←back to thread

426 points sampo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
rsynnott ◴[] No.45303749[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 #
1. IAmBroom ◴[] No.45304073[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.