Slashdot Mirror


Female Shark Learns To Reproduce Without Males After Years Alone (newscientist.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from New Scientist: A female shark separated from her long-term mate has developed the ability to have babies on her own. Leonie the zebra shark (Stegostoma fasciatum) met her male partner at an aquarium in Townsville, Australia, in 1999. They had more than two dozen offspring together before he was moved to another tank in 2012. From then on, Leonie did not have any male contact. But in early 2016, she had three baby sharks. Intrigued, Christine Dudgeon at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and her colleagues began fishing for answers. One possibility was that Leonie had been storing sperm from her ex and using it to fertilize her eggs. But genetic testing showed that the babies only carried DNA from their mum, indicating they had been conceived via asexual reproduction. Some vertebrate species have the ability to reproduce asexually even though they normally reproduce sexually. These include certain sharks, turkeys, Komodo dragons, snakes and rays. However, most reports have been in females who have never had male partners. In sharks, asexual reproduction can occur when a female's egg is fertilized by an adjacent cell known as a polar body, Dudgeon says. This also contains the female's genetic material, leading to "extreme inbreeding", she says. "It's not a strategy for surviving many generations because it reduces genetic diversity and adaptability." Nevertheless, it may be necessary at times when males are scarce. "It might be a holding-on mechanism," Dudgeon says. "Mum's genes get passed down from female to female until there are males available to mate with." It's possible that the switch from sexual to asexual reproduction is not that unusual; we just haven't known to look for it, Dudgeon says.

164 comments

  1. I know what happened by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's the Messiah! Bow down before them and adore them!

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

    1. Re:I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not the Messiah! It's a very naughty little fry.

    2. Re: I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wet dream of a libturd female.

    3. Re:I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Jewish version of the bible refer to Mary as Almah, which is a young woman past puberty. That word doesn't carry any extra meaning with regard to being married or unmarried, nor does it carry any extra meaning with regard to being a virgin or being sexually active.

      If you feel that translators are in error over this point, then there would be about nine virgin births in the Bible, making virgin birth the only kind that happens in the Bible.

      So you can keep your Messiah, and believe in his holiness, but you're just mistaken if there is any historical documentation that he was born from a virgin.

      It's amazing how many Bible thumpers still don't know their own religion, even Wikipedia has pages on it.

    4. Re: I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then explain how Jesus could fly and shoot lasers from his eyes. Explain that!!

    5. Re:I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that bullshit contains bullshit?

    6. Re: I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you be so ignorant. Jesus couldn't fly on his own, he had a pegasus. And he didn't shoot lasers from his eyes, it was a laser pistol he brought with him from 2149.

    7. Re:I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you feel that translators are in error over this point

      The Word of God can never have errors, therefore it is impossible for anyone to mis-translate it.

      you're just mistaken if there is any historical documentation that he was born from a virgin.

      *sigh* You're so naive. Don't you realize that my feelings and beliefs are also considered historical documentation?

      The point is, whatever I've decided: it's right. Go stand in a free speech zone if you disagree, heretic.

    8. Re:I know what happened by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      "Houston, Houston, do you read ..." (Alice Sheldon writing as James Tiptree Jr) Read the story - entirely on topic.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So .... You are saying that the Jewish bible ...(?) ...doesn't profess ... that Mary ... gave birth to the Messiah? So ... I guess ... the Jews are still waiting... for the Messiah. Hmmm ...Go figure!

    10. Re:I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Jewish version of the bible refer to Mary as Almah,

      You do know the New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew, right? In the Greek, she is called "parthénos," which does indeed mean virgin.

    11. Re:I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Word of God can never have errors, therefore it is impossible for anyone to mis-translate it.

      No, no. Humans are prone to error, such as sin, because humans aren't perfect, despite being the creation of a perfect God that cannot err. (Except, apparently in creating fallible creatures)

      Of course, this is because Humans have free will, and are therefore free to make mistakes. I assume that God also has free will, but somehow never manages to make a mistake, though, because God is perfect and infallible, and that's why His creations are also... Uh... Well shit.

    12. Re: I know what happened by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Evil things happen because humans have free will, and sometimes make choices which are mistakes, or even wicked, and these lead to suffering. In Heaven, of course, there is no Evil, and no suffering. Therefore, in Heaven there is no free will. QED.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    13. Re:I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds about right, but what if the perfect god made fallible creatures on purpose? In which case, god never erred. Using his free will he decided to create erring creatures and was successful at it.

    14. Re:I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...therefore it is impossible for anyone to mis-translate it.

