belong to any AB-rope.)

There can be a set of AC-ropes for which:
every A-child inherits membership from nis C-parent; and
every C-child inherits membership from ver A-parent.
(Individuals of sex B don't belong to any AC-rope.)

There can be a set of BC-ropes for which:
every B-child inherits membership from dis C-parent; and
every C-child inherits membership from ver B-parent.
(Individuals of sex A don't belong to any BC-rope.)

There can also be a set of "honeysuckles" for which:
every A-child inherits membership from nis B-parent;
every B-child inherits membership from dis C-parent; and
every C-child inherits membership from ver A-parent.

And there can be a set of "woodbines" for which:
every A-child inherits membership from nis C-parent;
every B-child inherits membership from dis A-parent; and
every C-child inherits membership from ver B-parent.

Assuming the culture divides itself into named lineages according to all eight of these methods, every individual will belong to one and only one lineage of each of seven of these eight types; which seven will depend on their sex.

Everyone will belong to
exactly one A-line, and
exactly one B-line, and
exactly one C-line, and
exactly one honeysuckle, and
exactly one woodbine.

Every A-person will also belong to
exactly one AB-rope, and
exactly one AC-rope.

Every B-person will also belong to
exactly one AB-rope, and
exactly one BC-rope.

Every C-person will also belong to
exactly one AC-rope, and
exactly one BC-rope.


_______________________________________________________________


Note that everyone inherits a line-membership from seven of their nine grandparents.

Everyone inherits their A-line from their A-parent's A-parent.
Everyone inherits their B-line from their B-parent's B-parent.
Everyone inherits their C-line from their C-parent's C-parent.

An A-person
inherits nis AB-rope from nis B-parent's A-parent; and
inherits nis AC-rope from nis C-parent's A-parent.

A B-person
inherits dis AB-rope from dis A-parent's B-parent; and
inherits dis BC-rope from dis C-parent's B-parent.

A C-person
inherits ver AC-rope from ver A-parent's C-parent; and
inherits ver BC-rope from ver B-parent's C-parent.

Additionally:
An A-person inherits nis honeysuckle from nis B-parent's C-parent, and
inherits nis woodbine from nis C-parent's B-parent.
A B-person inherits dis honeysuckle from dis C-parent's A-parent, and
inherits dis woodbine from dis A-parent's C-parent.
And a C-person inherits ver honeysuckle from ver A-parent's B-parent, and
inherits ver woodbine from ver B-parent's A-parent.

So, an A-child inherits:
  • nis A-line from nis A-parent's A-parent;
  • nis AB-rope from nis B-parent's A-parent;
  • nis B-line from nis B-parent's B-parent;
  • nis honeysuckle from nis B-parent's C-parent;
  • nis AC-rope from nis C-parent's A-parent;
  • nis woodbine from nis C-parent's B-parent; and
  • nis C-line from nis C-parent's C-parent.

    A B-child inherits:
  • dis A-line from dis A-parent's A-parent;
  • dis AB-rope from dis A-parent's B-parent;
  • dis woodbine from dis A-parent's C-parent;
  • dis B-line from dis B-parent's B-parent;
  • dis honeysuckle from dis C-parent's A-parent;
  • dis BC-rope from dis C-parent's B-parent; and
  • dis C-line from dis C-parent's C-parent.

    And, a C-child inherits:
  • ver A-line from ver A-parent's A-parent;
  • ver honeysuckle from ver A-parent's B-parent;
  • ver AC-rope from ver A-parent's C-parent;
  • ver woodbine from ver B-parent's A-parent;
  • ver B-line from ver B-parent's B-parent;
  • ver BC-rope from ver B-parent's C-parent; and
  • ver C-line from ver C-parent's C-parent.


    So an A-child inherits some kind of lineage-membership from every grandparent except nis A-parent's B- and C-parents;
    a B-child inherits some kind of lineage-membership from every grandparent except dis B-parent's A- and C-parents; and
    a C-child inherits some kind of lineage-membership from every grandparent except ver C-parent's A- and B-parents.

  • There are 36 Replies


    [unparsed]I (and maybe some other conworlders?) would probably like, in at least some conworlds, to make it that, not only would every parent welcome the birth of any child regardless of the child's sex, but also that every grandparent would welcome the birth of any grandchild, regardless of the grandchild's sex (and regardless of the child's sex!).

    For instance, there can be a custom that a child's personal, individual name, should be chosen by, or should be inherited from, one or both of the grandparents from whom the child does not inherit any lineage-membership.

    Examples:
    Every A-person names nis first-born A-child after nis B-parent,
    and names nis second-born A-child after nis C-parent. (Or vice-versa.)
    And every B-person names dis first-born B-child after dis C-parent,
    and names dis second-born B-child after dis A-parent. (Or vice-versa.)
    And every C-person names ver first-born C-child after ver A-parent,
    and names ver second-born C-child after ver B-parent. (Or vice-versa.)

    [b:81da5e414b][u:81da5e414b]_____________________________________________________________[/u:81da5e414b][/b:81da5e414b]

    Perhaps after the births of the first two grandchildren of a given sex through a child of that sex, the grandparents of the other two sexes can take turns choosing the name of the grandchild.

    E.g. an A-person's third A-child's name will be chosen by nis A-parent's B-parent; and an A-person's fourth A-child's name will be chosen by nis A-parent's C-parent; and so on.

    Similarly for a B-person's A- and C- parents will take turns naming dis third and fourth (etc.) B-children, and a C-person's A- and B- parents will take turns naming ver third and fourth (etc.) C-children.

    [b:81da5e414b][u:81da5e414b]_____________________________________________________________[/u:81da5e414b][/b:81da5e414b]

    Or, instead, the third and subsequent children of a given sex, will just be numbered, or otherwise assigned names that just reflect birth-order and sex.

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]In this post we will be talking about using "surnames" -- that is, the names of lineages -- in order to avoid consanguinity in marriage and mating.

    Suppose an A-person and a B-person want to mate or marry.
    The A-person belongs to seven lineages;
    nis A-line, nis B-line, nis C-line, nis honeysuckle, nis woodbine, nis AB-rope, and nis AC-rope.
    The B-person also belongs to seven lineages;
    dis A-line, dis B-line, dis C-line, dis honeysuckle, dis woodbine, dis AB-rope, and dis BC-rope.

    There are six kinds of lineage for which each of them belongs to a line of that kind; A-line, B-line, C-line, honeysuckle, woodbine, and AB-rope.

    There might be a rule that no two spouses in any marriage (or no two partners in any mating) can belong to the same line of any type.

    If the A-person and the B-person don't belong to any of the same lines, then they can share at most one grandparent; the A-person's A-parent's C-parent could be the same person as the B-person's B-parent's C-parent.

    Similarly there are six kinds of line for which both an A-person and a C-person belong to a line of that kind; A-line, B-line, C-line, honeysuckle, woodbine, and AC-rope. And if they don't belong to any of the same lines, they can share at most one grandparent; the A-person's A-parent's B-parent could be the same person as the C-person's C-parent's B-parent.

    And if a B-person and a C-person don't share any of the same lines, they can also have at most one grandparent in person; the B-person's B-parent's A-parent might also be the C-person's C-parent's A-parent.

    So, if no two of the three spouses can belong to any of the same lines as any other spouse, the most consanguineous they can be is that each of the three spouses can be a 1/3 - first-cousin of each other spouse.

    [b:09f57d805d][u:09f57d805d]_____________________________________________________________[/u:09f57d805d][/b:09f57d805d]

    In order for that to be possible, there'd have to be at least 3 each of A-lines, B-lines, C-lines, honeysuckles, and woodbines, and at least 2 each of AB-ropes, AC-ropes, and BC-ropes.

    For each sex there'd be at least (3^5)*(2^2)=243*4=972 possible combinations of lineages.
    If that were the case, each person could "legally" mate with (2^5=32)/972 = slightly less than 3.3% of the otherwise-eligible people of each other sex.
    Given two individuals of different sexes who are eligible to mate with each other, only 1 out of every 972 (just over 0.1%) otherwise-eligible people of the third sex would be "legal" for them to marry.

    So if there are barely enough lineages of each type to go around, this "[b:09f57d805d]pro[/b:09f57d805d]scriptive marriage system" -- it tells who you [b:09f57d805d]can't[/b:09f57d805d] marry, namely anyone in any of the same lines as you -- is, [i:09f57d805d]de facto[/i:09f57d805d] and in effect, a "[b:09f57d805d]pre[/b:09f57d805d]scriptive marriage system", or nearly so -- there's only one (type of) person you [b:09f57d805d]can[/b:09f57d805d] marry.

    [b:09f57d805d][u:09f57d805d]_____________________________________________________________[/u:09f57d805d][/b:09f57d805d]

    OTOH if there are at least 4 or more A-lines, 4 or more B-lines, 4 or more C-lines, 4 or more honeysuckles, 4 or more woodbines, 3 or more AB-ropes, 3 or more AC-ropes, and 3 or more BC-ropes, then there are at least (4^5)*(3^2)=1024*9=9216 combinations of lineages for each sex; and each person can mate with people from (3^5)*2 = 486 of those combinations for each other sex (486/9216 being about 5.3%); and each eligible-to-each-other pair of possible mates can choose from (2^5)*(2^2)=128 (almost 1.4%) lineage-combinations of the remaining sex.


    [b:09f57d805d][u:09f57d805d]_____________________________________________________________[/u:09f57d805d][/b:09f57d805d]

    Suppose I (or we) wanted everyone to be marriageable to (at least) half of the members of each other sex?

    If there are the same number [i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d] of lines of each kind, then there are [i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d]^7 combinations of lineages of each sex, and any person is marriageable to each of (([i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d]-1)^6)*[i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d] such combinations of each other sex.
    So we need to find [i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d] such that (([i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d]-1)/[i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d])^6 >= 1/2 .
    The smallest such [i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d] is ten (10).
    Given two people of two different sexes who are marriageable to each other, there are (([i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d]-2)^5)*(([i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d]-1)^2) lineage-combinations of the remaining sex who are marriageable simultaneously to the both of them.
    For [i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d]=10 that's (8^5)*(9^2) = 32768 * 81.
    ((0.8)^5)*((0.9)^2) = over 0.265, or more than 26.5%, of the people in the remaining sex would be eligible.


    [b:09f57d805d][u:09f57d805d]_____________________________________________________________[/u:09f57d805d][/b:09f57d805d]

    But that pre-supposes that every combination of lineages in every sex will have at least one member who is available for marriage. Since there would be 10^7 = 10,000,000 lineage-combinations for each sex, that would mean that the culture's population would have to be very large, for this number of lineages of each type to actually be used to control consanguinity in marriage, and still allow everyone to find half-or-more of the otherwise-eligible (for instance, age-appropriate and not already over-mated) members of each other sex to be marriageable.

    In real life, avoiding same-surname marriages is useful for avoiding consanguinity, only in medium-to-smallish populations (for instance, where, if two people have the same surname and come from the same village, there's a "high" (whatever that means) chance that their fathers are related, or that their mothers are related if they're matrilineal.)
    Once people have a chance to pick mates from many, many different villages, or even a few big cities, having the same family-name no longer implies very much consanguinity. Likewise, once the number of people with a given surname grows very large, the odds that two of them will be too closely consanguineous to marry, drops to a safe level.


    [b:09f57d805d][u:09f57d805d]_____________________________________________________________[/u:09f57d805d][/b:09f57d805d]


    What if "half" is too big a fraction? What fraction would be the smallest that could be tolerated/enforced/mostly-obeyed?

    If [i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d]=8, there'd be 8^7 = 2,097,152 lineage-combinations in each sex. IMO that's still too large.
    But each person would be marriageable to (7/8)^6 = almost 44.9% of the (otherwise-eligible) members of each other sex. Two such persons would be marriageable to ((6/8)^5)*((7/8)^2) = almost 18.2% of the remaining sex.
    I figure that might be tolerable -- i.e. not too strict.

    If [i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d]=6, there'd be 6^7 = 279,936 lineage-combinations in each sex.
    Perhaps that might not be too large.
    But each person would be marriageable to (5/6)^6 = almost 33.5% of the (otherwise-eligible) members of each other sex. Two such persons would be marriageable to ((4/6)^5)*((5/6)^2) = a bit more than 9.1% of the remaining sex.
    I figure that might be [u:09f57d805d]barely[/u:09f57d805d] tolerable.



    [b:09f57d805d][u:09f57d805d]_____________________________________________________________[/u:09f57d805d][/b:09f57d805d]


    OTOH, how big would [i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d] need to be so that, once an A-person and a B-person "hook up" or get engaged (or, for that matter, and A-person and a C-person, or a B-person and a C-person), at least half of the otherwise-eligible members of the remaining sex are mutually marriageable to both of them?

    We need to find the smallest [i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d] such that
    ((([i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d]-2)/[i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d])^5)*((([i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d]-1)/[i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d])^2) >= 1/2

    It turns out that smallest [i:09f57d805d]N[/i:09f57d805d] is 19.
    That would allow 19^7 = 893,871,739 lineage-combinations in each sex.
    Population would need to be near 2.7 billion (2.7 * 10^9) for there to be just one person of each sex in each such combination.


    [b:09f57d805d][u:09f57d805d]_____________________________________________________________[/u:09f57d805d][/b:09f57d805d]


    And we're still allowing each spouse to be a 1/3 -first-cousin of each other spouse!

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    One way of still using the "no two spouses can have a same surname (belong to the same lineage of the same type)" to limit consanguinity even further, so that 1/3 -first-cousins are not marriageable to each other, would be to require that, for instance, no spouse's parent could belong to any of the same lines as any other spouse's parent.
    That would require a minimum of 9 each of A-lines, B-lines, C-lines, honeysuckles, and woodbines, and 6 each of AB-ropes, AC-ropes, and BC-ropes.

    A less strict requirement, still stricter than just "no two spouses can both belong to any of the same lines", is that:
    No spouse can belong to any of the same lines as any parent of any other spouse.
    Equivalently;
    No spouse's parent can belong to any of the same lines as any other spouse.

    This requires a minimum of 5 each of A-lines, B-lines, C-lines, honeysuckles, and woodbines; and a minimum of 4 each of AB-ropes, AC-ropes, and BC-ropes.

    But, again, if there are only the minimum number of each of them, choice will be constrained so that the proscriptive marriage system would be, in effect, a prescriptive marriage system.

    So it would seem that, once an industrial and technological society took hold among these people, and their population got large and everyone's trade-area got large and they started being able to travel a lot and meet people from far-away places and possibly fall in love with them and marry them, they would start just calculating actual consanguinity, even if they kept up the named-lineages.

    (The named lineages might continue to be culturally important for some other reason than controlling consanguinity.)

