"Monogamy" and pair bonding have long been of interest to anthropologists and primatologists. Their study contributes to our knowledge of human evolutionary biology and social evolution without the cultural trappings associated with studying human societies directly. Here, we first provide an overview of theoretical considerations, followed by an evaluation of recent comparative studies of the evolution of "social monogamy"; we are left with serious doubts about the conclusions of these studies that stem from the often poor quality of the data used and an overreliance on secondary sources without vetting the data therein. We then describe our field research program on four "monogamous" platyrrhines (owl monkeys, titis, sakis, and tamarins), evaluate how well our data support various hypotheses proposed to explain "monogamy," and compare our data to those reported on the same genera in comparative studies. Overall, we found a distressing lack of agreement between the data used in comparative studies and data from the literature for the taxa that we work with. In the final section, we propose areas of research that deserve more attention. We stress the need for more high-quality natural history data, and we urge researchers to be cautious about the uncritical use of variables of uncertain internal validity. Overall, it is imperative that biological anthropologists establish and follow clear criteria for comparing and combining results from published studies and that researchers, reviewers, and editors alike comply with these standards to improve the transparency, reproducibility, and interpretability of causal inferences made in comparative studies.

中文翻译：

---

夫妻生活，一夫一妻制和合作婴儿护理的演变：对野生猫头鹰猴、,、刺身和绢毛猴的研究的真知灼见。

长期以来，“一夫一妻制”和配对对一直是人类学家和灵长类动物学家的兴趣所在。他们的研究有助于我们了解人类进化生物学和社会进化，而无需与直接研究人类社会相关的文化陷阱。在这里，我们首先提供理论考虑的概述，然后评估“社会一夫一妻制”演变的最新比较研究。我们对这些研究的结论存有严重怀疑，这些结论归因于所用数据的质量通常很差，以及对二手数据的过度依赖而没有审查其中的数据。然后，我们对四种“一夫一妻制”的桔梗（猫头鹰，monkey，itis，柳和绢毛猴）进行实地研究，评估我们的数据对提出的解释“一夫一妻制”的各种假设的支持程度，并将我们的数据与比较研究中同一属所报道的数据进行比较。总体而言，我们发现比较研究中使用的数据与我们使用的分类单元的文献数据之间缺乏令人痛苦的一致性。在最后一节中，我们提出了值得更多关注的研究领域。我们强调需要更多高质量的自然历史数据，并且我们敦促研究人员谨慎使用不确定内部有效性不确定的变量。总体而言，至关重要的是，生物学人类学家必须建立并遵循明确的标准来比较和合并已发表研究的结果，并且研究人员，评论者和编辑人员都必须遵守这些标准以提高透明度，