      Well, the erring creatures (ex: humans) are prone to errors and are completely capable of mis-translating anything, including the word of god.

    15. Re:I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit entirely consists of bullshit. No doubts there. This is the case of christshit being embedded in jewshit, that is being vigorously debated. Does one turd contain a piece of the other? Apparantly, even wikipedia contains information about it.

    16. Re:I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So was Mary a Shark of some kind? A-loan shark may be!

  2. Cue Jeff Goldblum by freeze128 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Life... Finds a way."

    1. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by backslashdot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless you are in the 99.999% of species that went extinct.

    2. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by Calydor · · Score: 1

      And yet life is still here - so life DID find a way.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    3. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Life finds a way, life survives - any particular species may not. Life is resilient - but species are not. Indeed it could be argued that life is resilient BECAUSE species are not.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by Xest · · Score: 4, Informative

      For anyone wanting to know more, the scientific name for this is parthenogenesis. It's well documented across many species and as usual Wikipedia has an article on it here:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Simply put it is indeed a survival mechanism that's more common than we probably realise.

    5. Re: Cue Jeff Goldblum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, species being resilient is a sufficient (although not necessary) condition for life being resilient.

    6. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Life finds a way, life survives - any particular species may not. Life is resilient - but species are not. Indeed it could be argued that life is resilient BECAUSE species are not.

      Isn't life in this context an abstract concept in the way you're using it? Life to me is the category of things in the universe that all living things are members of. If that's not what you're referring to, how can you make this claim in this way? I'm not trying to disagree but I'm curious if you could refine your statement to have more precise meaning because I am genuinely interested in your thoughts if you are well versed in the subject matter domain.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    7. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jeff is an actor. Crichton is the creator.

    8. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Life, as a whole has survived every extinction level event that happened -but each has caused massive extinctions. Individual species come and go, as long as they don't all go at once, life persists.
      Life could be reduced to a single species of extremeophile bacteria living around one volcanic vent in the pacific ocean tomorrow... and in a million years the world would, once again, be crawling with many different creatures.
      In fact, the immediate aftermath of mass extinctions tend to be the time when the greatest biodiversity is found. With all the old species gone, practically *anything* can survive - so some really weird creatures evolve and thrive for a while. Then the numbers get big enough for resources to stop being abundant and natural selection kicks in. The worst species start failing and die out.
      After a while you get into an equilibrium state - where every breeding pair of every species only produce, on average, two offspring the go on to breed again. That state lasts until the next major extinction level event.

      The reason life can survive whatever the universe throws at it is because life doesn't rely on any particular species, any of them can be lost - it just needs SOMETHING to survive.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah... "life"

      since i was 13, so much of my "life" has went thru the toilet no wonder now even sharks are having baby jesus sharks...

    11. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason life can survive whatever the universe throws at it is because life doesn't rely on any particular species, any of them can be lost - it just needs SOMETHING to survive.

      In about a billion years the Sun will have expanded past Earths orbit.
      Let's see how life survives that.

    12. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we tried cueing Crichton, but he was... unresponsive.

    13. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shades of Jurassic Park

    14. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Certain particular species seem to be more resilient than others as seen by how long they have been around. Sharks is one of them. Perhaps that trait is one of the reasons why. I wonder if alligators and crocodiles have similar traits? (and other seemingly ancient species)

    15. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Certain particular species seem to be more resilient than others as seen by how long they have been around. Sharks is one of them. Perhaps that trait is one of the reasons why. I wonder if alligators and crocodiles have similar traits? (and other seemingly ancient species)

      We don't actually know that. There were crocodilians around with the dinosaurs - but not the same species we have today. In the case of sharks - we've found great white bones from back then, but we don't actually have any proof they were the same as the great whites we have today - in fact that is highly unlikely. All that proves is their skeletons haven't changed since then. But there is a LOT more to a body than it's bone structure. Odds are the great whites of the Jurassic era were notably different from their modern descendents. Perhaps they didn't yet have that astounding immune system ? Perhaps they had very different behaviour ? Nowadays they are an apex predator - they certainly were not when they shared the oceans with icthyosaurs and mosasaurs.

      And there are quite a few long-lived species that don't seem to have asexual reproduction. Horse-shoe crabs are the last surviving species of a family that ruled the world some 300-million years ago - and they don't. But again - we don't know what soft-tissue changes they've had since their ancestors first crawled around in those ancient bays.
      Remember, as XKCD recently reminded us, if all we had of spiders were fossils -we'd have never known about webs.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    16. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      There is something that silentcoder talks about which is confusing, because it doesn't have any meaningful objective existence. But it's not the concept of "life", it's the concept of "species".