    _____________________________________________________________

    Under the circumstances for evolving three-sex-three-parent reproduction that bloodb4roses proposed in (some of) the threads referred to in the beginning of the first post on this thread;
    It might be that there is more pressure for diversity and against consanguinity among these people than there is among RL humans *here* on Earth-Prime in OurTimeLine.

    So perhaps the following matings would be proscribed:
  • parents
  • children
  • any direct ancestors
  • any direct descendants
  • siblings
  • full siblings
  • 2/3 -siblings
  • 1/3 -siblings
  • niblings (children of siblings)
  • full niblings
  • 2/3 -niblings (children of 2/3 -siblings)
  • 1/3 -niblings
  • reciprocally, siblings of parents
  • parents' full siblings
  • parents' 2/3 -siblings
  • parents' 1/3 -siblings
  • any collateral ancestors (siblings or part-siblings of direct ancestors)
  • any collateral descendants (direct descendants of siblings or part-siblings)
  • first-cousins (a parent's sibling's child)
  • part-first-cousins (a parent's part-sibling's child)
  • first-cousins and part-first-cousins removed any number of generations; viz. a collateral ancestor's child or a parent's collateral descendant)
  • second-cousins and part-second-cousins (a grandparent's full- or part- sibling's grandchild)
  • second-cousins and part-second-cousins one generation removed (a grandparent's full- or part- sibling's great-grandchild, or a great-grandparent's full- or part- sibling's grandchild)

    The most restrictive consanguinity proscription I'm aware of in real life, prohibits marriage between first-cousins-once-removed or closer.

    The above proscription is, in a sense, one step more strict. It proscribes first-cousins-twice-or-more-removed, and also second-cousins-once-removed or closer.

    _____________________________________________________________

    In one of my concultures, at a certain time in its con-history and evolution, two people may not marry if:
  • either of them is a direct ancestor of the other,
  • or the child of such a direct ancestor (and therefore a collateral ancestor),
  • or the grandchild of such a direct ancestor (and therefore a first-cousin, or a first-cousin-some-number-of-times-removed);
  • or a direct descendant of the other,
  • or a direct descendant of a parent of the other (and thus a collateral descendant),
  • or a direct descendant of a grandparent of the other (and thus a first-cousin, maybe-some-number-of-times-removed)
  • or the two have more than one great-grandparent in common.

    Thus, full-second-cousins are prohibited to each other; and so are double-half-second-cousins.
    (Double-half-second-cousins might come in two varieties.
    (Maybe one grandparent of one person is half-sibling to each of two grandparents of the other person;
    (or maybe each person has two grandparents, each of whom is half-sibling to a grandparent of the other.)

    However, half-second-cousins are not prohibited each other.
    Neither are second-cousins-once-(or-more)-removed.

    Full-second-cousins (and double-half-second-cousins) average about 1/32 of their variable genes in common from the same source(s).

    Relatives permitted above, average about 1/64 (or less) of their variable genes in common from the same source.

    _____________________________________________________________


    In the three-sex-three-parent species, 1/3 -second-cousins average about 1/729 of their variable genes in common from the same source; and 1/3 -second-cousins-once-removed average around 1/2187 of their variable genes in common from the same source.

    Full-second-cousins, however, average about 1/243 of their variable genes in common; so full-second-cousins-twice-removed average about 1/2187 of their variable genes in common.
    Yet full-second-cousins-twice-removed are not proscribed each other, but 1/3-second-cousins-once-removed are.

    Maybe it should be:
    If there are three or more cases where a great-grandparent of one is a great-grandparent or great-great-grandparent or great-great-great-grandparent of the other, they are proscribed from each other.
    Or just:
    Unless they average less than 1/2187 of their variable genes in common from the same source (their index of consanguinity is less than 1/2187), they are proscribed from each other.

    Or whatever.

  • Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]Next up:
    What if we ditch the complicated lines (honeysuckles, woodbines, and ropes), and just concentrate on the A-lines, the B-lines, and the C-lines?

    (Later. It's late.)

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]This is a lot to think about. It is possible, much as it is Here TM, on Earth Prime and in our Time Line, that different cultures might prescribe or proscribe different things in regards to consanguinity.

    For example, Here TM, some cultures proscribe against quite a few individuals, but usually only through some type of traceable relation. Sally Smith and Allen Smith could both marry each other despite having the same last name, assuming they can't be should to be related far enough back. In other cultures, like some in China iirc, prescribe a specific person who is relatively closely related (if someone fitting the prescription exists), BUT anyone with the same family name is proscribed.

    In parts of Europe, again iirc, they allowed first cousin marriages but not any closer relations even by adoption or "spiritual" family like the children of godparents.

    So, there could be some cultures with more or less strict systems, even on a world where more genetic diversity is needed than Here TM, especially when entire large swaths of their tree of life have evolved a specific mechanism to deal with that.

    Over 4 Years ago
    bloodb4roses
     

    [unparsed][quote:ed56e61e24="bloodb4roses"][size=9:ed56e61e24]This is a lot to think about. It is possible, much as it is Here TM, on Earth Prime and in our Time Line, that different cultures might prescribe or proscribe different things in regards to consanguinity.
    ....
    So, there could be some cultures with more or less strict systems, even on a world where more genetic diversity is needed than Here TM, especially when entire large swaths of their tree of life have evolved a specific mechanism to deal with that.[/size:ed56e61e24][/quote:ed56e61e24]
    You are right about [u:ed56e61e24][i:ed56e61e24]all[/i:ed56e61e24][/u:ed56e61e24] of that, of course.
    I don't have a specific response to your post, but I wanted to thank you for your comment.
    So; Thanks!

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]To use named lineages (or, surnames, or, clan-names) to control consanguinity, there are several levels of strictness, which can be characterized by a pair of non-negative whole numbers [i:2ed2849a39]a[/i:2ed2849a39] and [i:2ed2849a39]b[/i:2ed2849a39] where [i:2ed2849a39]a[/i:2ed2849a39] >= [i:2ed2849a39]b[/i:2ed2849a39] >= 0. The number [i:2ed2849a39]a[/i:2ed2849a39] is how many generations before the spouses the earliest generation to be compared is; the number [i:2ed2849a39]b[/i:2ed2849a39] is how many generations before the spouses will be compared to that [i:2ed2849a39]a[/i:2ed2849a39]th generation.

    I'm going to write those numbers with a period connecting them, like [i:2ed2849a39]a[/i:2ed2849a39].[i:2ed2849a39]b[/i:2ed2849a39] .

    Considering just one lineage-type;

    0.0 ; No spouse belongs to the same line as any other spouse.
    1.0 ; 0.0, and, additionally, no spouse's parent belongs to the same line as any other spouse.
    1.1 ; 1.0, and, additionally, no spouse's parent belongs to the same line as any other spouse's parent.
    2.0 ; 1.1, and, additionally, no spouse's grandparent belongs to the same line as any other spouse.
    2.1 ; 2.0, and, additionally, no spouse's grandparent belongs to the same line as any other spouse's parent.
    2.2 ; 2.1, and, additionally, no spouse's grandparent belongs to the same line as any other spouse's grandparent.
    3.0 ; 2.2, and, additionally, no spouse's great-grandparent belongs to the same line as any other spouse.
    3.1 ; 3.0, and, additionally, no spouse's great-grandparent belongs to the same line as any other spouse's parent.
    3.2 ; 3.1, and, additionally, no spouse's great-grandparent belongs to the same line as any other spouse's grandparent.
    3.3 ; 3.2, and, additionally, no spouse's great-grandparent belongs to the same line as any other spouse's great-grandparent.

    ....

    And so on.

    [b:2ed2849a39][u:2ed2849a39]_____________________________________________________________[/u:2ed2849a39][/b:2ed2849a39]


    I personally have never experimented with any level more strict than 3.0 .
    I have never heard of any real-life restriction stricter than 2.2 .
    Some Sikh community (or communities) in India use 49 patrilines (everybody inherits from their father) eponymously named after their founding 49 sages or saints. When a marriage is being proposed, their elders make certain neither of the parties has or had a grandparent from the same patriline as some grandparent of the other party. ([size=9:2ed2849a39][color=blue:2ed2849a39][i:2ed2849a39][citation needed][/i:2ed2849a39][/color:2ed2849a39][/size:2ed2849a39], I suppose.)

    Depending on the level of strictness, and on the number of sexes and number of parents (assuming everyone has to have exactly one parent of each sex), there are different minimum numbers of lines that must exist in order for any marriages to be legal.

    Let [i:2ed2849a39]S[/i:2ed2849a39] be the number of sexes (also, the number of spouses, and the number of parents).
    Assuming that the lineage-type we're working with consists of lines that include all [i:2ed2849a39]S[/i:2ed2849a39] sexes; the minimum number of such lines that must exist is:
    ([i:2ed2849a39]S[/i:2ed2849a39]^([i:2ed2849a39]b[/i:2ed2849a39]+1)) + (([i:2ed2849a39]S[/i:2ed2849a39]^[i:2ed2849a39]a[/i:2ed2849a39]) - ([i:2ed2849a39]S[/i:2ed2849a39]^[i:2ed2849a39]b[/i:2ed2849a39])).

    Varying [i:2ed2849a39]S[/i:2ed2849a39] from 2 to 5, and varying [i:2ed2849a39]a[/i:2ed2849a39].[i:2ed2849a39]b[/i:2ed2849a39] from 0.0 to 3.3, these minimum values are as follows:
    [code:1:2ed2849a39]0.0 2 3 4 5
    1.0 3 5 7 9
    1.1 4 9 16 25
    2.0 5 11 19 29
    2.1 6 15 28 45
    2.2 8 27 64 125
    3.0 9 29 67
    3.1 10 33 76
    3.2 12 45
    3.3 16 81[/code:1:2ed2849a39]

    We've been considering labeling the lineages with the (lowercase) letters of the Latin alphabet.
    Even if we use all 26 letters in each line, we'd run out of letters at 2.2 for 3 sexes, at 2.1 for 4 sexes, and at 2.0 for 5 sexes.
    But we've been thinking of using just 26/[i:2ed2849a39]S[/i:2ed2849a39] letters for each type of lineage.
    If we do that, and if we're using just those lineage-types where everybody inherits their lineage-membership from a specific sex of parent --- (for two parents, those two lineage-types would be matrilines/matriclans and patrilines/patriclans; for three sexes (A, B, and C), those three lineage types would be A-lines (everyone inherits from their A-parent), B-lines (everyone inherits from their B-parent), and C-lines) --- then we wouldn't have enough Latin letters at 3.3 for two sexes (2*16 > 26), or at 1.1 for three sexes (3*9 > 26), or at 1.0 for four sexes (4*7 > 26), or at 0.0 for six sexes (6*6 > 26).
    Even if we were using the 74-letter Khmer alphabet, instead of the 26-letter Latin alphabet, we couldn't handle 2.2 for three sexes (3*27 > 74), nor 2.0 for four sexes (4*19 > 74), nor 1.1 for five sexes (5*25 > 74), nor 1.0 for seven sexes (7*13 > 74).

    So, for three sexes, I want the strictness level to be 1.0 or less strict.


    [b:2ed2849a39][u:2ed2849a39]_____________________________________________________________[/u:2ed2849a39][/b:2ed2849a39]

    We could label the A-lines with the eight letters a-h; and label the B-lines with the eight letters j-q; and label the C-lines with the eight letters s-z.

    Or:
    We could label the A-lines with the ten letters a-j; and label the B-lines with the ten letters i-r; and label the C-lines with the ten letters q-z.

    As I have pointed out in previous posts, if the number of lines in a lineage-type is only the minimum number required to allow any marriages at all, the system becomes close to a prescriptive marriage system.

    But as soon as there are more than the minimum number of lineages of a certain type, there is more freedom of choice for which families one's spouses come from.

    I have made a spreadsheet showing the possible legal combinations of A-lines of the A-, B-, and C- -parents of each of the spouses (the A- , B- , and C- -spouses), when there are seven (7) A-lines.
    I didn't do that for eight (8 ) A-lines because there would be more than two million legal combinations, and my version of Excel can't handle more than 1,048,576 (=2^20) rows.

    For five (5) A-lines, there are only 480 combinations.

    For six (6) A-lines, there are 25,920 combinations.

    For seven (7) A-lines, there are 362,880 combinations.

    ....

    And so on.


    [b:2ed2849a39][u:2ed2849a39]_____________________________________________________________[/u:2ed2849a39][/b:2ed2849a39]

    With three spouses, each having three parents, there are nine spouses' parents to consider. If the lineage-type is such that every spouse, and every parent of a spouse, belongs to some lineage of that type; but there are fewer than nine lineages of that type; then at least one pair (or trio) of spouse's parents must belong to the same lineage.

    Let [i:2ed2849a39]L[/i:2ed2849a39] be the number of lineages of such a type.

    There are [i:2ed2849a39]L[/i:2ed2849a39]*([i:2ed2849a39]L[/i:2ed2849a39]-1)*([i:2ed2849a39]L[/i:2ed2849a39]-2) combinations of parents' lineages for a spouse of the first sex we consider. (Let's consider the A-spouse first).

    Provided there are at least six (6) lineages (i.e. [i:2ed2849a39]L[/i:2ed2849a39] >= 6), there are
    ([i:2ed2849a39]L[/i:2ed2849a39]-3)*([i:2ed2849a39]L[/i:2ed2849a39]-2)*([i:2ed2849a39]L[/i:2ed2849a39]-3) combinations of parents' lineages who would be eligible to be the B-spouse of a given A-spouse.

    However, if [i:2ed2849a39]L[/i:2ed2849a39] < 9, unless at least one of the A-spouse's parents is of the same lineage as one of the B-spouse's parents, then the choice of C-spouse is constrained.

    For example, if [i:2ed2849a39]L[/i:2ed2849a39] = 5, there are 5*4*3 = 60 combinations of parents' lineages for the A-spouse.
    But although there are 2*3*2 = 12 combinations of parents' lineages for which the A-spouse is not in the same A-lineage as any of the B-spouse's parents, and the B-spouse is not in the same A-lineage as any of the A-spouse's parents:
    they won't find a C-spouse who is simultaneously eligible to both of them, unless the A-lineages of the B-spouse's B- and C- -parents, are the same as the A-lineages of the A-spouse's B- and C- parents (in either order; either A's B-parent's A-lineage is the same as B's B-parent's A-lineage and A's C-parent's A-lineage is the same as B's C-parent's A-lineage, or A's B-parent's A-lineage is that of B's C-parent's A-lineage while A's C-parent's A-lineage is that of B's B-parent's A-lineage).
    So actually only 2*2=4 combinations of B-spouse's parents' lineages will allow A and B to jointly find a C-spouse eligible for both of them.
    The C-spouse's A-lineage (and therefore the C-spouse's A-parent's A-lineage) must be the remaining one of the A-lineages that "has not yet been used", that is, that is not the lineage of any of the other two spouses' parents.
    The C-spouse's B- and C- -parents' A-lineages, must be the same as the A-lineages of the other two spouses' B- and C- parents; in either order. So there are only 1*2=2 combinations of C-spouse's parents' A-lineages eligible to both the A-spouse and the B-spouse to be a match for a C-spouse of both of them together.


