Most active commenters
  • rsynnott(7)
  • sampo(3)
  • IAmBroom(3)

←back to thread

429 points sampo | 43 comments | | HN request time: 0.444s | source | bottom
Show context
corygarms ◴[] No.45302603[source]
This is nuts. If I'm understanding correctly, the M. ibiricus queen mates with a M. structor male, uses his sperm to create sterile, hybrid female worker ants for her colony, then she (astonishingly) can also lay eggs that develop into fertile M. structor males, which means she has removed her genetic material from the egg and effectively cloned the male she previously mated with.
replies(8): >>45302659 #>>45302788 #>>45303102 #>>45303712 #>>45303759 #>>45303836 #>>45310163 #>>45311222 #
1. sidewndr46 ◴[] No.45302659[source]
Yeah, I came here to say the same thing. I'm really confused how the female can produce a clone of the male of another species. Wouldn't the other males sperm contain only half the genetic material needed to reproduce? But apparently ant DNA doesn't work that way for sex:

https://press.uni-mainz.de/determining-sex-in-ants/

somehow a male ant has one set of chromosomes while the female ant has two sets of chromosomes. So a male ant sperm must contain enough information to make a complete male? Then when they mate with the female of the other species, the females egg actually gets blanked out so to speak, containing none of the females own genetic material. Then the male sperm fertilizes the egg with one set of chromosomes producing a male offspring that is a clone?

replies(3): >>45303135 #>>45303877 #>>45306110 #
2. tsimionescu ◴[] No.45303135[source]
Note that many, many animals have non-genetic sex determination. Most fish, amphibians, and reptiles have the same genes for both males and females. Sexual differentiation typically depends on things like the egg temperature or salinity and so on. Some species can even change sex during their adult lifetimes, with external conditions triggering a complex hormonal shift that convert an adult, fertile male into an adult, fertile female.

Having genetic differences between males and females is mostly a bird and mammal thing, at least among vertebrates.

replies(2): >>45303319 #>>45305017 #
3. soperj ◴[] No.45303319[source]
Man, the bible missed all of this when they were talking about the two animals of every species on the Ark. What else did they leave out?
replies(6): >>45303362 #>>45303694 #>>45303749 #>>45303916 #>>45304796 #>>45305666 #
4. tsimionescu ◴[] No.45303362{3}[source]
To be fair, you almost always still need two individuals to get reproduction going - you just don't need to be as picky about which two individuals as you might think. There are a rare few animals that can sometimes self-reproduce, but it's not a common strategy in the animal kingdom, even among hermaphroditic animals.
replies(2): >>45303783 #>>45303803 #
5. bethekidyouwant ◴[] No.45303694{3}[source]
They were actually intelligently designed this way any animal you can’t sex easily as a hermaphrodite
replies(1): >>45304103 #
6. rsynnott ◴[] No.45303749{3}[source]
This always struck me as a bit odd, because it was a somewhat common belief around then, and for long after, that many animals reproduced by abiogenesis anyway. Why bother taking two mice on the ark; everyone knows that mice spontaneously emerge from river mud!

(It’s possible that this was just a Greek quirk and never made it to Palestine, I suppose.)

replies(2): >>45304073 #>>45304448 #
7. dekhn ◴[] No.45303783{4}[source]
Parthenogenesis is not uncommon in animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_taxa_that_use_partheno... (I am mostly quibbling with "rare few animals" but I can't really say much about the relative prevalence of parthenogenesis compared to sexual reproduction.
8. duskwuff ◴[] No.45303803{4}[source]
They're less rare than you might think. Parthenogenesis ("virgin birth") occasionally occurs in some domestic birds, including chickens and turkeys. Due to the way sex determination works in birds, the offspring created this way are always male.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003257911...

replies(3): >>45304401 #>>45307587 #>>45307746 #
9. sampo ◴[] No.45303877[source]
> I'm really confused how the female can produce a clone of the male of another species.

In normal ants, the queen can produce haploid (single set of chromosomes) unfertilized eggs that hatch into males. Normal ant males are haploid. They don't have a father, they can not have sons (but the do have a grandfather, and their daughters will make them grandsons). When the ant queen decides to produce sons, she will make haploid eggs via meiosis as normal, and just won't fertilize them with male sperm.

Ants don't have sex chromosomes. An individual with a single set of chromosomes (haploid) is a male, an individual with double set of chromosomes (diploid) is a female. Ant males are almost like sperm cells that grew into multicellular organisms.

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

Now, a Messor ibericus queen can produce eggs with her own genetic material removed, and fertilize these with the single set of chromosomes from a Messor structor male. (It will still have the mitochondria and mitochondrial DNA from the queen.) And because the male only has a single set of chromosomes, the sperm and the resulting offspring has an identical single copy of the father's genetic material (except the mitochondria that came from the mother). So the son is a clone of the father (except for mitochondria).