      "Species" isn't a characteristic of any living organism - it's something that we project onto two (or more) living organisms. If they're capable of producing fertile offspring (with some caveats for sex errors, and non-sexual organisms), then we humans classify them as being of the same species. The organisms in question don't know if they're in the same species or not - and don't care. Right cues? Count the legs and divide by two? Then try to reproduce.

      Individuals live, die and (sometimes) reproduce. "Species" and higher taxonomic groups are projections that humans put onto collections of individuals. Currently the criteria we use for those divisions are reproductive. Previously, they've been morphological. We're moving from the sexual to a genetic basis. But those differing grounds for taxonomy are a significant part of the reason for a lot of current disputes in taxonomy.

      Having worked with fossils for decades, I've seen lots of Stürm und Drang over things like this. For example, a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth has taken place over the proposition that many "species" of ceratopsian dinosaurs may (or may not) be pairs of species with sexual dimorphism. But basically the argument is about comparing apples (the morphologies called "Thisosaurus" and "Thatosaurus") and oranges (inferring that "Thisosaurus" and "Thatosaurus" could produce fertile offspring together). At which point, it becomes a much less divisive issue.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    17. Re: Cue Jeff Goldblum by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Life is just a term for reducing entropy locally by increasing it globally by a greater amount. Given how fond the universe is of increasing entropy, it will keep producing these things.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    18. Re: Cue Jeff Goldblum by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I once had an illuminating discussion with a creationist who was intelligent (as distinct from an intelligent-crestionist); believed in microevolution, i.e. within each species, but not macroevolution, i.e. from one species into another. He said, as usual, "Where are all the intermediate forms of species evolving to others?" And I replied, as usual, "Well, look at how the horse evolved from Eohippus; we're lucky enough to have a pretty good fossil record of that case." Then he asked, "What makes you say that's evolving from one species into another, rather than just one species evolving over time?" And you know, I don't have a good answer for that. Mind you, I do still believe in macroevolution and there are plenty of other arguments, but on that one point, I think he was right; if we can't demonstrate that the one species at some point becomes two distinct species which simultaneously exist, then it's just an argument over the definition of species. Too bad, because I really enjoyed trotting out that evolution of the horse argument.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    19. Re: Cue Jeff Goldblum by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and it's related in a way to the "life begins at conception" argument. The conversion from haploid (one set of chromosomes) to diploid (two sets of chromosomes) occurs normally when the sperm delivers the second set, then the ovum starts developing and dividing. But these are really two separate phenomena, which are linked by a mechanism which presumably evolved. The first sperm's contact with a specific receptor on the ovum triggers a big influx of calcium into the cell, which causes it to shut down all the other sperm receptors, absorb this sperm and transport its chromosomes to the nucleus, and start dividing. But we can mimic the process (not in humans yet, afaik, mostly for technical reasons) by just injecting calcium into egg cells, which then start up dividing. And since they only have one set of chromosomes, one of the cells produced by that first division ends up with none and does, but the second one just has two copies of the one set that was in the ovum to begin with, and develops from there normally. No sperm required, i.e. parthenogenesis in vitro. And, biology as organisms do it being a messy business full of errors, I would not at all be surprised if it happens normally "in the wild", although I can't even guess vaguely at the frequency. And in such cases, if there were any legal recessive genes, the embryo would die, often within the first couple of divisions; but that's not directly relevant to the point, which is that parthenogenesis requires nothing more than the occasional ovum accidentally swallowing a dose of calcium. And no, that can't possibly explain Jesus, because of you think about it, it can only produce females. (In mammals anyway; not every creature does the thing with the y chromosome.)

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    20. Re: Cue Jeff Goldblum by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Like I said - "species" isn't something that exists for any particular organism. It's a test or concept that can only be applied to groups of individuals - can they interbreed and produce fertile offspring?

      Leaving aside asexually reproducing organisms, every organism is a product of the mating between it's parents, and may have offspring. And for that particular organism, you can't even be sure that it can successfully reproduce if it mated with either or both of it's parents, or any of it's offspring. The only way to be sure is to carry out the test. Though for high value organisms (say, a zoo-living Black Rhino), it becomes plausible to carry out individual genetic sequencing to estimate the probability of success in an insemination. but even then, we know that we don't know enough to be certain about that for humans, and we know less for other groups of organisms.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    21. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by interstellarsurfer · · Score: 1

      Make the Earth fair again, down with the 0.001%!

    22. Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planet Gaiaalways finds a way to protect life.

  3. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF? This has been known for decades.

    I'm sure if you look at the WIkipedia article it has said this for at least several years...