    [b:2ed2849a39][u:2ed2849a39]_____________________________________________________________[/u:2ed2849a39][/b:2ed2849a39]

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed][b:de93255523][u:de93255523]_____________________________________________________________[/u:de93255523][/b:de93255523]

    In that [i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]=5 example above, any given A-spouse can find four out of the sixty combinations of B-spouse's parents' A-lineages compatible with nem; and the A-spouse and B-spouse together can find two out of the sixty combinations of C-spouse's parents' A-lineages compatible both with nem and with dem.
    That is, about 6.67% of the B-people are not ineligible because of matching A-lineages for a given A-person; and, for a given pair of an A-person and a B-person who are eligible for each other, about 3.33% of of the C-people are not ineligible for either of them because of matching A-lineages.

    The same is true of the B-lineages and the C-lineages.
    So if we track all of those -- that is, we track A-lineages, and B-lineages, and C-lineages -- and there are only 5 (five) lineages of each type, and we require that no spouse's parent belongs to any of the same lineages that any other spouse belongs to, each person finds (4/60)^3 = (1/15)^3 = 1/3375 of the people of any other sex, to be eligible; and any two people of different sexes who are eligible to each other, find (2/60)^3 = (1/30)^3 = 1/27000 people of the third sex to be eligible to both of them.

    I am not sure such strictness would be tolerable.

    If [i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523] = 9 , then there are 9*8*7 = 504 combinations of parents' A-lineages. A given individual is eligible to 6*7*6 = 252 combinations of spouse's parents' A-lineages, and 252/504 is 1/2. Given two individuals of different sexes none of whose parents share an A-lineage with any of the other's parents, there would be at least 3*6*5 = 90 combinations of spouse's parents' A-lineages who would be eligible for both of them. (If just one of the A-spouse's parents shared an A-lineage with just one of the B-spouse's parents, there would be 4*6*5 = 120 combinations of C-spouse's parents' A-lineages eligible to both of them. If the A-spouse's B- and C- -parents came from the same A-lineages as the B-spouse's B- and C- -parents, in either order, there would be 5*6*5 = 150 eligible combinations of C-spouse's parents' A-lineages.)

    This is a lot closer to tolerable. Using the same values for B-lineages and C-lineages, an A-person would find (252/504)^3 = (1/2)^3 = 1/8 = 12.5% of the B-people to satisfy the 1.0 rule; and together they would find on the average something more than
    (90/504)^3 = (5/28 )^3 = 125/21952 > 1/176 of C-people eligible to both of them.

    When looking at two-sex two-spouse two-parent cultures, I try to arrange that each person finds at least one-half of the opposite sex to be eligible, or, at least, not ineligible due to a surname match.
    For a 3-sex 3-spouse 3-parent culture, if we wanted to make sure every A-person would find at least half of the B-people eligible, and we assume there are just as many (i.e. [i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]) A-lineages as B-lineages and just as many C-lineages as A-lineages, then we would need:
    ( (([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-3)*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-2)*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-3)) / ([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-1)*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-3)) )^3 >= 1/2 ;
    that is, (([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-3)*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-2)*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-3)) / ([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-1)*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-3)) >= cuberoot(1/2).
    For that, we need [i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523] >= 24 .

    If we went further, and wanted any inter-eligible couple of an A-person and a B-person to find at least half of all C-people to be eligible for both of them, we'd need
    (([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-6)*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-3)*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-4)) / ([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-1)*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-3)) >= cuberoot(1/2).
    This would be the case provided [i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523] >= 47 .

    (For some couples, (([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-[b:de93255523][color=darkred:de93255523]4[/color:de93255523][/b:de93255523])*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-3)*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-4)) / ([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-1)*([i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523]-3)) >= cuberoot(1/2) would suffice.)
    (This happens if [i:de93255523]L[/i:de93255523] >= 37 .)



    [b:de93255523][u:de93255523]_____________________________________________________________[/u:de93255523][/b:de93255523]

    How effective is this scheme at preventing consanguinity?
    How much consanguinity does it allow?

    Consider the following:
    [code:1:de93255523] A-lineage B-lineage C-lineage

    A-spouse's A-parent's a n y
    " " B-parent's d k z
    " " C-parent's e o v

    B-spouse's A-parent's b n y
    " " B-parent's d l z
    " " C-parent's e o w

    C-spouse's A-parent's c n y
    " " B-parent's d m z
    " " C-parent's e o x [/code:1:de93255523]

    This satisfies the rule 1.0; no spouse's parent belongs to any of the same lineages that any other spouse belongs to.
    We see that the A-spouse's A-parent and the B-spouse's A-parent and the C-spouse's A-parent could all be mutually 2/3-siblings of each other; they could all share the same B-parent and the same C-parent, but would all have to have different A-parents.
    Also, we see that the A-spouse's B-parent and the B-spouse's B-parent and the C-spouse's B-parent could all be mutually 2/3-siblings of each other; they could all share the same A-parent and the same C-parent, but would all have to have different B-parents.
    And, finally, we see that the A-spouse's C-parent and the B-spouse's C-parent and the C-spouse's C-parent could all be mutually 2/3-siblings of each other; they could all share the same A-parent and the same B-parent, but would all have to have different C-parents.

    So this allows each spouse to be a triple 2/3-first-cousin of each other spouse.

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]I mentioned that I would prefer that my conculture be such that, as nearly as possible, every child would inherit a lineage-membership from every grandparent.
    If it were indeed true that everyone inherited a lineage from [b:e89ee87a0c]every[/b:e89ee87a0c] grandparent, then rule 0.0 would guarantee that no spouse's grandparent shared a lineage with any other spouse's grandparent, provided the parents' sexes were the same as each other and the grandparents' sexes were also the same as each other.
    That would mean that, for instance, no spouse's A-parent's B-parent could be a full-sibling of any other spouse's A-parent's B-parent.
    So certain full-second-cousin relationships between spouses would be ruled out.
    I haven't figured it out, but, possibly, some 2/3-second-cousin or 1/3-second-cousin relationships might also be ruled out; and also, possibly, the spouses' parents needn't be the same sex as each other, and/or their grandparents needn't be the same sex.

  • =*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*==*

    However it is impossible for any child to inherit any lineage from their same-sex-parent's other-sex-parent.

    For instance, among humans, a child inherits their patriline from their father and his father, and inherits their matriline from their mother and her mother, and inherits their "rope" from their opposite-sex-parent and that parent's opposite-sex-parent (who is the same sex as the child).
    So boys inherit their rope from their mothers and their mothers' fathers; and girls inherit their rope from their fathers and their fathers' mothers.
    But their is no consistent way for a boy to inherit any lineage from his father's mother, nor for a girl to inherit any lineage from her mother's father.

    In a three-sex species, an A-child could inherit
    nis A-line from nis A-parent and nis A-parent's A-parent; and
    nis B-line from nis B-parent and nis B-parent's B-parent; and
    nis C-line from nis C-parent and nis C-parent's C-parent; and
    nis AB-rope from nis B-parent and nis B-parent's A-parent; and
    nis AC-rope from nis C-parent and nis C-parent's A-parent; and
    nis honeysuckle from nis B-parent and nis B-parent's C-parent; and
    nis woodbine from nis C-parent and nis C-parent's B-parent.
    (An A-child would not be assigned a BC-rope.)
    But an A-child cannot inherit a lineage from nis A-parent's B-parent nor nis A-parent's C-parent.

    By the same token, a B-child could inherit
    dis A-line from dis A-parent and dis A-parent's A-parent; and
    dis B-line from dis B-parent and dis B-parent's B-parent; and
    dis C-line from dis C-parent and dis C-parent's C-parent; and
    dis AB-rope from dis A-parent and dis A-parent's B-parent; and
    dis BC-rope from dis C-parent and dis C-parent's B-parent; and
    dis honeysuckle from dis C-parent and dis C-parent's A-parent; and
    dis woodbine from dis A-parent and dis A-parent's C-parent.
    (A B-child would not be assigned an AC-rope.)
    But a B-child cannot inherit a lineage from dis B-parent's A-parent nor nis B-parent's C-parent.

    And similarly a C-child cannot inherit a lineage from ver C-parent's A-parent nor ver C-parent's B-parent.

    [b:e89ee87a0c][u:e89ee87a0c]_____________________________________________________________[/u:e89ee87a0c][/b:e89ee87a0c]

    If I go on to a four-sex four-parent four-spouse species, can I glean any general principles?

    Consider my concultural desideratum that everyone inherit membership in some lineage or other from every grandparent from whom it's possible to inherit such membership.

    Call the sexes A, B, C, and D. (Because I'm just [i:e89ee87a0c][u:e89ee87a0c]so[/u:e89ee87a0c][/i:e89ee87a0c] creative!)

    First; every child, regardless of the child's sex, can inherit a lineage-membership from each grandparent who is the same sex as the child's parent (the grandparent's child).
    Every child inherits an A-lineage from their A-parent's A-parent;
    every child inherits a B-lineage from their B-parent's B-parent;
    every child inherits a C-lineage from their C-parent's C-parent; and,
    every child inherits a D-lineage from their D-parent's D-parent.

    Second; every child can inherit a lineage-membership from every grandparent who is the same sex as the child.
    So for instance every A-child can inherit an AB-rope from their B-parent, and their B-parent's A-parent, and their B-parent's A-parent's B-parent; and,
    can inherit an AC-rope from their C-parent, and their C-parent's A-parent, and their C-parent's A-parent's C-parent; and,
    can inherit an AD-rope from their D-parent, and their D-parent's A-parent, and their D-parent's A-parent's D-parent.
    And, every B-child can inherit an AB-rope from their A-parent, and their A-parent's B-parent, and their A-parent's B-parent's A-parent; and,
    can inherit an BC-rope from their C-parent, and their C-parent's B-parent, and their C-parent's B-parent's C-parent; and,
    can inherit an BD-rope from their D-parent, and their D-parent's B-parent, and their D-parent's B-parent's D-parent.

    And similarly every C-child
    inherits an AC-rope from their A-parent's C-parent, and
    inherits a BC-rope from their B-parent's C-parent, and
    inherits a CD-rope from their D-parent's C-parent.
    And every D-child
    inherits an AD-rope from their A-parent's D-parent, and
    inherits a BD-rope from their B-parent's D-parent, and
    inherits a CD-rope from their C-parent's D-parent.

    But I still want every child to inherit from an other-sex-parent's other-sex-parent who is not the same sex as the child. In other words, if the parent is not the same sex as the child, and the grandparent is not the same sex as either the child or the child's parent (grandparent's child), I need a lineage-type that can be inherited by that child from that grandparent.

    Because I have expressed no desideratum wishing that every child inherit lineage membership from as many great-grandparents as possible, there are two ways to go (more than two if there are more than four sexes).

    Either every child eventually inherits from a great-grandparent who is the same sex as the child, but different from the parent and the grandparent;
    or every child eventually inherits from a great-grandparent who is the sex different from that of the child, different from that of the parent, and different from that of the grandparent.

    The first way, there will be eighteen types of lineage in all; the four "straight lines", the six "ropes", and eight three-turn coils.
    The second way, there will be sixteen types of lineage in all; the four "straight lines", the six "ropes", and six four-turn coils.
    Either way, everyone will belong to exactly one lineage of each of thirteen types. Which thirteen types, depends on the sex of the individual.
    They will all belong to all four "straight lines"; to three of the six "ropes"; and either to six of the eight "three-turn coils", or to all six of the "four-turn coils".

    The three-turn coils are as follows.


    1. ABC-coil; an A-child inherits from their B-parent, a B-child inherits from their C-parent, and a C-child inherits from their A-parent.
    D-children are not assigned an ABC-coil.

    2. ACB-coil; an A-child inherits from their C-parent, a B-child inherits from their A-parent, and a C-child inherits from their B-parent.
    D-children are not assigned an ACB-coil.


    3. ABD-coil; an A-child inherits from their B-parent, a B-child inherits from their D-parent, and a D-child inherits from their A-parent.
    C-children are not assigned an ABD-coil.

    4. ADB-coil; an A-child inherits from their D-parent, a B-child inherits from their A-parent, and a D-child inherits from their B-parent.
    C-children are not assigned an ADB-coil.


    5. ACD-coil; an A-child inherits from their C-parent, a C-child inherits from their D-parent, and a D-child inherits from their A-parent.
    B-children are not assigned an ACD-coil.

    6. ADC-coil; an A-child inherits from their D-parent, a C-child inherits from their A-parent, and a D-child inherits from their C-parent.
    B-children are not assigned an ADC-coil.


    7. BCD-coil; a B-child inherits from their C-parent, a C-child inherits from their D-parent, and a D-child inherits from their B-parent.
    A-children are not assigned a BCD-coil.

    8. BDC-coil; an B-child inherits from their D-parent, a C-child inherits from their B-parent, and a D-child inherits from their C-parent.
    A-children are not assigned a BDC-coil.

  • Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed][b:06fd264192][u:06fd264192]_____________________________________________________________[/u:06fd264192][/b:06fd264192]


    The four-turn coils are as follows:

    1. ABCD-coil; an A-child inherits from their B-parent, a B-child inherits from their C-parent, a C-child inherits from their D-parent, and a D-child inherits from their A-parent.

    2. ABDC-coil; an A-child inherits from their B-parent, a B-child inherits from their D-parent, a C-child inherits from their A-parent, and a D-child inherits from their C-parent.

    3. ACBD-coil; an A-child inherits from their C-parent, a B-child inherits from their D-parent, a C-child inherits from their B-parent, and a D-child inherits from their A-parent.

    4. ACDB-coil; an A-child inherits from their C-parent, a B-child inherits from their A-parent, a C-child inherits from their D-parent, and a D-child inherits from their B-parent.

    5. ADBC-coil; an A-child inherits from their D-parent, a B-child inherits from their C-parent, a C-child inherits from their A-parent, and a D-child inherits from their B-parent.

    6. ADCB-coil; an A-child inherits from their D-parent, a B-child inherits from their A-parent, a C-child inherits from their B-parent, and a D-child inherits from their C-parent.


