Talk:Parthenogenesis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 22 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pprosnitz. Peer reviewers: Chaigood, Bbyric.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Male vs. Female Offspring

The part about all offspring produced in this manner being male seems to be incorrect. I cite this reference on the CBS website telling of a Boa Constrictor that gave birth to female offspring: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/03/tech/main7018838.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.10 --fluffyinalabama —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffyinalabama (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC) I am wondering why I do not manage to post here by editing.

Jesus etc,

I added a heading to this entry so that the TOC would appear correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.142.214 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that Jesus is mentioned on this page? Parthenogenesis is a term used for a specific biological process. And though they might not agree on exactly how Jesus was conceived, I expect that both believers and non-believers would agree that it was not through the biological process of parthenogenesis.Jacksheriff (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont see anyone asking if Jesus had a Y chromosome. or if an X can be induced to change a Y? 98.144.71.174 (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC) I once had asked I think the same question on social media? Or even here I am being ostracized and discriminated and calumniated criminally, I am the scientific inventoress of simple easy parthenogenesis and a Ukrainian Revaz with suffix ov tried to steal it as his and my father yielded to him who arrived with gendarmes with obscene claims and pretended my own suggestion on the subject at age three possibly or four where there was a bus stop with something carved on wood about God, was my latest idea on parthenogenesis I had told him about, and having actually I still believe a parthenogenetic mother whose children he had tried to attack and then allowed to be murdered by Jews and Germans and there could be a police record of the case in perhaps 2005 in Santarém. A Chinese watching my house had heard me and told a nurse who suspect prostituted herself to the Ukrainian and the two set up ISCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.28.217.20 (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The mouse that was created by Japanese scientists was the result of *combining* two eggs. That is completely different to development of an organism from a single egg. The entire Parthenogenesis section talks about a *single* egg.

It seems to me that if Parthenogenesis is defined as "growth and development of an embryo or seed without fertilization by a male" then the Parthenogenesis section needs two subheadings: one for development from a single egg, and another for development from two eggs.

---

My genetics course said that parthenogenesis in mammals is impossible, or at least extremely difficult. Obviously, there are examples of experiments on this main page, but I suspect they had problems with this: parthenogenesis is difficult for mammals because mammals posses a unique genetic characteristic: X-linked innactivation. The general idea is that mammals, more so than other vertebrates, are likely to have a female inseminated by more than one male at a time, and to actually have embryos within the same womb from different fathers. This led to the natural selection directed process whereby certain genes from the male chromosomes are methylated, turning them off, etc. and this tends to give that male's embryo's an advantage over the others. Meanwhile, the other embryos are doing the same thing; this leads to a tug of war, essentially, while at the same time the mother's genes in the embryo are methylated in a way that will favor the survival off all of the embryos. --->At any rate, the practical result is that if two DNA strands from only the mother were to combine (the parthenogenesis process as it normally occurs in certain lizards), the resulting mammal embryos would lack essential X-linked inactivations. X-linked innactivation mistakes, when they occur naturally in humans because of non-disjunction, etc., cause crippling genetic disorders in humans, i.e. "Laughing Puppet Syndrome" and others. I would imagine that any live parthenogenesis mammal births would suffer from devastating genetic syndromes. More research for the wiki article needs to go into that---Ricimer, April 12, 2005

• it will be possible one day tho. don't worry ;) 24.60.66.216 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I too was told by my Biology Professor that Parthenogenesis was possible in mammals, albeit very rare. He even told us that it was possible in humans and had been documented. He told us of women who were freaked out that their daughters looked just like them, and other women who went religious because of their pregnancy. This is coming from my biology professor and I'm not sure if he was telling the truth or not. He seemed to specialize in studying swamp life more than basic genetics. SargeAbernathy 02:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis is well noted in some species of lizards and salamanders (such as the Jefferson's Salamander and various Blue Salamander hybrids) for which there are no males. I'm unaware of anything remotely like that in snakes, unless you want to count false pregnancies (where a female snake which has not been impregnated lay unfertilized eggs, or in the case of ovoviviporous [spelled wrong, trust me] snakes, weird jelly-bean-like nuggets).