    Talk about Fake News.

    1. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake? No. It's obviously News For Nerds and Stuff That Matters. Duh.

    2. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It has been known that sharks reproduce asexually. The story here is that this is the first time it's been observed in a female shark that has previously had a mate.

    3. Re:WTF? by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lesbian sharks are always relevant. If you don't like it, you need to address it directly with them.

      BTW... Never, ever, tell an angry lesbian shark that she's wrong. Nothing good will ever come from it.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:WTF? by jandersen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WTF? This has been known for decades.

      I'm sure if you look at the WIkipedia article it has said this for at least several years...

      Talk about Fake News.

      Yes, perhaps it is better if you talk about fake news. This, however, is about science. I don't think I have read this particular article, but it has been mentioned in different places, and what is new, is the discovery that a female shark that has previously reproduced sexually, has been found to reproduce asexually several years later, which is a first. We had previously seen female sharks that grow up in captivity without males, can do this, but it was not obvious that this could also happen if they had mated in the past - it isn't unreasonable to think that mating might have triggered some mechanism - hormones or whatever - that would make asexual reproduction impossible.

    5. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't new, the virgin birth or the switch, but no one might have really researched it at the time. In 2000 when I moved and my moving truck was two days late I read a local paper I grabbed the night before at the hotel like a dozen times and one of the articles was about a local aquarium that had this happen. Shark had pups, separated male and female sharks because they were running out of room, years later shark had more pups. First time I've thought about that in awhile. No wifi no broadband no smartphone limited cell minutes and pay per txt. Just interesting to think about how much things have changed. Hr even mailed me local papers and apartment magazines to find an apartment, because who had web pages. But I digress.

    6. Re:WTF? by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Never, ever, tell an angry lesbian shark that she's wrong. Nothing good will ever come from it.

      Funny as this is, the post actually had nothing to do with lesbian sharks. Asexual != lesbian.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    7. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost like the "P" in PMS; does it stand for Pre, Post, or Perpetual?

      I seem to have misplaced that memo...

      The captcha offers a suggestion: "payable"

    8. Re:WTF? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      It's clear she was Bi anyway.

    9. Re:WTF? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Other posts in this thread have pointed out that this is in fact news, because this is the first record of a previously sexually-active female shark giving birth asexually, with no DNA from the father.

      And BTW, fake news is not what you seem to think it is. Fake news is written by fake reporters. It is a deliberate fiction intended to deceive, frighten, or enrage the reader. It is not old news. It is not a good-faith news story that contains errors.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    10. Re:WTF? by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      Lesbian sharks are always relevant.

      Would that be a bull shark?

      --
      Nope, no sig
    11. Re: WTF? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The baby sharks were secretly adopted from the mother shark's niece, who got pregnant out of wedlock.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    12. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soo those sharks are actually doing it like strawberries!

  4. Cool, but... by slazzy · · Score: 5, Funny

    But has she figured out how to grow her own lasers yet?

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    1. Re:Cool, but... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      A laser joke, at last! I was wondering what happened to /.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow.. Imagine a beowulf cluster of those...

    3. Re:Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an urge for hot grits...

    4. Re:Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      friken sharks!!

    5. Re:Cool, but... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, a Beowulf cluster of female sharks swimming in grits heated by their lasers give birth to many Natalie Portmans who bite You!

      There. That oughtta do it.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:Cool, but... by snookiex · · Score: 1

      And the pool the said female sharks were swimming in is 3 football fields big.

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
    7. Re:Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's yuuuuuuuge!

  5. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought this was interesting. Thanks for posting it!

  6. Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If men could reproduce after years of trying alone most slashdotters would be dads.

    1. Re: Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lord knows I've tried. I've had my dick up my own arse more than it's been inside a woman, and I still ain't gotten pregs.

    2. Re:Men by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dude, if we could give ourselves blowjobs the species would have died out millennia ago.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In college some dude became obsessed with giving himself a BJ. He took yoga, lost weight, eventually succeeded and then proceeded to show and tell everyone. It was almost like a party draw, hey everyone John is here anyone want to see him give himself a BJ? I guess it's time to check out Facebook and see what he's doing.

    4. Re: Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, like this guy.

  7. Shark Jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, in the spirit of South Park and Butters, soon women will only need us for our jokes. Sperm not required apparently.

    1. Re:Shark Jesus by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Well, in the spirit of South Park and Butters, soon women will only need us for our jokes. Sperm not required apparently.

      Well, sperm is eventually needed. FTS: "leading to "extreme inbreeding"".

