Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone

Posted by Zonk on Wed May 23, 2007 10:43 AM
from the i-thought-the-federal-government-banned-cloning dept.
Biotech Science
mikesd81 writes "The Washington Post has an article about a team of American and Irish researchers that have discovered that some female sharks can reproduce without having sex, the first time that scientists have found the unusual capacity in such an ancient vertebrate species. Their report concludes that sharks can reproduce asexually through the process known as parthenogenesis (the growth and development of an embryo or seed without fertilization by a male). Scientists started investigating after a female hammerhead shark was mysteriously born at Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo in a tank that housed 3 female sharks. It was originally thought one had stored sperm from a male shark before fertilizing an egg. However, baby shark's genetic makeup perfectly matched one of the females in the tank, with no sign of a male parent."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Rare Shark Filmed in Japan 156 comments
[TheBORG] writes "A Deep Sea Frill Shark, whose normal habitat is between 600 and 1000m, was found and filmed off the coast of Japan recently. Normally they're caught (found dead) in fishermen's nets. This 'living fossil' was probably so close to the coast because it was sick. In its poor condition, the shark was moved by marine park personnel to a seawater pool where they filmed it swimming and opening its jaws. The shark died a few hours later after being filmed."
[+] Females Outnumber Males Online 299 comments
westcoaster004 writes "In news which may surprise some Slashdot users, females have been found to outnumber males online in the U.S. according to a report, and for some time. The statistics for Canadians show a slightly greater number of male users."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Sigh. (Score:4, Funny)

    by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:45AM (#19238119) Homepage Journal

    Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone

    If male sharks had ST:TNG on DVD they'd be indistinguisable from human male geeks.

      • Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone (Score:5, Funny)

        by mollog (841386) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @12:13PM (#19240325)
        Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone
        So you've met my ex-wife?

        Seriously, imagine the shark husbands; "That's not my pup. Who's the father???"

        Or trying to explain this to your parents; "But Mom, I didn't. Really Mom."

        And now the quotes, "A female shark needs a male shark, like a flounder needs a bicycle." - "All he's good for is opening jars and lifting heavy things." - "Not tonight, honey. I'm already stuffed."

        In some ways, it would suck to be a male shark.

  • Necessary improvement (Score:5, Funny)

    by 6Yankee (597075) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:46AM (#19238137)
    They were forced to evolve this ability after all the males were killed in frickin' laser accidents during mating attempts.

  • All the geeks ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by eck011219 (851729) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:46AM (#19238141)
    ... at splashdot.org were just ruled obsolete. Slashdotters, beware ... we're next!

  • Note to self... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Steve--Balllmer (1070854) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:46AM (#19238149)
    don't clone dinosaurs using shark DNA.

  • Womyn rejoice! (Score:5, Funny)

    by R2.0 (532027) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:47AM (#19238151)
    Finally, proof that Mother Nature never intended males to exist at all.
    • "Finally, proof that Mother Nature never intended males to exist at all."

      Sure you might think that, but, without us...who'd mow the lawn, or kill the big scary spider?

      :-)

      On the other hand...the only reason we talk to ya'll...is because you have tits.

    • Re:Womyn rejoice! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by garett_spencley (193892) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:59AM (#19238451) Journal
      I realize that was intended as a joke, and I am not an evolutionary biologist, but wouldn't this type of reproduction completely eliminate the possibility for evolution ?

      I don't mean to imply that this is evidence contradicting the occurrence of evolution, just that if animals were to reproduce asexually, and thus essentially be clones of their parent, then evolution is not possible for that particular species ?

      So what are the benefits ?

      • Re:Womyn rejoice! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Rycross (836649) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @11:07AM (#19238637)
        No, it wouldn't eliminate it. Its more accurate to say it would slow evolution. After all you'll still get mutations, and you'll still get selection from the environment. It just lowers the diversity and a big selection pressure (getting chosen as a mate). There was a time when asexual reproduction was the norm (bacteria, single-celled life forms), and you can see for yourself the result of that.
        • Sexual reproduction speeds up the process among complex organisms, but bacteria evolve very quickly without it.

          Sure they do. Google for "Bacterial Conjugation". Of course, they don't have genitalia like we do, but they manage anyway. Pretty much all bacteria that have been studied in any depth have been found to use conjugation to exchange DNA. There's even "bacterial porn" online, videos of the conjugation process.