    [b:06fd264192][u:06fd264192]_____________________________________________________________[/u:06fd264192][/b:06fd264192]

    Although each individual will belong to thirteen lineages of different type in either scheme, the number of lineage-types two spouses will both belong to a lineage in, are different in the three-turn scheme than in the four-turn scheme.

    In both schemes, everyone will belong to exactly one lineage in each of the four "straight-line" types; an A-line, a B-line, a C-line, and a D-line.
    So, every two spouses will have those four lineage-types in common.

    In both schemes, everyone will belong to exactly on lineage in each of three of the six "rope" types. But, to look at a representative example, both the A-spouse and the B-spouse will belong each to their own AB-rope; but the A-spouse will also belong to an AC-rope and an AD-rope, while the B-spouse will belong to no lineage of either of those types; and the B-spouse will also belong to a BC-rope and a BD-rope, while the A-spouse will belong to no lineage of either of those types. (Neither the A-spouse nor the B-spouse will belong to any CD-rope.)
    So, every two spouses will both belong to "ropes" of only one type.

    So far, there are five lineage-types that two spouses of different sexes will both belong each to their own lineage of that type.

    In the four-turn scheme, everyone will belong to some four-turn coil in each of the six types of four-turn coils. So in that scheme, there will be eleven types of lineages such that both spouses belong to some lineage (each to their own lineage) of each of those types.

    But in the three-turn scheme, only four of the eight types of three-turn coils will both contain a lineage to which one spouse belongs and also contain a lineage to which the other spouse belongs.
    Again, to illustrate with a representative example:
    The A-spouse belongs to an ABC-coil, an ACB-coil, an ABD-coil, an ADB-coil, an ACD-coil, and an ADC-coil.
    The B-spouse belongs to an ABC-coil, an ACB-coil, an ABD-coil, an ADB-coil, a BCD-coil, and a BDC-coil.
    The B-spouse belongs to no ACD-coil and to no ADC-coil. The A-spouse belongs to no BCD-coil and to no BDC-coil.
    Only the ABC-coil type, the ACB-coil type, the ABD-coil type, and the ADB-coil type, each contain both a lineage to which the A-spouse belongs, and also a lineage to which the B-spouse belongs.

    So, in the three-turn scheme, there are but nine types of lineage such that both the A-spouse and the B-spouse belong to some lineage (each to their own) of that type.

    The difference between a ninth-power and an eleventh-power might make it much less troublesome to find a compatible mate. 7^9 is 49 times smaller than 7^11. (OTOH 7^9 is 343^3 which is more than 27 million.)


    [b:06fd264192][u:06fd264192]_____________________________________________________________[/u:06fd264192][/b:06fd264192]


    Is there any new information to be gleaned from trying on a five-sex five-parent five-spouse culture?

    The only thing new is, now there are two great-grandparents who are not the same sex as the child, not the same sex as the parent, and not the same sex as the grandparent, when the child and the parent and the grandparent are all of three different sexes.

    Call the five sexes A and B and C and D and E, respectively.
    (Wow! I'm on fire with creativity!)

    So, say I want a lineage type wherein an A-child inherits membership through their B-parent from a C-grandparent.

    I could do this with a three-turn coil (an ABC-coil), having the lineage inherited eventually from an A-great-grandparent the same sex as the child.

    I could do this with either of two four-turn coils; an ABCD-coil or an ABCE-coil. At 4:00 AM in the morning I can think of no good reason to choose one over the other.

    Or, I could do this with either of two five-turn coils; an ABCDE-coil or an ABCED-coil. Again, I don't need both, and I don't know why I should prefer one over the other.

    It looks, to me, that, in the interests of consistency across number-of-sexes, and of simplicity in choosing the lineage types, and of reducing the number of comparable lineages of the same type that each of two spouse-hopefuls belong to a lineage of, we (or maybe just I) should always go with the three-turn coils.
    If we look at the three-turn coils, two individuals of different sexes both belong to lineages of 2*([i:06fd264192]S[/i:06fd264192]-2) three-turn-coil types (where [i:06fd264192]S[/i:06fd264192] is still the number of sexes); while they'll both belong to lineages of 3*([i:06fd264192]S[/i:06fd264192]-2)*([i:06fd264192]S[/i:06fd264192]-3) four-turn-coil types. For [i:06fd264192]S[/i:06fd264192] = 5 that's the difference between six and eighteen. 9^(5+1+6) differs from 9^(5+1+18) by quite a few. 9^12 is only the square-root of 9^24.




    [b:06fd264192][u:06fd264192]_____________________________________________________________[/u:06fd264192][/b:06fd264192]


    Alright, it's way the fuck past time for bed. I'm turning in for the night. I hope I can drive tomorrow!

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed][color=#AA5500:d6eb5485dc][size=18:d6eb5485dc]I can't believe I failed to mention exogamy!
    This thread started out mostly about various kinds of hereditary exogamous groups.
    We (by which I mean "I") have been calling them, generically "lineages" or "lines" or "clans".
    They are hereditary in the sense that a person is assigned to one to which one of their parents belonged; and this is pre-determined at birth, by the sex of the child and the sexes of the parents.
    They are exogamous in the sense that marriage and/or mating between two members of the same group is prohibited.

    ....

    We have been using the term "straight lines" for those for which there is one sex such that everyone (regardless of the child's sex) inherits membership from the parent of that sex.
    Human examples are patrilines or patriclans (everyone inherits their father's group), and matrilines or matriclans (everyone inherits their mother's group).
    Some real-life human societies segment themselves into patriclans and also, "orthogonally", into matriclans.
    Three-sex three-parent three-spouse examples are the A-line (everyone inherits their A-parent's group), the B-line (everyone inherits their B-parent's group), and the C-line (everyone inherits their C-parent's group).
    We're assuming a culture could use all three kinds of "straight line" lineages.

    We have been using the terms "rope" or "geun" (Mundugumor for "rope") for those containing two sexes, such that everyone of either of those two sexes inherits membership from the parent of the other one of those two sexes; and therefore, inherits from a grandparent of the child's own sex.
    The only known real-life human example is the Mundugumor rope or "geun"; it was first reported by Margaret Mead, and has been the subject of controversy since, some anthropologists denying it and some defending it. (Unfortunately, some of them chime in without investigating anything, based on what they are [i:d6eb5485dc]sure[/i:d6eb5485dc] -- without first-hand research -- [i:d6eb5485dc]must[/i:d6eb5485dc] be possible or [i:d6eb5485dc]must[/i:d6eb5485dc] be impossible. The only result is to fuel the controversy and air their own prejudices.)
    A three-sex three-parent three-spouse culture with sexes A and B and C could have three such "ropes":
  • an AB-rope in which A-children inherit from their B-parents and B-children inherit from their A-parents, and C-children are not assigned an AB-rope;
  • an AC-rope in which A-children inherit from their C-parents and C-children inherit from their A-parents, and B-children are not assigned an AC-rope; and
  • a BC-rope in which B-children inherit from their C-parents and C-children inherit from their B-parents, and A-children are not assigned a BC-rope.

    We have been using the term "coil" to refer to any lineage that contains three or more sexes.
    Of course there are no real-life examples.
    Examples in our 3-sex 3-parent 3-spouse culture would be:
  • the ABC-coil or "honeysuckle", wherein A-children inherit from their B-parent, B-children inherit from their C-parent, and C-children inherit from their A-parent; and,
  • the ACB-coil or "woodbine", wherein A-children inherit from their C-parent, B-children inherit from their A-parent, and C-children inherit from their B-parent.

    All of these groups are exogamous in the conculture I (we) am (are) considering.
    Everyone belongs to at most one group of each type.
    Everyone belongs to exactly one group of each "straight line" type.
    In our 3-sex conculture, everyone belongs to exactly one group of each "coil" type.
    For each "rope" type, however, there is one sex -- a different sex for each type of "rope" -- that don't belong to any group of that type. But everyone of the two included sexes does belong to exactly one group of that type.
    [/size:d6eb5485dc][/color:d6eb5485dc]

  • Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]So far, we have considered rule 0.0 (no two spouses can belong to the same group of the same type) using all eight kinds of lineages (A-lines, B-lines, C-lines, AB-ropes, AC-ropes, BC-ropes, "honeysuckles", and "woodbines"), and found that it allows every spouse to be a 1/3-first-cousin of every other spouse.

    And we have considered rule 1.0 (no spouse's parent can belong to the same group as any other spouse) using only the three "straight" lines (A-lines and B-lines and C-lines), and found that it allows every spouse to be a triple-2/3-second-cousin of every other spouse.

    I want now to test rule 1.0 using all eight kinds of lineage, and figure out how much consanguinity it allows.

    [b:03babf2d45][u:03babf2d45]_______________________________________________________________[/u:03babf2d45][/b:03babf2d45]

    For the purposes of this experiment, I'm going to just number the various lineages of each type; and number them independently of each other, so that, for instance, there may be a number 1 lineage and a number 2 lineage of each type, and they are really independent of the number 1 lineage and number 2 lineage of any other type.
    [code:1:03babf2d45]
    A-line B-line C-line AB-rope AC-rope BC-rope ABC-coil ACB-coil
    A-spouse's 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1
    B-spouse's 2 2 2 2 N/A 2 2 2
    C-spouse's 3 3 3 N/A 3 3 3 3

    A-spouse's A-parent's 1 4 4 3 2 N/A 4 4
    A-spouse's B-parent's 4 1 5 1 N/A 1 1 5
    A-spouse's C-parent's 5 5 1 N/A 1 4 5 1

    B-spouse's A-parent's 2 4 4 2 2 N/A 4 2
    B-spouse's B-parent's 4 2 5 4 N/A 1 5 4
    B-spouse's C-parent's 5 5 2 N/A 4 2 2 5

    C-spouse's A-parent's 3 4 4 3 3 N/A 3 4
    C-spouse's B-parent's 4 3 5 4 N/A 3 4 3
    C-spouse's C-parent's 5 5 3 N/A 4 4 5 5

    A-spouse's A-parent's A-parent's 1 6 6 5 5 N/A 6 6
    A-spouse's A-parent's B-parent's 6 4 7 3 N/A 5 4 7
    A-spouse's A-parent's C-parent's 7 7 4 N/A 2 6 7 4

    A-spouse's B-parent's A-parent's 4 6 6 1 5 N/A 6 5
    A-spouse's B-parent's B-parent's 6 1 7 6 N/A 5 7 6
    A-spouse's B-parent's C-parent's 7 7 5 N/A 6 1 1 7

    A-spouse's C-parent's A-parent's 5 6 6 5 1 N/A 5 6
    A-spouse's C-parent's B-parent's 6 5 7 6 N/A 4 6 1
    A-spouse's C-parent's C-parent's 7 7 1 N/A 6 6 7 7

    B-spouse's A-parent's A-parent's 2 6 6 5 5 N/A 6 6
    B-spouse's A-parent's B-parent's 6 4 7 2 N/A 5 4 7
    B-spouse's A-parent's C-parent's 7 7 4 N/A 2 6 7 2

    B-spouse's B-parent's A-parent's 4 6 6 4 5 N/A 6 4
    B-spouse's B-parent's B-parent's 6 2 7 6 N/A 5 7 6
    B-spouse's B-parent's C-parent's 7 7 5 N/A 6 1 5 7

    B-spouse's C-parent's A-parent's 5 6 6 5 4 N/A 2 6
    B-spouse's C-parent's B-parent's 6 5 7 6 N/A 2 6 5
    B-spouse's C-parent's C-parent's 7 7 2 N/A 6 6 7 7

    C-spouse's A-parent's A-parent's 3 6 6 5 5 N/A 6 6
    C-spouse's A-parent's B-parent's 6 4 7 3 N/A 5 3 7
    C-spouse's A-parent's C-parent's 7 7 4 N/A 3 6 7 4

    C-spouse's B-parent's A-parent's 4 6 6 4 5 N/A 6 3
    C-spouse's B-parent's B-parent's 6 3 7 6 N/A 5 7 6
    C-spouse's B-parent's C-parent's 7 7 5 N/A 6 3 4 7

    C-spouse's C-parent's A-parent's 5 6 6 5 4 N/A 5 6
    C-spouse's C-parent's B-parent's 6 5 7 6 N/A 4 6 5
    C-spouse's C-parent's C-parent's 7 7 3 N/A 6 6 7 7
    [/code:1:03babf2d45]

    I am afraid that, in order to properly compare these, I'm going to have to re-sort and re-order them. I hope I do it right!

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed][code:1:a952e7708d]
    A-line B-line C-line AB-rope AC-rope BC-rope ABC-coil ACB-coil
    A-spouse's 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1
    B-spouse's 2 2 2 2 N/A 2 2 2
    C-spouse's 3 3 3 N/A 3 3 3 3

    A-spouse's A-parent's 1 4 4 3 2 N/A 4 4
    B-spouse's A-parent's 2 4 4 2 2 N/A 4 2
    C-spouse's A-parent's 3 4 4 3 3 N/A 3 4

    A-spouse's B-parent's 4 1 5 1 N/A 1 1 5
    B-spouse's B-parent's 4 2 5 4 N/A 1 5 4
    C-spouse's B-parent's 4 3 5 4 N/A 3 4 3

    A-spouse's C-parent's 5 5 1 N/A 1 4 5 1
    B-spouse's C-parent's 5 5 2 N/A 4 2 2 5
    C-spouse's C-parent's 5 5 3 N/A 4 4 5 5

    A-spouse's A-parent's A-parent's 1 6 6 5 5 N/A 6 6
    B-spouse's A-parent's A-parent's 2 6 6 5 5 N/A 6 6
    C-spouse's A-parent's A-parent's 3 6 6 5 5 N/A 6 6

    A-spouse's B-parent's A-parent's 4 6 6 1 5 N/A 6 5
    B-spouse's B-parent's A-parent's 4 6 6 4 5 N/A 6 4
    C-spouse's B-parent's A-parent's 4 6 6 4 5 N/A 6 3

    A-spouse's C-parent's A-parent's 5 6 6 5 1 N/A 5 6
    B-spouse's C-parent's A-parent's 5 6 6 5 4 N/A 2 6
    C-spouse's C-parent's A-parent's 5 6 6 5 4 N/A 5 6


    A-spouse's A-parent's B-parent's 6 4 7 3 N/A 5 4 7
    B-spouse's A-parent's B-parent's 6 4 7 2 N/A 5 4 7
    C-spouse's A-parent's B-parent's 6 4 7 3 N/A 5 3 7

    A-spouse's B-parent's B-parent's 6 1 7 6 N/A 5 7 6
    B-spouse's B-parent's B-parent's 6 2 7 6 N/A 5 7 6
    C-spouse's B-parent's B-parent's 6 3 7 6 N/A 5 7 6

    A-spouse's C-parent's B-parent's 6 5 7 6 N/A 4 6 1
    B-spouse's C-parent's B-parent's 6 5 7 6 N/A 2 6 5
    C-spouse's C-parent's B-parent's 6 5 7 6 N/A 4 6 5


    A-spouse's A-parent's C-parent's 7 7 4 N/A 2 6 7 4
    B-spouse's A-parent's C-parent's 7 7 4 N/A 2 6 7 2
    C-spouse's A-parent's C-parent's 7 7 4 N/A 3 6 7 4

    A-spouse's B-parent's C-parent's 7 7 5 N/A 6 1 1 7
    B-spouse's B-parent's C-parent's 7 7 5 N/A 6 1 5 7
    C-spouse's B-parent's C-parent's 7 7 5 N/A 6 3 4 7

    A-spouse's C-parent's C-parent's 7 7 1 N/A 6 6 7 7
    B-spouse's C-parent's C-parent's 7 7 2 N/A 6 6 7 7
    C-spouse's C-parent's C-parent's 7 7 3 N/A 6 6 7 7
    [/code:1:a952e7708d]

    Possible relations between spouses' grandparents could be the following.