      Extreme inbreeding produces males.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:Shark Jesus by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Extreme inbreeding produces males.

      No. Parthenogenesis (and Gynogenesis) means two X chromosomes, meaning only females can be produced.

    3. Re:Shark Jesus by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Yep. It may be a survival mechanism until males arrive or, if no males show up, continue on with only females. We have a mantid - Brunneria borealis - which has no males at all.

    4. Re:Shark Jesus by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

      No, but methinks they ARE working on a method using cats for reproduction. Because when a woman doesn't have a man, she INVARIABLY has at least one cat. . .

    5. Re:Shark Jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just wait for the XX males to show up. It happens rarely with humans. Fully functional healthy normal males, except missing a gene(s) that allows sperm to be viable. If that gene or small collection of genes ever get trans-coded from Y to X, we could start to see a jump in the number of XX males as they become able to procreate. Most XX "males" are females with issues, but not all.

    6. Re:Shark Jesus by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Extreme inbreeding produces males.

      No. Parthenogenesis (and Gynogenesis) means two X chromosomes, meaning only females can be produced.

      With turkeys the offspring of this are always male.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    7. Re:Shark Jesus by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      No sperm was harmed in this inbreeding program. It's simply creating your own clone.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Shark Jesus by Falos · · Score: 1

      I don't think it'd help. Even if their anatomy is the DNA-shooting variety (aka male) they're still the same DNA. They have no genetic diversity, they can't adapt, still extreme inbreeding. It's better than extinction, but it's a stalling technique.

  8. More Lawyers... by bferrell · · Score: 1

    Now, with lasers on their heads!

  9. a future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if we can only work out how to do this with just males, Slashdot may have a future ;)

    1. Re:a future by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So far no conclusive results have been reported from male-male mating, but tests continue.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. She did what? by irrational_design · · Score: 5, Funny

    She _learned_ it did she? Hopefully the same book that taught her about asexual reproduction doesn't have a chapter on lasers.

    1. Re:She did what? by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 1

      I know, the standard of writing on this site seems to deteriorate on a daily basis. *sighs*

    2. Re:She did what? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      I know. First thing I did was laugh at 'learned'.

    3. Re:She did what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since when is parthenogenesis a learnable skill? Will they be offering workshops at the Y soon?

    4. Re:She did what? by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      It's "deep learning". The kind that sea animals usually do several hundred meters under water.

    5. Re:She did what? by Guybrush_T · · Score: 1

      Uh uh uh ... at least a terrible headline made a not-so-terrible joke :-)

    6. Re:She did what? by Guybrush_T · · Score: 1

      Uh uh uh ... a not-so-terrible joke for a terrible headline :-)

    7. Re:She did what? by Macdude · · Score: 1

      Yes she learned it.

      From dictionary.com for the definition of learn
      4. to gain (a habit, mannerism, etc.) by experience,

      --
      "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    8. Re:She did what? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      That's the beauty of standards - there are so many to pick from. In this case, it's proof of the null hypothesis.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:She did what? by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      How does a shark gain asexual reproduction through experience?

  11. They should have just done an ask /. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    This place is filled with people with the world's most experienced experts on asexual reproduction.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    1. Re:They should have just done an ask /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Lightman's teacher in Wargames

  12. War on men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    More ammo for the war on men....

    1. Re:War on men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you can learn to reproduce without females too!

    2. Re:War on men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have watched many documentaries on it. First you have to get a job being a pizza delivery guy.

    3. Re: War on men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a job as a pool boy for a rich lonely house wife.

  13. Us men are doomed by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Doomed I tell you! We are no longer needed at all what-so-ever

    1. Re:Us men are doomed by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Maybe we can finally shed the dregs of progress and get out to the other planets and stars since they won't seem to need us anymore...

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    2. Re:Us men are doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women will be doom too. No genetics diversity will make the specie weak against viruses.

  14. I honestly wonder... by ckatko · · Score: 1

    ... if this has ever happened to a human, or near-human creature through human history.

    I'm not even trying to make a joke. This genuinely intrigues me.

    What biological mechanisms allow this? And what mechanisms trigger it?

    1. Re:I honestly wonder... by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The answer is (almost certainly) no. Parthenogeneses has never been observed in humans at all and has never been naturally observed in any mammal in fact. It does occur in some other species (fishes, reptiles and amphibians) but it is apparently impossible in mammals. The only cases in any mammals seen thus far were deliberately done by human intervention using the same types of techniques used for cloning.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:I honestly wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:I honestly wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild."

      Jesus and divine intervention. Apparently, Parthenogenesis babies are god-like, and male, counter to the Wikipedia article.

