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