The queen can also mate with males of her own species, contributing half of her own chromosomes to combine with the full single set of the male chromosomes, to produce to-be-queen female offspring. Here we have the normal genetic recombination (though only on the mother's side) to keep the evolutionary benefits of the variation from sexual reproduction.

replies(2): >>45305344 #>>45310754 #
10. sampo ◴[] No.45303916{3}[source]
> What else did they leave out?

Plants. Fungi.

replies(1): >>45304082 #
11. IAmBroom ◴[] No.45304073{4}[source]
The idea persisted into the Middle Ages. Can't say for certain that it was continuous, however; the medieval supporters quoted Aristotle et al.
12. IAmBroom ◴[] No.45304082{4}[source]
The latter they brought with an especially rank pot of Grandma Noah's sauerkraut.
13. IAmBroom ◴[] No.45304103{4}[source]
Here's some punctuation: ....,,,;;;:::!!!???

I don't have the space to help on your other issues.

replies(1): >>45304946 #
14. ◴[] No.45304401{5}[source]
15. philistine ◴[] No.45304448{4}[source]
Listen, we still don't know how eels reproduce. Our knowledge has never been all inclusive and properly disseminated. The fearful cave-dwelling scribes who wrote the old testament were clearly not up to date on their biology.
replies(3): >>45304774 #>>45307488 #>>45308687 #
16. dormento ◴[] No.45304774{5}[source]
I didn't know either, but hn came to the rescue. In case you're one of today's lucky 10000:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/25/where-do-eels-...

replies(1): >>45305243 #
17. NewJazz ◴[] No.45304796{3}[source]
Leviticus rightfully instructs you not to eat bats, but it seems to mistake them for special birds rather than mammals.
replies(2): >>45306052 #>>45307596 #
18. collingreen ◴[] No.45304946{5}[source]
That's ok, the space key seems to work just fine :troll:
19. duskwuff ◴[] No.45305017[source]
> Having genetic differences between males and females is mostly a bird and mammal thing, at least among vertebrates.

Also: the configuration and function of sex chromosomes is not consistent even within mammals. There are a number of species - primarily rodents - with unusual sex-determining systems, like species with XX/X0 (i.e. where males have an unpaired X chromosome) or even X0/X0.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8617835/

replies(1): >>45305366 #
20. jdiff ◴[] No.45305243{6}[source]
I think eels are safely outside the domain of knowledge where anyone could safely say "everybody knows that!"
replies(1): >>45305995 #
21. subroutine ◴[] No.45305344[source]
What are the odds this behavior is not completely hostile from the side of the builder ant? There seems to be some implication of symbiotic relationship, but maybe I'm reading too much into it.

The interesting part is whether M. ibericus queens do actively remove their own genetic from eggs fertilized with builder sperm. Why would they do this?

replies(2): >>45305631 #>>45310218 #
22. tempestn ◴[] No.45305366{3}[source]
Important plot element in Jurassic Park!
23. sampo ◴[] No.45305631{3}[source]
M. ibericus queens produce ibericus males and ibericus females, so that these can mate and produce more ibericus queens. This keeps the normal sexual reproduction of the species going on.

M. ibericus queens produce ibericus×structor hybrids as infertile female worker ants.

M. ibericus queens produce structor males, so future queens can keep producing the hybrid worker ants.

My guess is, maybe there is some benefit having the workers to be hybrids and not pure ibericus ("hybrid vigor" [1]). So it's worth the effort of keeping the structor males along, to be able to produce the hybrid workers. But I think the pure ibericus genes in the line of queens are in control.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis

24. sidewndr46 ◴[] No.45305666{3}[source]
It was an early deployment of RAID1. Two copies of everything
25. zrezzed ◴[] No.45305995{7}[source]
https://xkcd.com/2501/
26. nyeah ◴[] No.45306052{4}[source]
There can't be much meat on a bat anyway.
replies(1): >>45306848 #
27. jcul ◴[] No.45306110[source]
> It was very difficult, because in lab conditions, it’s nearly impossible to have males,” says co-author Jonathan Romiguier, an ecologist at the University of Montpellier in France, to New Scientist’s Tim Vernimmen. “We had something like 50 colonies and monitored them for two years without a single male being born. Then we got lucky.

This confuses me too.

Did the queen once mate with one of these males and save the sperm for two years? Or are the queens somehow born with a copy of the genetic material.

Or does the old queen produce one, which mates with the new queen, and then dies off. And the new queen is able to hold onto that sperm for years (forever?). And they only produce a handful of males for this purpose?