      On a serious note, the scientific community yet again shows it's bias by ignoring historical documents due to their ties to religion. I'd expect academics to develop a system or method and apply that consistently instead of inventing all sorts of selective rules to work around their sponsorship-induced biases. It takes a pretty big bias-induced blind spot to miss millions of Christians who believe in immaculate conception, even if you don't believe in the religion, and think they are all psycho (On average, I see a whole lot of people with self-induced problems going to Jesus for help instead of helping themselves, which is on par with the psycho of ignoring widely believed historical texts). Even if you know for a fact they are wrong, you state "The scientific community has never observed and documented parthenogenesis in the wild" and leave it there; you have historical documents people largely to believe to be true dummy. Those little factual omissions tend to grow over time into millions of research dollars flushed down the tube because you can't see the forest through the tree's.

    4. Re: I honestly wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of famous characters were without fathers, just ask Alexander the greats mum, who claimed Zeus raped her...

      Christians were only copying everyone else when they claimed Jesus didn't have an earthly father.

    5. Re:I honestly wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was this one incident about 2000 years ago.

      Though Occams Razor says that was just a cheating woman with an extremely gullible husband.

    6. Re:I honestly wonder... by StarryEyed · · Score: 1

      The only cases in any mammals seen thus far were deliberately done by human intervention using the same types of techniques used for cloning.

      It's been over a decade since I read the story, but pretty sure it was about a whale becoming spontaneously pregnant in isolation, without contact with a male for years.

    7. Re:I honestly wonder... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I actually did a google before writing that, to make sure my memory wasn't letting me down - and the only stories I could find were about human-induced parthenogenesis post-dolly using a modification of the same technique.

      If what you're saying is true, then I don't know about it. I did however read quite a few scientists on those stories declare that what they have achieved is considered impossible for mammals, so it seems unlikely.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:I honestly wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they were a pair but not yet married. Occams razor says they simply had fun too early and got their firstborn before properly married. This sort of thing happens a lot and has happened a lot throughout all ages. Most cultures are ok with it if they hurry up and marry. Some are not, and may lead to strange lies . . .

      Also, it is not hard to get a woman pregnant without disrupting virginity. It is rarely attempted because there is less satisfaction for both (and especially the man.) Few have the patience to bother with it, possibly for many months. Still, could be an interesting vanity project.

      So a virgin giving birth is not that incredible - but usually nobody believes in virginity once she has a belly. And normally, nobody does a virginity check on a pregnant woman either. They don't usually want a public examination.

    9. Re: I honestly wonder... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Lots of famous characters were without fathers

      And then there are Disney princesses, most of whom don't have dads.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re: I honestly wonder... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      How would you know if you observed it in a human female who was sexually active? In fact, even if it did happen to a woman who had not had contact with any sperm, nobody would believe her.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    11. Re: I honestly wonder... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      For a start - a simple gene test would show her child had only her DNA, and the child would invariably be female. But seeing as it also has not been observed in any other mammal, and there is strong biomolecular reasons to believe it cannot happen in mammals - it would be an extraordinary find, and would raise well deserved scepticism if claimed. If somebody claimed it and agreed to a DNA test though - then it would be confirmed.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  15. Jesus Christ! by enriquevagu · · Score: 1

    Prior art in humans.

  16. and thats how... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mommy brought a little Donald into the world.

  17. "extreme inbreeding" by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now there's a redneck sport if there ever was one. I bet there are ATVs involved and everything. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  18. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like a feminist wet dream.

  19. Pregnant hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Life... Finds a way."

    Now I'm scared that my hand will end up getting pregnant one of these days..

  20. That's why I hate aquariums by badzilla · · Score: 1

    So she was in an aquarium alone and separated from her "long-term mate". Sounds pretty evil to me. These places need to be closed down.

    --
    "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    1. Re:That's why I hate aquariums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Townsville ReefHQ isn't really one of "those places". While there is the public front, a large portion of its purpose is to compliment the marine biology work being done out on the reef itself via the local University (James Cook Uni) and the Australian Institute of Marine Science located at the other side of the cape about 30km away. The impressive size of the installation means that there's a lot of important work that can be done that the other two centres cannot replicate. There's also the turtle hospital / rehab centre too.

      I agree it's unfortunate that the pair were separated. There is always the need to be keeping a responsible level of population control in the tanks particularly that it's a living coral system.

    2. Re:That's why I hate aquariums by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      Sharks aren't like swans. They don't mate for life, they mate with whomever happens to be around, and if there is nobody else around they don't mate. Mostly they eat.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  21. A simple question. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Did they name the baby sharks Jesus II, Jesus III and Jesus IV?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:A simple question. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I was about to post something like this, but I'm glad you'll be serving more time in hell instead of me now. Bravo!

