All Female Species Found

There's a insect called the sausage fly, which is actually a male ant of some south american species, forgot the name.

But the male looks morphologically very different than the females
 
Enmos said:
I strongly suspect that all ants of that species stem from one queen though.


How would it have changed if all they do is cloning themselves ?
Click to expand...

Mutation.

What a mixed blessing that species must be. All female, yet no sex. Another little cosmic joke.
 
np ;)

I wonder if cheap reproduction (being r selected like Daphnia and insects and whatnot) means more opportunities for mutations/genetic variance on a base-pair by base-pair level than larger k-selected animals like deer and rhinos.
 
GeoffP said:
np ;)

I wonder if cheap reproduction (being r selected like Daphnia and insects and whatnot) means more opportunities for mutations/genetic variance on a base-pair by base-pair level than larger k-selected animals like deer and rhinos.
Click to expand...

Rates of evolution (change in gene frequency over time) do depend on generation time. Yeasts evolve faster than us, simply because they reproduce ever 24 hours, not every 24 years.

Also, as far as mammals go, I'd consider deer more r than k-selected, considering they are so delicious.
 
GeoffP said:
Mutation.
Click to expand...
Of course random mutation takes place. But that can hardly be relied upon for significant genetic diversity (I guess), unless they evolved a crappy error correction system..

GeoffP said:
What a mixed blessing that species must be. All female, yet no sex. Another little cosmic joke.
Click to expand...
Yea, imagine that. At least there aren't any male ants to be sad about the lack of lesbian action :p
 
Roman said:
Rates of evolution (change in gene frequency over time) do depend on generation time. Yeasts evolve faster than us, simply because they reproduce ever 24 hours, not every 24 years.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that only go for sexual reproduction ? Cloning in itself doesn't leave room from any gene frequencies to change.
 
Enmos said:
Of course random mutation takes place. But that can hardly be relied upon for significant genetic diversity (I guess), unless they evolved a crappy error correction system.
Click to expand...

Use of error prone DNApol in regions where diversity is useful (resistance against pathogens) would solve the problem. We use a sloppy polymerase in our B cells during B cell proliferation to compete with viral mutations.

Enmos said:
Doesn't that only go for sexual reproduction ? Cloning in itself doesn't leave room from any gene frequencies to change.
Click to expand...

Evolution per generation is certainly smaller, but over large time periods, they rapidly catch up. Gametic mutations in most eukaryotes is like 10^-4 to 10^-6 per base, depending on the locus. Most human locii are around 10^-6. Bacteria have a mutation rate of around 10^-8. Their generational mutation rate is two orders of magnitude smaller than us, but their generations occur... a lot faster. Many of order of magnitudes faster. Given optimal conditions, some bacteria reproduce every 10 minutes.

*does some math*

Let's say a bacterium divides every day (24 hours), and it takes an average of 20 years for a human to reproduce. Then in one generation of people, there will be 20*365 generations of bacteria. That is 8760 generations of bacteria; almost 4 orders of magnitude greater than people, which is 2 orders of magnitude greater in terms of mutation. Give optimum conditions (6 times per hour), that is 52,560 generations.
 
Roman said:
Use of error prone DNApol in regions where diversity is useful (resistance against pathogens) would solve the problem. We use a sloppy polymerase in our B cells during B cell proliferation to compete with viral mutations.



Evolution per generation is certainly smaller, but over large time periods, they rapidly catch up. Gametic mutations in most eukaryotes is like 10^-4 to 10^-6 per base, depending on the locus. Most human locii are around 10^-6. Bacteria have a mutation rate of around 10^-8. Their generational mutation rate is two orders of magnitude smaller than us, but their generations occur... a lot faster. Many of order of magnitudes faster. Given optimal conditions, some bacteria reproduce every 10 minutes.

*does some math*

Let's say a bacterium divides every day (24 hours), and it takes an average of 20 years for a human to reproduce. Then in one generation of people, there will be 20*365 generations of bacteria. That is 8760 generations of bacteria; almost 4 orders of magnitude greater than people, which is 2 orders of magnitude greater in terms of mutation. Give optimum conditions (6 times per hour), that is 52,560 generations.
Click to expand...

Hmm I can only agree with this.
But even bacteria retain the ability for sexual reproduction. So there must still be a distinct advantage to it, despite their rapid generation cycles.
It seems that doing away with sexual reproduction altogether is really a quirk, something disadvantageous that they managed to survive somehow.
 
Enmos said:
Hmm I can only agree with this.
But even bacteria retain the ability for sexual reproduction. So there must still be a distinct advantage to it, despite their rapid generation cycles.
It seems that doing away with sexual reproduction altogether is really a quirk, something disadvantageous that they managed to survive somehow.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if bacterial competence or conjugation counts as sexual reproduction, though, as it has different implications for fitness and risk. Big sloppy genomes seems to be unique to the eukaryotes.
 
Roman said:
I'm not sure if bacterial competence or conjugation counts as sexual reproduction, though, as it has different implications for fitness and risk. Big sloppy genomes seems to be unique to the eukaryotes.
Click to expand...

In conjugation bacteria exchange their genetic material, so I would certainly count that as sexual reproduction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top