←back to thread

473 points Bostonian | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.445s | source
Show context
codocod[dead post] ◴[] No.42182642[source]
[flagged]
_aavaa_ ◴[] No.42183601[source]
There are 2 sets of male-female pairs of the species which have different chromosomes. I am not sure what about her characterization is complete nonsense.

https://www.audubon.org/news/the-fascinating-and-complicated...

replies(2): >>42184585 #>>42184673 #
codocod[dead post] ◴[] No.42184673[source]
[flagged]
_aavaa_ ◴[] No.42185229[source]
From the actual paper [0]: "Our long-term genotypic analysis builds on previous work [6, 7] and, through extensive genotyping of thousands of individuals over more than two decades, confirms that white morphs are almost always heterozygous for alternative chromosome 2 alleles (2m/2). We find that 99.7% of white morphs are heterozygous (n = 1,014; Table S1) ... As a consequence of obligate disassortative mating the species effectively has four sexes, wherein any individual can mate with only 1/4 of the individuals in the population."

The actual sex chromosomes of the birds, and hence they're gametes, have significant differences between the two colours.

You can quibble over if this technically fits the current definition, but the original characterization is pretty far from "complete nonsense".

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221...

replies(2): >>42185983 #>>42186207 #
1. kgwgk ◴[] No.42185983[source]
That’s also why it makes complete sense to say that in places/times with anti-miscegenation laws in place there were effectively lots of sexes.
replies(1): >>42186343 #
2. anonfordays ◴[] No.42186343[source]
Almost made this exact comment! It's likely to be poorly received, but this is 100% inline with the aforementioned study.