I know enough about reptiles and amphibians that I'm comfortable making those edits, but I'm not so sure about Turkeys... Anyone have some evidence they wanna post?

---

The exact process, difference in parts involved and biochemistry, etc, still needs expansion and explanation. --Tchalvak

In Snakes

Unless someone has a source to back up the claim that snakes can reproduce by parthenogenesis, it should be removed (as I have done) and stay removed.

---

I've just done some research and parthenogenesis has occured in some snakes, but it is by no means a common occurence (as it is with whiptails and some salamanders) and is not very well understood. As far as I could find are four known occurences (one timber rattlesnake which produced one litter, one wandering garter snake which consistently produces litters for ten years, a brahminy blind snake, and one other snake).

---

Parthenogenesis in snakes is noted in quite a few live-bearing species. Most notable are the rat snakes, with a particularly interesting article recently (2-3 mos ago) regarding a scaleless rat snake that reproduced via parthenogenesis. Will ref article once I relocate it. Other snakes with records of parthenogenic births are listed in "Snakes of the Southeast" by Chad Minter.

• • • NOTE - "Parthenogenesis in snakes is noted in quite a few live-bearing species. Most notable are the rat snakes..."

This is a contradictory statement that makes no sense as there are no live bearing rat snakes. All rat snakes lay eggs

---

Just a few notes -- According to the article, parthenogenesis in XY chromosome systems only create females. Further down the Komodo dragon is mentioned creating males through parthenogenesis, so that note at the top is a bit confusing. The rattlesnake parthenogenesis mentioned here...

Schuett, Gordon W., Philip J. Fernandez, David Chiszar and Hobart M. Smith. 1998. Fatherless sons: A new type of parthenogenesis in snakes. Fauna. 1(3):20-25.

http://www.herplit.com/contents/fauna.html

...seems to confirm that parthenogenesis occurs with snakes with females producing males. Even if rare, temporary parthenogenesis of this type is a remarkable evolutionary boon. -- Billclawson

---

As for turkeys, and other birds, parthenogenesis has been noted. The following is a link to a research paper on the chemistry affecting parthenogenesis in unfertilized Turkey eggs. It is worth noting that while many birds occasionally have parthenogenic hatchings, Turkeys are considered to be the most likely to have such hatchings.

http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/animal-sciences/poultry/

Within the mammals, no natural parthenogenesis can occur.

Why isn't the poultry reference noted in the article page? It seems rather conclusive that turkeys can do parthenogenesis. Googling "parthenogenesis chicken" (no quotes) results in a number of scholarly journal articles that seem to indicate that chickens can do it too. Am I missing the reference to poultry in the article? Mcnattyp (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fictional mammalian parthenogenesis

1. In the future, please sign your comments.
2. Please read WP:VAND, Anakin Skywalker is alleged to be born without a father according to the Darth Vader article.

I would appreciate an apology for your comment on my talk page. Karmafist 04:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign. But please leave the silly nonsense out of a scientific article. I have no idea what the ficitional backstory is for Darth Vader, but no one interested in biology cares about some fictional fantasy (which probably isn't parthenogenesis anyway). I did think there was some mention of the father in the very forgetable "episode one", but maybe I remember wrong.

And no... don't add Jesus, Saint Anne, Golem, or whatever other myth/fiction either. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... more things that don't belong in this article. From Virgin birth:

• • Adonis
  • Alexander the Great
  • Alvis
  • Anakin Skywalker
  • Athena
  • Attis
  • Bacchus
  • Buddha
  • Deganawidah
  • Hercules
  • Hermes
  • Horus
  • Indra
  • Krishna
  • Mithra
  • Osiris
  • Perseus
  • Prometheus
  • Quirinus
  • Romulus and Remus
  • Saint Anne (mother of Mary)
  • Sargon I
  • Zoroaster