          Actually, most of them only engage in sex occasionally, Mostly they reproduce by cloning
  • ...have you been splicing in frog DNA [imdb.com] again? Naughty naughty.
    • Ok I think this makes me a super JP nerd or something. But the splicing of the frog DNA as described in the movie (no idea of its basis in reality) actually was that certain frogs randomly changed sex in a single sex environment. What's happening here with parthenogenesis is asexual reproduction. A little bit different.

  • Maintenance payments (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dude McDude (938516) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:49AM (#19238209)
    I bet this bitch shark names an innocent male as the father, and the courts force him to pay $2000 in maintenance every month! Fuck!
  • ...why we refer to attorneys... you know, those nice folks who would prosecute and litigate issues of paternity and whatnot... ...as "sharks"?

    • ...why we refer to attorneys... you know, those nice folks who would prosecute and litigate issues of paternity and whatnot... ...as "sharks"?

      You're mistaken there. Lawyers don't reproduce asexually. But they do kill and consume their mother when they emerge from the womb.

      Joke as Corollary: "It is possible to get pregnant resulting from anal sex. This is how lawyers are born."

  • "She must be a dyke," I'd say.

    "No, that's just wishful thinking," my wingman tells me. "Maybe you should change your socks more often."

    Shows him!

  • Parthenogenesis does not create a clone (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:51AM (#19238273)
    the baby should not have been genetically identical to anything in the tank unless its mother was also a parthenogen. parthenogenesis creates a homozygotic offspring that can have any random mix of the two chromosomes the mother carries for each pair. so if the mother has AB, the parthenogenic offspring can have either AA or BB, which is not identical to the mother since the mother has AB. the only way it can be identical is if the mother is also homozygotic and therefore a parthenogen.

    • MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Funny)

      by Scooter's_dad (833628) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @11:05AM (#19238585)
      For clearing up a common mis-"conception."

      And for not making a lame joke about parthenogenesis like I just did.

    • Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone (Score:5, Informative)

      by ozborn (161426) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @12:05PM (#19240121)
      determined that a byproduct formed when sharks produce eggs, known as a sister polar body, had fused with an unfertilized egg to produce the baby shark, whose DNA had only half as much genetic variability as the mother.

      You've misread the article (which in fairness was not precisely written) and you're misunderstanding how parthogenesis is working here. The article claims only that the offspring is a perfect genetic "match" for the mom, not that it is identical to the mom since it also says the offspring has half the variability. What this means is the genetic test they did not pick up any polymorphisms not found in the mother. That's what they mean by "identical match".

      Also parthogenesis does not create homozygotic offspring (although given enough generations it will), the immediate offspring is a result of a fusion event between 2 products of meiosis - the egg and one of the polar bodies. Thus the offspring will have a different genetic makeup to the mother. In particular half (on average) of the mother's heterozygous loci will become homozygous in the offspring. Thus the offspring has half the genetic variability.

      This has potentially bad consequences because of the # of recessive lethal alleles the average organisms carry. Think of parthogenesis as the worst form of incest possible.

  • Big Deal (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:53AM (#19238335)
    My wife does this

    Not sure why the kids are black tho
  • The shark just ate the stork...nothing to see here

  • A virgin birth after all (Score:5, Funny)

    by smooth wombat (796938) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:55AM (#19238349) Homepage Journal
    Now we know how mankind really evolved. First there was the virgin birth, then we crawled out of the sea and after a few millenia, started to walk upright.

    Er wait, I'm confused.
  • How does this effect biodiversity. Thought one of the benefits of having multiple sexes was to insure a genetic mixup so that a single strain of genes doest become to prominent and things like bacteria/virii that adapt to that single code isn't as effective. Interesting post though.
  • Just a quick note, if you are ever in the Omaha, Nebraska area definitely stop by Henry Doorly Zoo [omahazoo.com]. It's probably the nation's second best zoo behind San Diego's, and the shark tunnel is fantastic. As are the penguins, and the desert dome, and indoor jungle, and... A few winters ago we went to the Zoo and the place was deserted. Was able to just lay down in the Shark Tunnel [omahazoo.com] and watch the sharks swim overhead for about a half hour with no one coming down. Was fantastic. At any rate, also -- as far as the article goes -- I wish someone would have some more explanation for how this works. Kindof freaky.