    1. Each spouse's A-parent's A-parent could be a 2/3-sibling of each other spouse's A-parent's A-parent, all three grandparents sharing the same B-parent and the same C-parent, but each having their own, unshared, A-parent.

    2. Likewise, each spouse's B-parent's B-parent could be a 2/3 sibling of each other spouse's B-parent's B-parent;

    3. and each spouse's C-parent's C-parent could be a 2/3-sibling of each other spouse's C-parent's C-parent.

    So the spouses could be mutually triple-2/3-second-cousins to each other.

    But wait! There's more!

    Assuming I've figured it right, and my eyes didn't deceive me and I didn't have a brain-fart:

    1. The B-spouse's and C-spouse's B-parents' A-parents could be 2/3-siblings of each other, sharing their A- and B-parents but having different C-parents. Simultaneously the A-spouse's B-parent's A-parent could be a 1/3 sibling of both of the other spouse's B-parents' A-parents, sharing their A-parent but having a different B-parent and a different C-parent from either of them.

    2. The A-spouse's and C-spouse's C-parents' A-parents could be 2/3-siblings, sharing their A- and B- -parents but each having a different C-parent. At the same time, the B-spouse's and C-spouse's C-parents' A-parents could be 2/3-siblings, sharing their A- and C- -parents but having different B-parents. That would mean the A-spouse's and B-spouse's C-parents' A-parents would be 1/3-siblings, sharing their A-parent but having different B- and C- -parents.

    3. The A-spouse's and B-spouse's A-parents' B-parents could be 2/3-siblings, sharing their B- and C- -parents but having different A-parents. At the same time, the A-spouse's and C-spouse's A-parents' B-parents could be 2/3-siblings, sharing their A- and B- -parents but having different C-parents. That would make the B- and C- -spouses' A-parents' B-parents 1/3-siblings, sharing only their B-parent.

    4. The A- and C- -spouses' C-parents' B-parents could be 2/3 siblings, sharing their B- and C- -parents but having different A-parents. And at the same time the B- and C- -spouses' C-parents' B-parents could be 2/3-siblings, sharing their A- and B- -parents but having different C-parents. That would make the A- and B- -spouses' C-parents' B-parents 1/3-siblings, sharing their B-parent only.

    5. The A- and B- -spouses' A-parents' C-parents could be 2/3-siblings, having the same A- and C- -parents but different B-parents; and simultaneously the A- and C- -spouse's A-parents' C-parents could be 2/3-siblings, sharing B- and C- -parents but having different A-parents. That would make the B- and C- -spouses' A-parents' C-parents, 1/3-siblings.

    6. The A- and B- -spouses' B-parents' C-parents could share their B- and C- -parents but have different A-parents; and the C-spouse's B-parent's C-parent could share their C-parent but have their own B-parent as well as their own A-parent.

    So the spouses could also be mutually sextuple-1/3-second-cousins to each other.

    Actually, given the data in the "code box" above, it's possible that the A-spouse and the B-spouse could be sextuple-2/3-second-cousins to each other, and the A- and C- spouses septuple-2/3-second-cousins to each other, and the B- and C- -spouses be quintuple-2/3-second-cousins to each other. (Or, at least, some such statement is true; it might be exactly as I said, if I read everything right and thought everything right and so on.)

    But, in general, given that data, it's possible (varying [b:a952e7708d][i:a952e7708d]x[/i:a952e7708d][/b:a952e7708d] and [b:a952e7708d][i:a952e7708d]y[/i:a952e7708d][/b:a952e7708d] each independently through all three sexes A and B and C) that, every spouse's [b:a952e7708d][i:a952e7708d]x[/i:a952e7708d][/b:a952e7708d]-parent's [b:a952e7708d][i:a952e7708d]y[/i:a952e7708d][/b:a952e7708d]-parent is at least a 1/3 sibling, (and at most a 2/3-sibling; not a full sibling), of each other spouse's [b:a952e7708d][i:a952e7708d]x[/i:a952e7708d][/b:a952e7708d]-parent's [b:a952e7708d][i:a952e7708d]y[/i:a952e7708d][/b:a952e7708d]-parent.

    And that's the limit of how consanguineous a mating/marriage can be, in "our" three-sex culture, if all eight lineage-types are tracked and rule 1.0 (no spouse's parent can belong to the same lineage as any other spouse) is enforced.

    Probably, if the number of lineages of each type is only the minimum possible, the most consanguineous marriage allowed would be less consanguineous than the above.

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]Not to derail your train of thought, since this is fascinating and definitely not something I'd have the mental stamina for myself at the moment, but! I was considering the fact that one sex would (or at least might) more reliably know their children than the other 2 sexes would. In humans, a woman would always know that a child was hers for obvious reasons. In birds and other egg laying creatures, there's the small chance that an egg could be swapped for another female's egg before they hatch, but generally again, the parentage of an individual is more easily known on the mother's side than the father's.

    That said, at least in my own species Danpyr, members of sex C are the most like Earth females. I haven't actually decided if they give live birth or lay eggs, but this is the gender that puts in the most energy before a child has been born/hatched, and so also are the ones who are more certain that "their" children are in fact theirs. A parents and B parents have less certainty of their contribution to a specific child unless the C parent only has one lover of each other gender.

    I wonder how this would affect understanding lineage (maybe ALL siblings who share their C parent would be seen as full siblings even if they are genetically 2/3 or 1/3 siblings? Maybe any offspring produced while one of your A or B parents is with another individual C is seen as at least a possible "partial sibling" and disallowed as a partner in a triad? Especially if both your A [b:8bac59c5ee][i:8bac59c5ee]and[/i:8bac59c5ee][/b:8bac59c5ee] B parents partner with the same C individual).

    Also remember that we might have the ability to look at things from a logical/scientific level, especially while designing things. Meanwhile, assuming we're trying for realism, they might have an incorrect understanding of reproduction, like how some human cultures thought women were basically carriers for children but didn't contribute anything. Which we now know is wrong. Other species might have their own misunderstandings even if they understand well enough to still propagate themselves.

    Over 4 Years ago
    bloodb4roses
     

    [unparsed][quote:5b019d25b5="bloodb4roses"][size=9:5b019d25b5]Not to derail your train of thought,[/size:5b019d25b5][/quote:5b019d25b5]
    I think I've finished it.


    [quote:5b019d25b5="bloodb4roses"][size=9:5b019d25b5]... definitely not something I'd have the mental stamina for ...[/size:5b019d25b5][/quote:5b019d25b5]
    Just read the last few paragraphs in my last post.


    [quote:5b019d25b5="bloodb4roses"][size=9:5b019d25b5].... I was considering the fact that one sex would (or at least might) more reliably know their children than the other 2 sexes would. In humans, a woman would always know that a child was hers for obvious reasons. In birds and other egg laying creatures, there's the small chance that an egg could be swapped for another female's egg before they hatch, but generally again, the parentage of an individual is more easily known on the mother's side than the father's....[/size:5b019d25b5][/quote:5b019d25b5]
    There's also the fact that all the cytoplasmic/organellic genes come from the ovum and so from the mother.
    That's why in my conculture I put the matriclan name first.


    [quote:5b019d25b5="bloodb4roses"][size=9:5b019d25b5].... in my own (con)species Danpyr, members of sex C are the most like Earth females. .... this is the gender that puts in the most energy before a child has been born/hatched, and so also are the ones who are more certain that "their" children are in fact theirs. A parents and B parents have less certainty of their contribution to a specific child unless the C parent only has one lover of each other gender.....[/size:5b019d25b5][/quote:5b019d25b5]
    I remember that.


    [quote:5b019d25b5="bloodb4roses"][size=9:5b019d25b5]....I wonder how this would affect understanding lineage (maybe ALL siblings who share their C parent would be seen as full siblings even if they are genetically 2/3 or 1/3 siblings? Maybe any offspring produced while one of your A or B parents is with another individual C is seen as at least a possible "partial sibling" and disallowed as a partner in a triad? Especially if both your A [b:5b019d25b5][i:5b019d25b5]and[/i:5b019d25b5][/b:5b019d25b5] B parents partner with the same C individual).....[/size:5b019d25b5][/quote:5b019d25b5]
    Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think I remember; didn't we decide on something like:
  • All three parents shared ==> Full siblings.
  • Only A- and C- -parents shared ==> 3/4 siblings.
  • Only B- and C- -parents shared ==> 3/4 siblings.
  • Only A- and B- -parents shared ==> 1/2 siblings.
  • Only C-parent shared ==> 1/2 siblings.
  • Only A-parent shared ==> 1/4 siblings.
  • Only B-parent shared ==> 1/4 siblings.
    ?
    (See http://conworlds.fun/cwbb/viewtopic.php?p=20523&highlight=threequarter+siblings#20523 and/or http://conworlds.fun/cwbb/viewtopic.php?p=20520&highlight=threequarter+siblings#20520)

    In the sort of culture that would not allow mating with full-siblings, it seems to me it might be reasonable to disallow mating with 3/4-siblings.

    Independently, in the sort of culture that would allow mating with first-cousins, it seems to me it might be reasonable to allow mating with 1/4-siblings.


    [quote:5b019d25b5="bloodb4roses"][size=9:5b019d25b5].... assuming we're trying for realism, they might have an incorrect understanding of reproduction, like how some human cultures thought women were basically carriers for children but didn't contribute anything. Which we now know is wrong. Other species might have their own misunderstandings even if they understand well enough to still propagate themselves.....[/size:5b019d25b5][/quote:5b019d25b5]
    Yes.
    And I'm pretty sure that all the RL cultures which think the mothers are merely vessels, also track only the patriclans.

    And this persists after science becomes general knowledge;
    I read a question-and-answer site in which someone from some Islamic Arabic country asked the trusted consultant-expert why Westerners and Israelis had this ridiculous idea of worrying about genetic traits inherited from the mother, when everyone knows only men carry any "tribal seed" and women don't.
    And the consultant answered with a rather charitable-to-we-Westerners explanation of why we are caught up in that delusion.
    The expert never questioned that the questioner was right that women carry no "tribal seed".

    And everyone in the conversation used perfect spelling and grammar, and also used the Internet, so they weren't uneducated nor isolated.


    [b:5b019d25b5][u:5b019d25b5]_____________________________________________________________[/u:5b019d25b5][/b:5b019d25b5]


    Most RL cultures either keep track only of patriclans, or keep track only of matriclans. But several keep track of both.
    Only the Mundugumor have ever been reported to keep track of a clan in which membership is always inherited from the parent of the opposite sex. And this is quite controversial.


    [b:5b019d25b5][u:5b019d25b5]_____________________________________________________________[/u:5b019d25b5][/b:5b019d25b5]


    Among humans, if we used exogamy rule 2.2 (no spouse's grandparent could be in any of the same lines as any of the other spouse's grandparents), and kept track of all three of patriclans, matriclans, and "ropes" or [i:5b019d25b5]geun[/i:5b019d25b5]s, the closest consanguinity that would be permissible would allow each spouse to be a quadruple-fourth-cousin of the other spouse. Each spouse's parent could be a third-cousin of each of the other spouse's parents. Each spouse's grandparent could be a second-cousin of one of the other spouse's grandparents.


    [b:5b019d25b5][u:5b019d25b5]_____________________________________________________________[/u:5b019d25b5][/b:5b019d25b5]


    I don't think there's any risk IRL in allowing second-cousins-once-removed or half-second-cousins to mate and marry and reproduce together.
    Prohibiting full-second-cousins or multiple-half-second-cousins from marrying, might just be an aesthetic choice, or might have something to do with inheriting property*, or with widening a clan's alliances, rather than with fear of inheriting too many duplicate recessive genes.
    (And if it's a conculture, it probably does come down to the conworld-builder's aesthetic choice!)
    *(AIUI Basque culture frowns on first-cousin-marriage because they think it's unfair that both bride and groom would inherit from the same grandfather.)

    In real life, scientists [i:5b019d25b5][size=9:5b019d25b5][color=blue:5b019d25b5][which scientists?][/color:5b019d25b5][/size:5b019d25b5][/i:5b019d25b5] say that, if two first-cousins come from families that haven't made a habit of first-cousin marriage, there is little risk in allowing them to marry.
    There probably is risk in an entire culture making a habit of nearly all marriages being first-cousin marriages. Nevertheless, some RL cultures have exactly such a rule; "every man must marry his mother's brother's daughter" is the commonest, though more than one "Middle Eastern" cultures have as an ideal "a man should marry his father's brother's daughter". And if I am not mistaken, and if I recall correctly, at least a few cultures have a rule for marriage to the father's sister's daughter.
    These first-cousin-marrying cultures -- or at least most of them -- didn't die out or become concentrations of genetic illnesses -- at least, not as far as I know.

    (In a patrilineal culture W=MBD lets/makes a man marry a woman from his mother's patriclan, and thus renew the alliance between patriclans that his father made by marrying his mother.
    (In a patrilineal culture W=FBD lets/makes a man marry inside his own patriclan.
    (In a matrilineal culture W=MZD; it lets/makes a man marry inside his own matriclan.
    (AIUI and IIRC a culture-wide W=FZD rule allows a clan to receive back, via prestation (dowery or whatever), property which was dowered away one generation previously.)

    There was(is?) one famously successful culture -- the Dravidian culture -- in which a man's bride was usually and ideally the daughter of his older sister, (and the bride was younger than the groom).
    Marrying a niece is even closer consanguinity than marrying a cousin. But the effect might be reduced if the groom's mother-in-law is his half-sister rather than his full-sister.
    I've never read that Dravidian culture developed concentrations of genetic illnesses, either.