Also why is it so difficult to have males in lab conditions?

replies(1): >>45307614 #
28. soperj ◴[] No.45306848{5}[source]
there's not much on a snail either, but they're still delicious.
29. rsynnott ◴[] No.45307488{5}[source]
Well, no, I’m actually surprised that whoever wrote the Old Testament _was_ up enough on their biology (or at least aligned with biology, however accidentally) to realise that most animals reproduce sexually. This certainly wasn’t the conventional view in the Greek world, say, nor was it in the West until the 18th century or so.
replies(1): >>45308064 #
30. rsynnott ◴[] No.45307587{5}[source]
There are also a number of species of lizards, and one snake, which reproduce exclusively via parthenogenesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis_in_squamates

In some though not all such species, there are no known male examples _at all_ (though in reptiles some forms of parthenogenesis can produce males).

31. rsynnott ◴[] No.45307596{4}[source]
Wait, is there a _specific_ prohibition? Like, they fail Old Testament dietary rules miserably _anyway_.
replies(1): >>45308605 #
32. rsynnott ◴[] No.45307614[source]
Yup; in most ants the queen has a bit of an orgy, once, and then saves the sperm for the rest of her life. Male ants (in most species) are really only useful for starting new nests.
33. dexterdog ◴[] No.45307746{5}[source]
Thank you so much for introducing me to this concept. I knew the word thanks to Shriekback. I used to have ducks. At one point when I only had 3 females, I found a broken egg with a fetus in it. I knew they were all female, but couldn't convince anybody of what I saw.
34. giveita ◴[] No.45308064{6}[source]
What was this view exactly? They would have know their pets and farm animals reproduced sexually. I guess it isn't a leap to think all mammals? So what animals did they think did not?
replies(2): >>45308484 #>>45311910 #
35. aetherson ◴[] No.45308484{7}[source]
Mice, flies, vermin of various kinds that seemed able to show up anywhere from no obvious parents.
36. NewJazz ◴[] No.45308605{5}[source]
These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle, the vulture, [a bunch of other birds] and the bat"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2011:...

replies(1): >>45311927 #
37. jamiek88 ◴[] No.45308687{5}[source]
We do now!! It’s fascinating. Look it up!
38. im3w1l ◴[] No.45310218{3}[source]
I think it's an interesting assumption that that the queen removes her own genetics from the eggs. Normally in biology I would expect the opposite, that species remove competitors in favor of their own dna. So I think the possibility should be explored that it is builder ant's sperm that is somehow removing the dna of the queen.
replies(1): >>45312282 #
39. zymhan ◴[] No.45310754[source]
Thank you, that's fascinating.
40. rsynnott ◴[] No.45311910{7}[source]
So, we tend to think that it’s just common sense that most animals reproduce sexually (actually I think most people would assume that _all_ animals do; in fact, as with most things, there are edge cases), but, well, to an extent that’s because we already know that. The historical view was a bit different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

This isn’t even the only weird idea that people used to have about reproduction; there’s also stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnacle_goose_myth

41. rsynnott ◴[] No.45311927{6}[source]
Aaah, right, I suppose if you’re assuming it’s a bird it _would_ need a specific call-out, yeah. I was assuming it’d be covered by the hooves-and-stomachs stuff, but if you don’t think it’s a mammal in the first place that wouldn’t work.

(From the above: “Bible Gateway is currently unavailable to consumers in the United Kingdom and European Union due to technical issues.” I am now very curious just which EU regulation the bible website was worried about.)

42. lolc ◴[] No.45312282{4}[source]
Still if the foreign DNA is beneficial in keeping the hive going, it will help spread the queen's DNA. Should some allele work against the adoption of the foreign DNA, fitness drops, and that allele would become less frequent.

Who is doing the removing at fertilization is interesting mostly in a mechanical sense. The mechanisms that worked against it are being suppressed or selected out entirely.

It sure is an interesting case that one ant species is having another species promote their males if one looks at it from a gene perspective. A very weird case of symbiosis.

replies(1): >>45313110 #
43. im3w1l ◴[] No.45313110{5}[source]
Here's my theory of how it may have happened. Stage 0: 5 million years ago they were the same species. Stage 1: Subspecies. Ibericus and Structor became distinct populations of the same species still capable of mating. Stage 2: Parasitism. Structur became capable of replacing Ibericus dna with their own in eggs. Stage 3: Loss of function. Because of rampant structor parasitism nearly all workers were structor. So when Ibericus lost the ability to make their own workers it was a neutral mutation.

If I understand it correctly their theory is as follows. Stage 0: 5 million years ago they were the same species. Stage 1: Subspecies. Ibericus and Structor became distinct populations of the same species still capable of mating. Stage 2. Loss of function. Ibericus lost the ability to create their own workers, but as Ibericus and Structor existed in the same places hybrid workers allowed Ibericus to survive despite this. Stage 3: Ibericus learns to clone structor males to live in places where there are no Structors naturally.

Kinda interesting that even though the end result is the same who is considered the parasite is different.