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:A simple question. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Did they name the baby sharks Jesus II, Jesus III and Jesus IV?

      After the babies bit them.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  22. Human females are going to have to do the same thi by rcb1974 · · Score: 0

    Because it is so dangerous for a man to get married and have children due to unfair family law. MGTOW. Look it up

  23. Worlds Top Blogging Platform http://TipsTune.Info by TipsTune · · Score: 0

    Worlds Top Blogging Platform http://tipstune.info/

  24. Subtle joke in the summary by Nuffsaid · · Score: 1
    From the summary: "Intrigued, Christine Dudgeon at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and her colleagues began fishing for answers."

    "Fishing", got it?

    No?

    Sharks are fishes, you know?

    If needed I can be more explicit, just ask.

    --
    Nuffsaid
    ________

    Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
    1. Re:Subtle joke in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's good that the scientists didn't resort to phishing for information.

  25. Feminist shark triumphs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What better way to break free of the chains of male-dominated shark society than to render them unnecessary for breeding?

  26. Good news! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    For human women. After parthenogenesis is perfected, Human males will become useless parasites, and can finally be eliminated, ending all of the problems on earth.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re: Good news! by rcb1974 · · Score: 1

      Then the women would die off because as a group they consume way more resources than they produce. Men produce more resources than they consume overall.

    2. Re:Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After parthogenesis is perfected, a few women will go for it. And the rest will go for men as usual, for a variety of reasons:
      * More fun!
      * Simpler/cheaper procedure, no need for pills/equipment. A handful one-night stands is all a woman really need from men anyway.
      * Men are useful for painting walls, fixing car tires, removing snow, carrying stuff from shops, . . .
      * Alimony

    3. Re:Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the problem of who's gonna pay for their wardrobe.

    4. Re:Good news! by Ded+Bob · · Score: 1

      You forgot the ??? before alimony.

    5. Re:Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Males ...useless parasites? They have what the females need to survive, namely credit cards.

    6. Re:Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already a reality. The extreme inbreeding is clearly visible in today's feminists. Oops. On the plus side they will eventually die out from lack of adaption. Double oops.

    7. Re:Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sarcasm noted but a here's a serious answer.

      ... can finally be eliminated ...

      Militant feminists have been saying that for 50 years: Women still line-up to get married and watch rom-com movies; they want someone they can dump their problems upon, which predominately (and obviously) includes the expensive task of pushing-out babies.

      ... ending all of the problems on earth ...

      In the 1940s, a journalist wrote a tongue-in-cheek piece saying what a matriarchal society would look like; the colonies of ants and bees. Successful female leaders aren't any different to men; look at Queen Elizabeth 1 (GBR), Queen Victoria (GBR), Catherine the Great (RUS), who created large empires during their reign. Then feminism created the dream that management could include the voice of every employee and women could do it better: There's an oft-quoted article showing what happens when the boss thinks women are superior to men:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

    8. Re: Good news! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Then the women would die off because as a group they consume way more resources than they produce. Men produce more resources than they consume overall.

      Tha's not what she said!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:Good news! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      After parthogenesis is perfected, a few women will go for it. And the rest will go for men as usual, for a variety of reasons: * More fun! * Simpler/cheaper procedure, no need for pills/equipment. A handful one-night stands is all a woman really need from men anyway. * Men are useful for painting walls, fixing car tires, removing snow, carrying stuff from shops, . . . * Alimony

      That depends on how many men are going to put up with that shit. Seema a fiar number are dropping out of that mess.

      I think it's like this - what is in it for men? That one night stand might get you accused of rape, or certainly you might get nailed for child support intil the offspring graduates college if you being used as an insemination utility is successful. And a man who donates sperm had better understand that he can now be liable for child support. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/...

      For those who don't want to read the link, a man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple was successfully sued for child support when the couple fell on financial hard times.

      Lest we think this is a isolated case: http://www.canada.com/news/nat...

      A retroactive child support suit after 20 years.

      And this guy won, but tell me, you gonna donate? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pa...

      So if you are willing to sign your life and fortune and good name away for a piece of ass, have at it. Just go in with both eyes open. Because if she wants your money, she's gonna get it, sepecially if you do it th eold fashioned way.

      IOW, you'll get screwed multiple times and ways.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  27. Mystery solved by HaaPoo · · Score: 1

    i have been telling this to my wife, as she always got pregnant when she was travelling and i was not around. i think missing me caused her to learn how to becomes pregnant by herself.