    When it comes to RL domesticated animals -- non-humans whose breeding is controlled by humans -- no-one recommends mother-son nor father-daughter nor full brother-sister matings.
    However, herdsmen find that, in small-enough herds, they can keep more genetic diversity by mating half-siblings to each other, than they could keep by a program of "maximal outcrossing" --- provided that every animal has more than one mate (one with the same dam but different sire, the other with the same sire but different dam).


    [b:5b019d25b5][u:5b019d25b5]_____________________________________________________________[/u:5b019d25b5][/b:5b019d25b5]


    In summary, if the above is tl;dr, I think if half-second-cousins and quadruple-fourth-cousins are acceptable mates among RL humans, then in a three-sex three-parent three-spouse conspecies, triple-2/3-second-cousins or nonuple-1/3-second-cousins might also be acceptable mates; at least from the point-of-view of limiting inheritance of three copies of some harmful recessive gene.

  • Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]Assuming:
    the A sex is the "sperm-father", who contributes half the nuclear DNA and none of the cytoplasmic/organellic DNA;
    the B sex is the "egg-father", who contributes half the cytoplasmic/organellic DNA and none of the nuclear DNA;
    and the C sex is the "mother", who contributes half the nuclear DNA and also half of the cytoplasmic/organellic DNA.

    Then I don't think there's any point in tracking AB-ropes, nor "honeysuckles", nor "woodbines".
    No-one inherits any genes from their sperm-father's egg-father; and no-one inherits any genes from their egg-father's sperm-father.
    (In the terms used in previous posts in this thread; no-one inherits anything from their A-parent's B-parent, nor from their B-parent's A-parent.)
    So the AB-rope doesn't correspond to any continued genetic line.

    Also, obviously, nobody inherits any genes from their sperm-father's egg-father's mother nor from their egg-father's sperm-father's mother. In terms used earlier in this thread, no-one inherits any genes from their A-parent's B-parent's C-parent nor from their B-parent's A-parent's C-parent.

    And, also obviously, nobody inherits any genes from their mother's sperm-father's egg-father nor from their mother's egg-father's sperm-father. In terms used earlier in this thread, no-one inherits any genes from their C-parent's A-parent's B-parent nor from their C-parent's B-parent's A-parent.

    Perhaps less obviously, no-one inherits any genes from their sperm-father's mother's egg-father (A-parent's C-parent's B-parent) nor from their egg-father's mother's sperm-father (B-parent's C-parent's A-parent).

    So the "honeysuckle" (the ABC-coil) and the "woodbine" (the ACB-coil) also do not track any permanent chance of inheriting genes from an ancestor in that line.

    [b:65e625d7a0][u:65e625d7a0]_____________________________________________________________[/u:65e625d7a0][/b:65e625d7a0]

    That means that, if bloodb4rose's Danpyr follow the three-sex three-parent three-spouse system that I think was the last idea bb4r mentioned for them, (namely that spermfather/eggfather/mother thing), there are only five lineage-types worth pursuing for them:
    the A-line (inherited by everyone, only from their sperm-father);
    the B-line (inherited by everyone, only from their egg-father);
    the C-line (inherited by everyone, only from their mother);
    the AC-rope (A-children inherit from their mother, C-children inherit from their sperm-father, and B-children are not assigned to an AC-rope);
    and the BC-rope (B-children inherit from their mother, C-children inherit from their egg-father, and A-children are not assigned to a BC-rope).


    [b:65e625d7a0][u:65e625d7a0]_____________________________________________________________[/u:65e625d7a0][/b:65e625d7a0]

    If a culture uses exogamous unilineal descent groups of the type we've been describing (our use here of "unilineal" to include ropes and coils may be a broader definition than some/many/most students of RL anthropology are comfortable with), then relevant to its effectiveness as a means of limiting consanguinity are the following facts.

    No-one can ever inherit membership in one of these exogamous unilineal descent groups from their same-sex-parent's different-sex-parent.

    For humans with two sexes, no man can can inherit clan membership from his father's mother,
    and no woman can inherit clan membership from her mother's father.

    For a conspecies with three sexes {A, B, C},
    no A-child can inherit membership from nis A-parent's B-parent nor nis A-parent's C-parent;
    no B-child can inherit membership from dis B-parent's A-parent nor dis B-parent's C-parent;
    and no C-child can inherit membership from ver C-parent's A-parent nor ver C-parent's B-parent.

    This means that, if one party's same-sex-parent's other-sex-parent is the same sex as another party's same-sex-parent's other-sex-parent, they might be identical, that is, one and the same individual; which would make the two parties fractional-first-cousins.
    OTOH, even if one party's same-sex-parent's other-sex-parent is a different sex from another party's same-sex-parent's other-sex-parent, they might be full-siblings; which would make the two parties full-second-cousins.

    So, suppose we apply exogamy rule 1.1 (no parent of any spouse can belong to any of the same lines as any parent of any other spouse).

    It is still possible, if there are two sexes, for each spouse's father's father's mother to have been the same woman as the other spouse's father's father's mother, and at the same time each spouse's mother's mother's father could have been the same man as each other spouse's mother's mother's father. So the two spouses might be each the other's double-half-second-cousin; even under exogamy rule 1.1.

    And, if there are three sexes, it is possible for every A-parent of every spouse to have either the same A-parent's B-parent as the A-parent of every other spouse,
    and also for every spouse's A-parent's A-parent's C-parent to be the same individual of every other spouse's A-parent's A-parent's C-parent;
    and thus every spouse's A-parent is a 2/3-first-cousin of every other spouse's A-parent.
    Similarly, every spouse's B-parent's B-parent can share both an A-parent and a C-parent with every other spouse's B-parent's B-parent, and thus every spouse's B-parent is a 2/3-first cousin of every other spouse's B-parent;
    and similarly it's possible for every spouse's C-parent to be a 2/3-first-cousin of every other spouse's C-parent.
    So every spouse might be a triple 2/3-second-cousin of every other spouse; even under exogamy rule 1.1.

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]So as a simplification, would there be any use in having everyone inherit a C line and then an AC and/or BC rope? Would it work better to use a different line? In this setup each "male" of either type would have two outclassing groups, while "females" would have three.

    How would this compare to everyone having all their parent's lines?

    Over 4 Years ago
    bloodb4roses
     

    [unparsed][quote:62da8ded17="bloodb4roses"]So as a simplification, would there be any use in having everyone inherit a C line and then an AC and/or BC rope? Would it work better to use a different line? In this setup each "male" of either type would have two outclassing groups, while "females" would have three.

    How would this compare to everyone having all their parent's lines?[/quote:62da8ded17]

    The point of having the "ropes" is to allow a child to inherit a line-membership from a grandparent the same sex as the child but a different sex from the parent.

    I am trying to track, using a line-membership system, some way for each child to inherit a line-membership of some kind from each of the child's grandparents. Except, in this case, I'm omitting inheriting line-membership from a grandparent from whom the child inherits no genes.

    Every child has an A-parent and a B-parent and a C-parent.
    The A-parent's A-parent, the B-parent's B-parent, and the C-parent's C-parent, are covered by, respectively, the A-line, the B-line, and the C-line.

    But what if I want
    an A-child to inherit a line-membership from nis C-parent's A-parent?
    or a C-child to inherit a line-membershp from ver A-parent's C-parent?
    or a B-child to inherit a line-membership from dis C-parent's B-parent?
    or a C-child to inherit a line-membershp from ver B-parent's C-parent?

    Those grandparents would be covered by the AC-rope (for the first two questions) and by the BC-rope (for the last two questions).

    No child inherits any genes from their A-parent's B-parent nor their B-parent's A-parent.
    There are seven grandparents from whom one may inherit genes;
    one's A-parent's A-parent;
    one's A-parent's C-parent;
    one's B-parent's B-parent;
    one's B-parent's C-parent;
    one's C-parent's A-parent;
    one's C-parent's B-parent;
    and one's C-parent's C-parent.

    I wish I could have seven lineage-types, such that for each of these grandparents, a child could inherit a lineage-membership of one type from that grandparent.
    But that can't be.
    An A-child can never inherit a line-membership from nis A-parent's B-parent (from whom ne can't inherit any genes either) nor nis A-parent's C-parent.
    A B-child can never inherit a line-membership from dis B-parent's A-parent (from whom de can't inherit any genes either) nor dis B-parent's C-parent.
    A C-child can never inherit a line-membership from ver C-parent's A-parent nor ver C-parent's B-parent.

    An A-child can inherit both some genes and some kind of line-membership from:
    nis A-parent's A-parent;
    nis B-parent's B-parent (though ne can't pass these genes on);
    nis C-parent's C-parent;
    and nis C-parent's A-parent.

    A B-child can inherit both some genes and some kind of line-membership from:
    dis A-parent's A-parent (though de can't pass these genes on);
    dis B-parent's B-parent;
    dis C-parent's C-parent;
    and dis C-parent's B-parent.

    A C-child can inherit both some genes and some kind of line-membership from:
    ver A-parent's A-parent;
    ver A-parent's C-parent;
    ver B-parent's B-parent;
    ver B-parent's C-parent;
    and ver C-parent's C-parent.

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed][quote:2811088638="chiarizio"]
    The point of having the "ropes" is to allow a child to inherit a line-membership from a grandparent the same sex as the child but a different sex from the parent.

    I am trying to track, using a line-membership system, some way for each child to inherit a line-membership of some kind from each of the child's grandparents. Except, in this case, I'm omitting inheriting line-membership from a grandparent from whom the child inherits no genes.

    Every child has an A-parent and a B-parent and a C-parent.
    The A-parent's A-parent, the B-parent's B-parent, and the C-parent's C-parent, are covered by, respectively, the A-line, the B-line, and the C-line.[/quote:2811088638]

    So, genetically and socially, the same sex child of your same sex child would always be "wanted" as long as the culture uses lines for inheritance.

    [quote:2811088638]But what if I want
    an A-child to inherit a line-membership from nis C-parent's A-parent?
    or a C-child to inherit a line-membershp from ver A-parent's C-parent?
    or a B-child to inherit a line-membership from dis C-parent's B-parent?
    or a C-child to inherit a line-membershp from ver B-parent's C-parent?

    Those grandparents would be covered by the AC-rope (for the first two questions) and by the BC-rope (for the last two questions).[/quote:2811088638]

    Or to rephrase again, any rope involving members of sex C would be sexually and socially stable, because you will inherent some of your genetics through this inheritance pattern (at least on average).

    [quote:2811088638]No child inherits any genes from their A-parent's B-parent nor their B-parent's A-parent.[/quote:2811088638]

    Genetically, no A individual would be invested in their B children's children, and likewise no B individual would be invested in their A children's children. There could be societal reasons for some of these children to inherit something, but maybe not. But it MIGHT be used as a prescriptive marriage thing for A and B individuals somehow, like cross cousins in some cultures. Although I feel like that would be more like "An A individual should take one of dis B parent's A siblings' B children as a spouse and then look for an unrelated C spouse".

    Over 4 Years ago
    bloodb4roses
     

    [unparsed]I think you've got it.
    They don't have to use the "ropes" at all.
    And they could use all three ropes, as well as the "honeysuckle" and/or the "woodbine"; in other words, any combination of from zero to all eight of the lineage-types discussed earlier in this thread.
    It's just that the AB-ropes, the honeysuckle, and the woodbine, don't trace the possibility of inheriting genes. Therefore it's hard to calculate what contribution making them exogamous would give toward the goal of avoiding consanguinity.
    Five lineages would be easier to track than eight, and making them all simultaneously exogamous would allow fewer lineages of each type, and a smaller population, to still have half of the otherwise-eligible people one meets, be outside the bounds of consanguinity.
    But they could just use the "straight" lines. Or any two of them; or any one of them.
    Or none of them (once the population gets big enough and mobile enough and educated enough).

    [quote:ad8226dfa9="bloodb4roses"].... But it MIGHT be used as a prescriptive marriage thing for A and B individuals somehow, like cross cousins in some cultures. Although I feel like that would be more like "An A individual should take one of [b:ad8226dfa9]n[/b:ad8226dfa9]is [i:ad8226dfa9][size=9:ad8226dfa9](ftfy -- chiarizio)[/size:ad8226dfa9][/i:ad8226dfa9] B parent's A siblings' B children as a spouse and then look for an unrelated C spouse".[/quote:ad8226dfa9]
    That's especially good IMO.
    Of course, reciprocally, "A B-individual should take one of dis A-parent's B-siblings' A-children as a spouse and then look for an unrelated C-spouse".
    And there'd be no risk that an A-individual and nis B-spouse, nor a B-individual and dis A-spouse, have any genes in common from any recent common source; much less that they will both contribute the same gene to the offspring (since A's contributions are all nuclear and B's contributions are all cytoplasmic/organellic).
    (And then there's the "problem" of figuring out what "unrelated" means in the context of "look for an unrelated C-spouse".)

    Not quite sure that would involve the AB-rope? Unless it's seen as renewing/reinforcing an alliance between two AB-ropes from an earlier generation? (Maybe one or two or three generations earlier?)

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]BTW I thought:

  • Another arrangement that would still keep up the alliance between two AB-ropes, wherein the young A-members of each marry the young B-members of the other, would be for an A-individual to seek nis B-parent's A-parent's B-sibling's A-child's B-child (a second-cousin marriage);
  • or, an A-individual seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's B-parent's A-siblng's B-child's A-child's B-child (a third-cousin marriage).

  • To get out of that rut (i.e. two AB-ropes permanently allied with each other and not with any other AB-rope), we might also allow any one of, or all of, or any combination of the following kinds of third-cousin marriages:
  • One or both of the A-spouse's lines of descent from nis great-grandparent, and the B-spouse's line of descent from dis great-grandparent, must include at least one C-individual.
  • Each of the lines of descent must include either an instance of an A-person's B-parent (or B-person's A-child), or of a B-person's A-parent (or A-person's B-child).
  • The apical pair of siblings -- the great-grandparent's -- must not be the same sex.

    Among such possiblities are the following five:
  • the A-spouse's great-grandparent should be either in the same AB-rope or the same honeysuckle or the same woodbine as ne is;
  • (1.) A-spouse's B-parent's A-parent's B-parent,
    or
  • (2.) A-spouse's B-parent's C-parent's A-parent,
    or
  • (3.) A-spouse's C-parent's B-parent's A-parent:
  • and the B-spouse's great-grandparent should be either in the same AB-rope or the same honeysuckle or the same woodbine as de is;
  • (a.) B-spouse's A-parent's B-parent's A-parent,
    or
  • (b.) B-spouse's C-parent's A-parent's B-parent,
    or
  • (c.) B-spouse's A-parent's C-parent's B-parent.

