Is inbreeding an issue in parthenogenic species?

Something else interesting to mention, while we're on this subject, is that obligately parthenogenetic species usually do not last very long on an evolutionary time scale. The "Red Queen" hypothesis suggests that this is mainly because asexual organisms (at least, multicellular ones) cannot adapt quickly enough to changing pathogens/parasites. There are other explanations, but I think that this one makes the most sense.

Of course, there are exceptions. Darwinulid ostracods, bdelloid rotifers, and oribatid mites have all reproduced exclusively through parthenogenesis for tens of millions of years.

Anyway, this subject is particularly intriguing to me, as you can probably tell. :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We will all probably be dead by the time the surinam roach goes extinct, lol! And it is indeed a very interesting subject. :)

 
hisserdude said:
We will all probably be dead by the time the surinam roach goes extinct, lol! And it is indeed a very interesting subject. :)
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think that, one day, a pathogen will finally catch up with them, but I expect that it will be long after humanity has gone extinct. They are tough little roaches. :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hisserdude said:
Parthenogenic species are all females, and they make "clones" of themselves, right? Normal species are males and females, and they need to mate to make babies. Males and females can come from different gene pools, so there is genetic diversity in their species. But parthenogenic species do not have any genetic diversity, because they do not mate to make babies, they just make "clones" of themselves, right? So i could theoretically start a colony of parthenogenic roaches with only one specimen, and have no problem with inbreeding or any genetic problems caused by inbreeding, right?
Click to expand...


---

There are species with only females, but it's impossible for there to be only males.

*1. Why?*
The egg carries everything to make an embryo: DNA + nutrients + mitochondria. It can develop alone = parthenogenesis.
Sperm only carries DNA. Without an egg, nothing starts. That's why there are no 100% male species.

*Real examples*: Whiptail lizard, 15 species without a single male. Bdelloid rotifers, 460 species that have gone 40 million years without males. They're 0.01% of species.

*2. Same as historical harems*
In Greek gynoecia or Chinese harems you put 50 women with 1 man or none. What happened? More cases of females relating to each other. The _kama_ already documents it. The context facilitated it. That's why male specimens talk about them today.

*3. Are there more cases of females relating to each other in animals?*
Yes. Current data: in mammals and birds with behavior of females relating to each other or males relating to each other, ∼51% is females relating to each other vs ∼49% males.
Examples: 31% of Laysan albatross pairs are female-female. In Japanese macaques, 33% of females have consorts with other females. In bonobos most parking interactions are females relating to each other.

*Summary*: Females alone can clone, males can't. And in animals there's slightly more documented behavior of females relating to each other than males.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top