  28. A true shark feminist hero! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A shark female needs a shark male like a fish needs a bicycle" said the shark mother proudly to the media.

  29. Re:Human females are going to have to do the same by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because it is so dangerous for a man to get married and have children due to unfair family law. MGTOW. Look it up

    While MGTOW is a little interesting, way too much of it is butthurt whining. But the point is taken that an increasing number of men who would make good mates for a woman have done a risk/benefit analysis, and decided that it is not worth it.

    And that is kind of a problem. It's a passive avoidance, it isn't illegal. It's like avoiding smoking by not smoking. And as VR and "sex dolls" become more realistic, will only become worse.

    What is worse, while stable prudent men decide to pursue their careers and keep their assets, and avoid relationships with females, the jerks and abusers won't change at all.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  30. Clone by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    So the baby is a clone of the mother?

    1. Re:Clone by ImprovOmega · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. It would be more like if you combined the genetic material of two eggs from the same mother together. It's a mish-mash of genes with a high degree of of similarity. So for example your odds of getting two copies of the same gene are greatly increased. This leads to a higher degree of birth defects and recessive gene combining in unpleasant ways. A clone would actually be *less* genetically damaged.

      That being said, it probably works out more-or-less okay for one generation but much beyond that it quickly becomes unsustainable.

  31. Same thing happened to my wife by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

    My wife had the same thing happen to her as happened to that shark. I'd been working abroad 6 months and she managed to get pregnant completely on her own. Unbelievable.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    1. Re:Same thing happened to my wife by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      My wife had the same thing happen to her as happened to that shark. I'd been working abroad 6 months and she managed to get pregnant completely on her own. Unbelievable.

      You remind me of this guy.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Same thing happened to my wife by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      My wife had the same thing happen to her as happened to that shark. I'd been working abroad 6 months and she managed to get pregnant completely on her own. Unbelievable.

      That's just called a "grudge baby" - someone had it in for you :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Same thing happened to my wife by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Why did you marry such a stupid, stupid person? I hope she gave good service before you shit-canned her.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  32. Re:Human females are going to have to do the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you may have som jerks and abusers that go for advanced sex dolls too. Abusing a sex doll till it "dies" (wears out from various damage) is cheaper than decades in prison.

  33. TV appearances for more grant money by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    The scientists will have to speak on her behalf, on Maury, Springer, and Wilco.

    He's the father!

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:TV appearances for more grant money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean She's the father

    2. Re: TV appearances for more grant money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/2tecvz/comment/co0386g

  34. It's all a kid's fault by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    At the aquarium, a little kid was heard shouting "go fuck yourself" to the shark tank a few months ago.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  35. Moonlit Gender-bending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think the shark turns male on a full moon, spunks a load somewhere, tgen as the moon wanes the shark turns back into a female in short enough time the sperms swarm her like symbioticallt attached male gulper eels.

  36. TIL Sharks are basically college students by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    nm

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  37. Perfect /. story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, the majority of folks on this forum have spent years trying to achieve the same thing. Keep practicing guys, there's hope!

  38. Wait'll Human Females Learn It by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1

    It's every woman's dream to be rid of the need for men!

    1. Re:Wait'll Human Females Learn It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that time is closer than you may realize. they're actually getting pretty close to creating 'artificial sperm'....

      and if you consider the spunk 'harvested' (err 'donated') and stored already, and only current technologies, that time has already arrived. not needed *directly* just need to collect jizz during the fap-happy teens and womenkind would be set for eternity

    2. Re:Wait'll Human Females Learn It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You almost sound happy about that.. How close do you live to Stockholm btw?

  39. And in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Male /. readers learn to simulate reproduction without females after years alone.

  40. Why did they move the male? by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

    The real question is how come, after 13 years, they decided to separate what was evidently a very successful pair of sharks? Seems that it would be wise to just keep them together.

  41. It makes so much sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It makes so much sense. I finally understand how feminists reproduce, and why they are so repugnant.

  42. Re: Human females are going to have to do the same by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    "How's your wife?" "Leaks a bit"

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  43. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't really understand some of the science here. Can I get a car analogy?

  44. Lamarckism though appears again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Magical thinking and Lamarckism though appears again!
    This stupid idea of mind over matter!
    Things are willed into existence of a mind! (Natural things because of GOD MIND MAKES MATTER!)
    Is a really deep rooted delusion, especially in religious folks.

    While in reality minds are a product of biological evolution and matter organization.

    Hence also the Lamarckism though about biological capabilities because a lifeforms willed itself to have or be so.