    (1.) is a different sex only from (a.), and (a.) is a different sex only from (1.). In this case (1.a.), the A-person's B-great-grandparent is in nis AB-rope, and the B-person's A-great-grandparent is in dis AB-rope. That possibility was already covered as the first kind of third-cousin marriage mentioned in this post.
    (2.) and (3.) lead to an A-person's A-great-grandparent; in (2.) the one in nis own honeysuckle, and in (3.) the one in nis own woodbine.
    (a.) and (b.) lead to a B-person's B-great-grandparent; in (a.) the one in dis own honeysuckle, and in (b.) the one in dis own woodbine.

    (2.b.) renews an alliance between two honeysuckles; (3.c.) renews an alliance between two woodbines. Those might be as interesting as renewing an alliance between two AB-ropes. But third-cousin marriages may be too hard for a pre-literate society to keep track of. At any rate, I'm not aware of any RL prescriptive-marriage systems that prescribe marriage to a third-cousin.

    (2.c.) and (3.b.) are interesting because they don't renew alliances between two lineages of the same type. One is between the A-spouse's honeysuckle and the B-spouse's woodbine; the other is between the A-spouse's woodbine and the B-spouse's honeysuckle. Again, though, these are third-cousin marriages.

    [b:1b12d46a01][u:1b12d46a01]_____________________________________________________________[/u:1b12d46a01][/b:1b12d46a01]


    There are RL prescriptive-marriage systems that prescribe marriage between second-cousins.
    I wonder if some second-cousin-marriage arrangement between an A-spouse and a B-spouse could work out?

    For instance, consider the following spouse's grandparents;
  • (I.) the A-spouse's B-parent's A-parent;
  • (II.) the A-spouse's B-parent's C-parent;
  • (x.) the B-spouse's A-parent's B-parent;
  • (y.) the B-spouse's A-parent's C-parent.

    (I.x.), (A-spouse's B-parent's A-parent's B-sibling's A-child's B-child), is the second-cousin-marriage introduced first in this post. It is a repeat of a previous alliance between two AB-ropes.
    (II.y.), (A-spouse's B-parent's C-parent's C-sibling's A-child's B-child), might be "insufficiently cross-cousin", because the apical sibling-pair are the same sex (i.e. C-sex).
    But (I.y.) and (II.x.) are new and interesting;
    (I.y.) A-spouse's B-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's A-child's B-child
    is a marriage between the A-spouse's AB-rope and the B-spouse's woodbine;
    (II.x.) A-spouse's B-parent's C-parent's B-sibling's A-child's B-child
    is a marriage between the A-spouse's honeysuckle and the B-spouse's AB-rope.

    [b:1b12d46a01][u:1b12d46a01]_____________________________________________________________[/u:1b12d46a01][/b:1b12d46a01]

    Prescriptive-marriage systems don't have to prescribe marriage with a spouse of one's own generation.
    Previously in this thread we mentioned the Dravidian uncle-niece prescriptive (or, rather, preferred) marriage system.
    I can't remember for sure, but I think the fact that there are second-cousin prescriptive-marriage systems IRL, implies that there are also first-cousin-once-removed prescriptive-marriage systems IRL. Or, at least, that such systems do exist; or at least could exist, or have existed. Or, at minimum, could have existed.

    I'm not sure I ever heard of any second-cousin-once-removed systems, nor any third-cousin-once-removed systems.

    I'm not sure I ever heard of any granduncle/grandniece or grandaunt/grandnephew or first-cousin-twice-removed or second-cousin-twicece-removed or second-cousin-twice-removed sysems.

    But let's look at them anyway.

    So, let's consider the following set of parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, of each of the A-spouse and the B-spouse; and suppose that either
  • the A-spouse is a sibling of one of these ancestors (not an A-ancestor) of the B-spouse, or that
  • the B-spouse is a sibling of one of these ancestors (not a B-ancestor) of the A-spouse, or that
  • one of these ancestors of the A-spouse is a sibling of one of these ancestors of the B-spouse (and these siblings are not the same sex as each other).

  • Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]One thing I'll point out that any switch from A sex to B sex or B sex to A sex across generations will not pass on the same gene types. So egoA's Bparent's Cparent's Csibling's Achild's Bchild marrying should be perfectly fine from a genetic POV

    Over 4 Years ago
    bloodb4roses
     

    [unparsed][quote:d87c190382="bloodb4roses"]One thing I'll point out that any switch from A sex to B sex or B sex to A sex across generations will not pass on the same gene types. So egoA's Bparent's Cparent's Csibling's Achild's Bchild marrying should be perfectly fine from a genetic POV[/quote:d87c190382]
    Right.
    Also, an A-person's B-parent's C-parent
    or an A-person's C-parent's B-parent
    followed by
    a C-sibling's A-child's B-child
    or an A-sibling's C-child's B-child
    should also be just fine.

    [color=brown:d87c190382]I'm still going to edit my previous post.[/color:d87c190382]
    [color=green:d87c190382](edit:)I tried to finish it, but it was too big to go in one post; so I split it.
    The new stuff is below (that is, in the next post).(/edit)[/color:d87c190382]

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]Here's the list of the A-spouse's ancestors I'd look at:

    Self:
  • nemself.

    Parent:
  • nis B-parent.

    Grandparents:
  • nis B-parent's A-parent;
  • nis C-parent's B-parent.
  • nis B-parent's C-parent.

    Great-grandparents:
  • nis C-parent's B-parent's A-parent;
  • nis B-parent's C-parent's A-parent;
  • nis B-parent's A-parent's B-parent;
  • nis B-parent's A-parent's C-parent;
  • nis C-parent's B-parent's C-parent.



    Here's the list of the B-spouse's ancestors I'd look at:

    Self:
  • demself.

    Parent:
  • dis A-parent;
  • dis C-parent.

    Grandparents:
  • dis C-parent's A-parent;
  • dis A-parent's B-parent.
  • dis A-parent's C-parent.

    Great-grandparents:
  • dis A-parent's B-parent's A-parent;
  • dis C-parent's A-parent's B-parent;
  • dis A-parent's C-parent's B-parent;
  • dis C-parent's A-parent's C-parent;
  • dis A-parent's B-parent's C-parent.

    [b:2cd6dadfed][u:2cd6dadfed]_____________________________________________________________[/u:2cd6dadfed][/b:2cd6dadfed]

    [size=18:2cd6dadfed]A-spouse seeks nis nibling as B-spouse, or A-spouse seeks nis parent's B-sibling:
    [/size:2cd6dadfed]* A-spouse seeks nis C-sibling's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-sibling

    [size=18:2cd6dadfed]A-spouse seeks nis grandnibling as B-spouse:[/size:2cd6dadfed]
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-sibling's A-child's B-child

    [size=18:2cd6dadfed]A-spouse seeks nis grandparent's sibling as B-spouse:[/size:2cd6dadfed]
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's B-sibling
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's B-sibling

    [size=18:2cd6dadfed]A-spouse seeks nis first-cousin as B-spouse:[/size:2cd6dadfed]
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-sibling's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-sibling's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's A-sibling's B-child


    [size=18:2cd6dadfed]A-spouse seeks nis first-cousin-once-removed as B-spouse:[/size:2cd6dadfed]
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-sibling's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's A-sibling's C-child's B-child

  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's A-sibling's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's A-sibling's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's C-sibling's B-child


    [size=18:2cd6dadfed]A-spouse seeks nis first-cousin-twice-removed as B-spouse:[/size:2cd6dadfed]
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's A-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-sibling's C-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child

  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's B-parent's A-sibling's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's B-parent's C-sibling's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's C-parent's A-sibling's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's C-parent's A-sibling's B-child


    [size=18:2cd6dadfed]A-spouse seeks nis second-cousin as B-spouse[/size:2cd6dadfed]
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's B-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's B-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's A-sibling's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's C-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's A-sibling's C-child's B-child


    [size=18:2cd6dadfed]A-spouse seeks nis second-cousin-once-removed as B-spouse[/size:2cd6dadfed]
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's B-sibling's C-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's B-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's A-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's B-sibling's C-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's B-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's A-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's C-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's C-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child

  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's B-parent's C-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's B-parent's A-sibling's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's C-parent's B-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's C-parent's A-sibling's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's A-parent's B-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's A-parent's B-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's C-parent's B-sibling's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's C-parent's A-sibling's C-child's B-child


    [size=18:2cd6dadfed]A-spouse seeks nis third-cousin as B-spouse[/size:2cd6dadfed]
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's B-parent's A-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's B-parent's C-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's B-parent's C-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's C-parent's A-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's C-parent's B-sibling's C-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's A-parent's C-parent's B-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's A-parent's B-sibling's C-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's A-parent's B-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis B-parent's C-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's A-parent's B-sibling's C-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's A-parent's B-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's A-parent's C-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's C-parent's A-sibling's B-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's C-parent's B-sibling's C-child's A-child's B-child
  • A-spouse seeks nis C-parent's B-parent's C-parent's B-sibling's A-child's C-child's B-child

    [b:2cd6dadfed][u:2cd6dadfed]_____________________________________________________________[/u:2cd6dadfed][/b:2cd6dadfed]

    Any arrangement in which all children conceived do not have any combination of half-or-more of their nuclear genes with half-or-more of their cytoplasmic/organellic genes, that occurred in any of their parents or any of their parents' siblings, will be acceptable.

    Or, at least, some statement something like that is true. I may need to ponder it further to be sure I've got exactly what I say matching exactly what I want to say.

  • Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]I think, considering danpyr are long lived and they are likely to have a small-ish population in general, I'd like to keep things simple. Technically from a genetic pov, any of the following:

    Asibling and Bsibling
    Aparent and Bchild, or vice versus
    Auncle(?) and Bnibling through sibling of any sex, or vice versus
    Acousin and Bcousin through any combo of sexes their parents are
    Aancestor and Bdescendant through descendants of any sexes, or vice versus
    etc

    would be passing on none of the same genetics to their offspring if they were to be spouses, but as a general rule, danpyr would likely avoid sibling or ancestor/descendant matings as a rule. And they may understand that the Cparent contributes more genetically than the A or B parents; So they would likely disallow any pairings who are related through a C relative. I have more thoughts on this, but I'll have to return to it later.

    Note: Other species/cultures with a similar reproductive system could do things differently.

    Over 4 Years ago
    bloodb4roses
     

    [unparsed]The spouses' generations needn't be the same.
    That would work provided one sex of spouse typically marries and reproduces at an older age than one of the other sexes of spouse.

    For instance, among humans:
    Suppose men typically marry and have their first-born son at the age of 30 y/o;
    while women typically marry and have their first-born daughter at the age of 15 y/o.
    Then a 30-year-old eligible bachelor whose Irish-twin sister had a 15-y/o nubile daughter, could marry his niece.

    Or suppose men typically marry and have their first-born son at the age of 22 y/o, and women typically marry and have their first-born daughter at the age of 17 y/o.
    Say an eligible 22-y/o groom's father is a 44-y/o man;
    and that father has a 51-y/o sister (the groom's aunt), who has a 34-y/o daughter (the groom's first-cousin), who has a 17-y/o daughter (the groom's first-cousin-once-removed). The groom could marry that first-cousin-once-removed for his bride.

    This would also work the other way, that is, with the sexes reversed.
    Suppose women typically marry and have their first-born daughter at the age of 22 y/o, and men typically marry and have their first-born son at the age of 17 y/o.
    Say an eligible 22-y/o bride's mother is a 44-y/o woman;
    and that mother has a 51-y/o brother (the bride's uncle), who has a 34-y/o son (the bride's first-cousin), who has a 17-y/o son (the bride's first-cousin-once-removed). The bride could marry that first-cousin-once-removed for her groom.

    Or suppose men typically marry for the first time, and have their first-born son, at around the age of 23 y/o; and women typically marry for the first time, and typically have their first-born daughter, at around the age of 19 y/o.
    Say an eligible 23-y/o bachelor has a 46-y/o father who has a 69-y/o father (the groom's paternal grandfather). Say that 69-y/o father has a seven-years-older (76-y/o) sister (the groom's grandaunt). Say that grandaunt has a 57-y/o daughter (the groom's first-cousin-once-removed) who has a 38-y/o daughter (the groom's second-cousin) who has a 19-y/o daughter (the groom's second-cousin-once-removed). Then the groom could choose that 19-y/o girl for his bride.

    In Real-Life, *here* on Earth-Prime, in OurTimeLine, there are in fact more extreme natculturish examples. In one I read of, men typically first marry at the age of 42 while women typically first marry at the age of 14. So a man's sister's husband averages around 28 years older than he is, while his wife's brother averages around 28 years younger than he is. His sister's husband's sister's husband averages around 56 years older than he is (with around twice as much variance), and his wife's brother's wife's brother averages around 56 years younger than he is (also with about twice as much variance). So even though his wife's brother and his sister's husband are in the same lineage with each other, the ZH is typically around 56 years older than the WB. When he first marries (at 42, say), his ZH is going to be around 70 y/o, while his WB is going to be around 14 y/o; the WB might be the ZH's son, and the ZH might be the WB's father.
    -- Or not. --

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed][quote:8141263811="bloodb4roses"].... Technically from a genetic pov, any of the following:
    ....
    would be passing on none of the same genetics to their offspring if they were to be spouses, ....[/quote:8141263811]

    That's true; but, I thought, given the selective pressures that produced the three-sexed system in the first place, the Danpyr would not only want to avoid having their offspring have any duplicated recessive genes (whether nuclear or cytoplasmic/organellic); they'd also want to avoid having a combination in the offspring too similar to (too close to a duplicate of) one that occurred in the parents' generation, even if that combination included no duplicated genes.

    That's what I was trying to figure out.

    If the A-spouse and the C-spouse don't have a recent common ancestor through lines of A- and C-parents, then they won't run a risk of passing on too many of the same nuclear genes derived from the same recent source.
    If the B-spouse and the C-spouse don't have a recent common ancestor through lines of B- and C-parents, then they won't run a risk of passing on too many of the same cytoplasmic/organellic genes derived from the same recent source.

    What I'm trying to avoid is the A-spouse be closely-enough related to the B- and/or C-spouse(s), or the B-spouse be closely-enough related to the A- and/or C-spouse(s), that some combination of too many nuclear genes from the A- and/or C-spouses, with too many cytoplasmic/organellic genes from the B- and/or C-spouses, will probably have already occurred in one of the spouses or in one of the spouses' (part-?)siblings.

    Evolutionarily, the point of recombining genes through sexual reproduction, is to produce an offspring that fast-reproducing fast-evolving parasites will not already have evolved a means around the defenses of one of the parents or one of the parents' siblings or, indeed, any member of the species from an earlier generation who is still alive or has just died.