  • The Immaculate (Score:5, Funny)

    by poor_boi (548340) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:57AM (#19238411)


    They should name the baby shark "Jesus." I think that would be kind of funny.



  • Great Whites? (Score:5, Informative)

    by JRGhaddar (448765) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:58AM (#19238425)
    This is actually really interesting, and makes a lot of sense. Shark's genetics haven't evolved that much from its ancient relatives so this reproduction method would definitely limit variations. But I am curious as to if this is how the great white reproduces. Very little is known about the great whites breeding habits. One of the prevailing theories centers around whale carcasses. [youtube.com]

  • So.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by DeeVeeAnt (1002953) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:59AM (#19238439)
    Nobody jumped the shark then?

  • Scientists started investigating after a...shark was mysteriously born at Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo in a tank that housed 3 female sharks...with no sign of a male parent."


    Has anyone looked into the possibility that this infant shark is the Great White Jesus? (I'd hate to be the angel that messed up the avatar selection for the second coming.)

  • Sharks.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by curecollector (957211) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @11:05AM (#19238571)
    ...can go fuck themselves.

  • "And who can tell me" (Score:4, Funny)

    by TheDarkener (198348) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @11:14AM (#19238781)
    Teacher: "...And who can tell me the first person to suggest the idea of reproduction without sex?"

    Ferris: "Uhm...Your wife?"

    Bueller? Bueller?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Bueller? Wasn't that War Games?

      Right actor, wrong movie?

  • It is not as bad as I thought (Score:3, Funny)

    by Alain Williams (2972) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @11:49AM (#19239695) Homepage
    After I read the article I realised that they meant the marine predator; from the headline I thought that they meant lawyers!

    • Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Informative)

      by Goobermunch (771199) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:52AM (#19238311)
      No, you shouldn't. Hermaphrodism is the presence of sex organs for both genders. These sharks are all female. They just happen to be able to parthenogenically reproduce.

      --AC

    • Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)

      by iggymanz (596061) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @10:57AM (#19238417)
      I for one welcome our immaculately conceived virgin-born shark messiah overlords

      • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

        by Delirium Tremens (214596) on Wednesday May 23 2007, @11:14AM (#19238787) Journal
        I for one welcome our immaculately conceived virgin-born shark messiah overladies
        • the sharks were conceived without sex-sin repent, all you fornicating sharks having babies out of wedlock!

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by MrNaz (730548)
              No he did not. He got it wrong, and so did Wikipedia. When an object or idea is "conceived" it is called into existence. A person is conceived by the meeting of a sperm and an ovum.

              The phrase "the conception of Mary" refers to the event that calls Mary into existence, that is the conception of Mary by her mother and father. It should say "the conception by Mary of Jesus", although that would have all kinds of other implications as, according to the belief, it was God who conceived Jesus, not actually Mary.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by bcattwoo (737354)
                Thank you for the English lesson, but in Catholic dogma the "Immaculate Conception" refers to the conception of Mary without original sin. This is quite commonly confused by many with the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus. Catholic dogma views Mary's conception as a miraculous event all by its self and necessary in preparation for the later miraculous birth of Jesus.

                Hopefully, you will be more likely to believe that the people at catholic.com [catholic.com] were able to get it right.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Timesprout (579035)
      whos to say science wont evolve to point where we can just grow humans in a lab and females become obsolete.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Abcd1234 (188840)
      Wow... a few commonly known facts and some "magic" pseudoscience and baseless speculation, and you get a +5 insightful... nice work!

    • OK... I am an atheist... but this does remind me of a certain story in the bible.

      Except the whole virgin birth thing was purely the result of a mistranslation.
      It was "young woman", not "virgin".

      Of course the nutters can't exactly be honest about it now ;-)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by steveoc (2661)
      No no no - its all good.

      If a chick WANTS to have a kid on their own, they should be able to, without dragging some guy into a long term support commitment by saying 'Guess wot ? Im pregnant'.

      If you want a kid together, you still can, and if she wants her own - she can, and no child support liability for a kid that you never asked for. She would only have herself to blame in this case.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.