    In the Danpyr's environment the selective pressure of such parasites is so severe that it was worth the biological cost to evolve a system of recombining nuclear genes while independently recombining the cytoplasmic/organellic genes as well.

    An A-person would not want nis C-spouse to be too closely related to either nis A-parent nor nis C-parent, because then ve might have too many of ver nuclear genes in common with nem.
    But ne would also not want nis C-spouse to be too closely related to either nis B-parent nor nis C-parent, because then ve might have too many of ver cytoplasmic/organellic genes that have already occurred in combination with nis nuclear genes in nis and ver generation.

    Likewise, a B-person would not want dis C-spouse to be too closely related to either dis B-parent nor dis C-parent, because then ve might have too many of ver cytoplasmic/organellic genes in common with dem.
    But de would also not want dis C-spouse to be too closely related to either dis A-parent nor dis C-parent, because then ve might have too many of ver nuclear genes that have already occurred in combination with dis nuclear genes in dis and ver generation.

    An A-person would not want nis B-spouse to be too closely related to nis B-parent nor nis C-parent because then de might have too many of dis cytoplasmic/organellic genes that have already occurred in combination with nis nuclear genes in nis and dis generation.
    A B-person would not want dis A-spouse to be too closely related to dis A-parent nor dis C-parent because then ne might have too many of nis nuclear genes that have already occurred in combination with dis cytoplasmic/organellic genes in dis and nis generation.

    A C-person would not want ver A-spouse to be too closely related to ver A-parent nor ver C-parent because of the risk that ve and ne will contribute the same nuclear genes to their offspring.
    A C-person would not want ver B-spouse to be too closely related to ver B-parent nor ver C-parent because of the risk that ve and de will contribute the same cytoplasmic/organellic genes to their offspring.

    I can't think straight about whether or not avoiding combinations of nuclear genes with cytoplasmic/organellic genes that have already occurred in the spouses' generation, would motivate a C-person to avoid ver A-spouse being related to ver B-parent, or would motivate a C-person to avoid ver B-spouse being related to ver A-parent. I guess I would have to pencil out some diagrams on paper to clearly think about that. It might not matter. (Or it might, FAIK!). Or, indeed, I might have already covered some equivalent of that, earlier in this post. I'm just too brain-fried @tmo to see it. Later, maybe.

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed]i'll have to draw up something since i'm a bit more visual, but I [i:818cd8b53b]think[/i:818cd8b53b] as long as we assume a C parent has "unrelated" spouses and ver A or B children [b:818cd8b53b]could[/b:818cd8b53b] technically mate with ver B or A siblings, and definitely ver B or A niblings if ver siblings also take unrelated spouses.

    Like I said, drawing this out somehow would help.

    Over 4 Years ago
    bloodb4roses
     

    [unparsed]So! after having made a chart to track the average genetic similarity of two individuals who are full first cousins (sharing exactly one triad of grandparents), an A spouse would share 6.25% of nis organelle code (assuming there is recombination) and 0% of nis nuclear code with a B spouse who was nis C parent's B sibling's child, but they wouldn't pass on any genes they would share through that line. Basically, all the genes they would pass on would be from completely unrelated individuals.

    I'm assuming there would be a mirror for a B spouse marrying dis C parent's A sibling's A child. And there would be even less relation if the C parents were switched for A or B parents.

    Edit: Sorry, looking it over it would be about 3% from the organelle line and 25% from the nuclear line that would have come from the shared side of the family for ACBB cousins and switch those numbers for BCAA cousins. I still haven't worked everything out for AABB cousins or ABAB cousins

    Over 4 Years ago
    bloodb4roses
     

    [unparsed]Oh, wow, thanks for doing that!
    It's nice to have someone else to share the cerebral load!*

    If you've done some see-able work, is there any chance you could post any of it?



    *(Of something I'm curious about, that is; some people are all too free to think about what they think I should and shouldn't do when I don't think about it.)

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    [unparsed][quote:1e10cff636="chiarizio"]Oh, wow, thanks for doing that!
    It's nice to have someone else to share the cerebral load!*

    If you've done some see-able work, is there any chance you could post any of it?



    *(Of something I'm curious about, that is; some people are all too free to think about what they think I should and shouldn't do when I don't think about it.)[/quote:1e10cff636]

    [img:1e10cff636]https://68.media.tumblr.com/0aea41a29af59c33bdbd9fdb7ac8cea9/tumblr_olqayo0wF41tgtqymo1_1280.png[/img:1e10cff636]

    It's a bit messy, and I'll work on AABB and ABAB cousins next.

    Over 4 Years ago
    bloodb4roses
     

    [unparsed][size=18:560e2ceec1][color=brown:560e2ceec1][b:560e2ceec1](edit:) Oh, BTW: Almost forgot! :oops: Thanks for the diagram! It helps! (/edit)[/b:560e2ceec1][/color:560e2ceec1][/size:560e2ceec1]

    An A- or C- -person [size=9:560e2ceec1]EGO[/size:560e2ceec1]'s A- or C- -parent's A- or C- -sibling's A- or C- -child [size=9:560e2ceec1]ALTER[/size:560e2ceec1] will have (1/2)^3 = 12.5% of the same [u:560e2ceec1]nuclear[/u:560e2ceec1] genes that [size=9:560e2ceec1]EGO[/size:560e2ceec1] has.

    A B- or C- -person [size=9:560e2ceec1]EGO[/size:560e2ceec1]'s B- or C- -parent's B- or C- -sibling's B- or C- -child [size=9:560e2ceec1]ALTER[/size:560e2ceec1] will have (1/2)^3 = 12.5% of the same [u:560e2ceec1]cytoplasmic/organellic[/u:560e2ceec1] genes that [size=9:560e2ceec1]EGO[/size:560e2ceec1] has.

    If an A-spouse and a C-spouse are first-cousins and their parents
    (who are full siblings, or 3/4-siblings with the same A-parent and the same C-parent)
    are either both A-sex or both C-sex or one A-sex and one C-sex
    (that is, AAAC or ACCC or AACC or ACAC),
    then they will each contribute to their joint offspring,
    on average,
    6.25% of their shared [u:560e2ceec1]nuclear[/u:560e2ceec1] genome.

    Half (on average) of that 6.25% that the A-spouse contributes will not be duplicated by the C-spouse (even though the C-spouse also has it);
    half (on average) of that 6.25% that the C-spouse contributes will not be duplicated by the A-spouse (even though the A-spouse also has it);
    but half (on average) of each of their contributions from their shared [u:560e2ceec1]nuclear[/u:560e2ceec1] genome will be duplicated by the other's contribution.
    The offspring will (on average) have 6.25% of its nuclear genome duplicated
    -- 3.125% from the A-spouse and 3.125% from the C-spouse,
    inherited (in some combination or proportion, we don't really care)
    from the A- and C- -spouses' shared A- and C- -parents.

    If the spouses' parents are the other kind of 3/4 siblings (sharing only their B- and C- -parents),
    or are 1/2-siblings (sharing only their C-parent, or sharing only their A-parent and their B-parent),
    or are 1/4-siblings sharing only their A-parent,
    then all those percentages will be cut in half.

    OTOH for AABC, ABAC, ABBC, ABCC, ACBC --
    that is, if either or both of the spouses' parents who are each others' siblings, is a B-parent --
    then the two spouses will not inherit shared [u:560e2ceec1]nuclear[/u:560e2ceec1] genes from a common grandparent.
    And, if either of the two spouses is a B-spouse, that one won't pass on any [u:560e2ceec1]nuclear[/u:560e2ceec1] genes to be duplicated by the other (A- or C-) spouse.



    If a B-spouse and a C-spouse are first-cousins and their parents
    (who are full siblings, or 3/4-siblings with the same B-parent and the same C-parent)
    are either both B-sex or both C-sex or one B-sex and one C-sex
    (that is, BBBC or BCCC or BBCC or BCBC),
    then they will each contribute to their joint offspring,
    on average,
    6.25% of their shared [u:560e2ceec1]cytoplasmic/organellic[/u:560e2ceec1] genome.

    Half (on average) of that 6.25% that the B-spouse contributes will not be duplicated by the C-spouse (even though the C-spouse also has it);
    half (on average) of that 6.25% that the C-spouse contributes will not be duplicated by the B-spouse (even though the B-spouse also has it);
    but half (on average) of each of their contributions from their shared [u:560e2ceec1]cytoplasmic/organellic[/u:560e2ceec1] genome will be duplicated by the other's contribution.
    The offspring will (on average) have 6.25% of its nuclear genome duplicated
    -- 3.125% from the B-spouse and 3.125% from the C-spouse,
    inherited (in some combination or proportion, we don't really care)
    from the B- and C- -spouses' shared B- and C- -parents.

    If the spouses' parents are the other kind of 3/4 siblings (sharing only their A- and C- -parents),
    or are 1/2-siblings (sharing only their C-parent, or sharing only their A-parent and their B-parent),
    or are 1/4-siblings sharing only their B-parent,
    then all those percentages will be cut in half.

    OTOH for BAAC, BABC, BACC, BBAC, BCAC --
    that is, if either or both of the spouses' parents who are each others' siblings, is an A-parent --
    then the two spouses will not inherit shared [u:560e2ceec1]cytoplasmic/organellic[/u:560e2ceec1] genes from a common grandparent.
    And, if either of the two spouses is an A-spouse, that one won't pass on any [u:560e2ceec1]cytoplasmic/organellic[/u:560e2ceec1] genes to be duplicated by the other (B- or C-) spouse.

    [b:560e2ceec1][u:560e2ceec1]_____________________________________________________________[/u:560e2ceec1][/b:560e2ceec1]


    I am still concerned how to make sure some combination of "too much" of the offspring's nuclear genome [i:560e2ceec1]doesn't[/i:560e2ceec1] re-co-occur with "too much" of the offspring's cytoplasmic/organellic genome, in a combination -- a co-occurrence -- that was already present in its parents' generation.

    Obviously, since the offspring receives half its nuclear genes from its C-parent, and also receives half its cytoplasmic/organellic genes from its C-parent, there is no way to prevent a combination of half-the-nuclear-genes and half-the-cytoplasmic/organellic-genes that co-occurred in the C-parent's generation from re-co-occurring in the offspring.

    But what does it take to prevent half-the-nuclear-genes and more-than-half-the-cytoplasmic/organellic-genes from re-co-occurring?
    And/or, what does it take to prevent half-the-cytoplasmic/organellic-genes and more-than-half-the-nuclear-genes from re-co-occurring?

    I'm sure it couldn't happen if the three spouses were unrelated to each other.
    "Unrelated" could, possibly, just mean "no two have a parent in common".
    Or it could be more strict -- ruling out some combinations of shared grandparents, or a parent of one being a grandparent of another.
    Or it could be less strict -- maybe it doesn't matter if the A-spouse and B-spouse are 1/4-siblings, provided neither is related to the C-spouse.
    It'd take some working-out I can't do in my head -- or at least, haven't been able to do yet.

    OTOH maybe we don't want to set the bar as low as "50% and >50%, or, >50% and 50%".
    For instance, maybe we want to avoid ">=60% with >=67%, or, >=67% with >=60%", or some such thing.

    [b:560e2ceec1][u:560e2ceec1]_____________________________________________________________[/u:560e2ceec1][/b:560e2ceec1]

    BTW, regarding surnames, lines, clans, exogamous eponymous groups, unilineal descent groups, etc.:

    Every child can inherit such a line-membership from their same-sex-parent's same-sex-parent, which they can then bequeath to their own offspring.

    Every child can inherit such a line-membership from any other-sex-parent's other-sex-parent, which they can then bequeath to some their own offspring (namely, those who are the correct sex for that line).
    (If the grandparent is the same sex as the child, this will be a "rope"; if the grandparent is a different sex from the child, this will be a "coil".)

    And, every child can inherit such a line-membership from their other-sex-parent's same-sex-parent; but they cannot then bequeath that membership to any of their own offspring.

    So a grandparent will be more invested in their same-sex-offsprings' same-sex-offspring, and in their other-sex-offsprings' other-sex-offspring, than in their same-sex-offsprings' other-sex offspring; and in those, more than in their other-sex-offsprings' same-sex-offpring.

    [size=18:560e2ceec1][color=brown:560e2ceec1][b:560e2ceec1](edit:) Oh, BTW: Almost forgot! :oops: Thanks for the diagram! It helps! (/edit)[/b:560e2ceec1][/color:560e2ceec1][/size:560e2ceec1]

    Over 4 Years ago
    chiarizio
     

    Bump?

    10 Months ago
    chiarizio
     

    @Xhin:
    Thanks for making this thread accessible again!

    1 Month ago
    chiarizio
     

    No problem! Sorry there's still [unparsed] messages and you can't paginate the thread (actually that one might be beneficial here).

    You might want to look into the [table] tag if you want to organize things here better:
    https://gtx0.com/thread/the-table-tag

    1 Month ago
    Riven
     

    I revisited the naming systems of 3-sex 3-parent species .
    I figure we want names to provide six data.

    Three of these data amount to different kinds of family names.
    A person belongs to their A-parent’s A-line; and their B-parent’s B-line; and their C-parent’s C-line.

    The other three data, taken together, amount to a personal name.
    The most crucial, although the least personal, is the individual’s sex.
    The most personal is their birth-order among the other same-sex children of their same-sex parent.
    Intermediate is a cyclical* generation-designator; they get the next designation in the cycle that comes after whatever generation-designator their same-sex parent has(or had).

    *The cycle can be any length, perhaps just two (so the generation-designators just alternate), or three (so a person and their parent and their child will all have different designators), or four or five or ... or eight or ... or eleven .... I really think four-to-eleven is probably about right but I’m guessing.

    It’s perfectly possible that duplicate names will arise. It’s even possible that will happen frequently; I’d need to experiment to figure it out.
    I think it likely there wouldn’t be duplication among a person’s part-siblings and part-first-cousins. OTOH I can’t know for sure without experimentation. There’d at least be no duplication among one’s same-sex full-siblings, nor one’s same-sex part-siblings who share the same same-sex parent.
    If there is duplication, it may be resolvable by stating who the individual’s parents are. That’s actually a good bet. But without experimenting I can’t prove to myself it would always work.
    An unusual possibility might be that one might also state who the individual’s siblings are. Perhaps if knowing their name and their parents’ names doesn’t disambiguate who they are, knowing their sibling’s names will.
    But more in line with real-world customs would be to state their spouses’ names.
    (And somewhat less commonly IRL, but still done, to state their children’s names, though I’m not sure whether that would actually add any information given the system I’ve suggested so far.)

    I may return to this question with some experiments some day.

    1 Month ago
    chiarizio
     

    Reply to: Lineages, Names, & Marriage in 3-Sex 3-Parent Species

    Username
    Password