Dolly the sheep is probably superfluous too, but a moderately plausible case for a link could be made. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis is an extremely important element of mythology world-wide. Until such time as someone has written a separate article on it, I think it's entirely appropriate for this article to have a section on "Parthenogenesis in mythology and popular culture". Angr (t • c) 22:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As a random anonymous comment... is it really accurate to deem the Christian virgin birth - or for that matter, the birth of any unconceived male - parthenogenesis? After all, it's not possible in humans (or any X-Y sex determined species) for a female - with two X chromosomes - to produce a male. It seems inappropriate to me to call any virgin birth phenomenon 'parthenogenesis' because, really, they describe entirely different processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.94.214 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is appropriate to include the Greek antecedents to the later symantic (scientific) use of the term "parthenogenesis". In reality, the term is first and foremost conceived in mythic and political literary contexts. Only later do biologists conscribe the word applying it to the aforesaid reproductive phenomena. Is it not, moreover, hubris to treat one discipline as "serious" and the other as "silly nonsense", when scholars equally intelligent spend their entire careers describing such phenomena? Cultural, literary studies reference some of the deepest elements of the human plight and soul; mythography is not a thing to be treated with derogation anymore than any of the major rubrics of the Arts and Humanities. If we have acheived anything in postmodernity, it is that all disciplines of the academy have a potentially equal capacity to point to truths, both meaningful and useful. The hard sciences, in this equanimous marketplace of ideas, thus have found themselves as providing yet more models to help humans describe, predict, and/or process their experiences, however subjective. The signification, therefore, of one sphere of inquiry over another is merely a personal matter and, as such, is nonessential to the wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.113.117 (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Sciencia58 (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC) .org/pdf/ABB_2013022810315419.pdf Sciencia58 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis in Humans

Reference links to the study of Virgin Births in Humanity:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/sex2.htm http://www.all.org/abac/aq0202.htm

It seems that the idea is of it being a natural oddity has been passed around, but never any clear documented case. SargeAbernathy 02:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but that shouldn't be included because there is no data for it. Looking it up, no cases for "virgin birth" in humans have been declared actual since genetic testing has been available (which can easily test for it). Sad mouse 04:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A geneticist I heard talking about human parthenogenesis mentioned a number like one out of a million births, which would mean a couple of hundred living individuals in the US and just a handful of new cases a year. If we assume that number to be correct, it would be very difficult to identify any real cases. Some births would be to couples who would not notice anything strange. Some women would not be taken seriously when they said they had had no sex, and no one would investigate.

Even if there is no data for it, it could be included with the lack of evidence mentioned. Something like: "There have been alleged cases of human parthenogenesis. However, none of them has been confirmed."

But it would be good if we first could get a feeling for what people in the scientific community believe. How many are convinced it never happens? How many are convinced it happens? And how many admit that no one knows? Mlewan 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm anybody heard of a guy from Nazereth... this sounds kinda like a story i read once... it was recounted as the greatest story ever told... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.9.96 (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall. I know of a pair of twins from Italy, one of whom built the city called Rome :P

Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

75.180.9.96, no offense, but that cannot be proven, and some people don't think that's real at all.

Lunakeet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunakeet (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

picture

Let me quote from the article about Kaguya, the mouse pictured in this article:

This is not a cloned animal because cells from two individuals are used. This cannot be called asexual reproduction, or parthenogenesis, for the same reason.

Why is this picture in the article for parthenogenesis, if it is not an example of parthenogenesis? I see someone else mentioned this above, but that post was not signed. I think that a different picture, one that actually represents the topic at hand, would be more appropriate. romarin[talk to her ] 15:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Yank the picture. Having a picture of something that is specifically not parthenogenesis and says it's not parthenogenesis on the page for parthenogenesis is a bit like having a picture of a turkey on the page for a chicken and saying 'This is a turkey, not a chicken.'

However, if an image is really wanted here, speaking of, how about a turkey? As far as I know they are the only known warm-blooded animal known to undergo the process. 69.181.120.218 09:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Genetic variation

Unless I am missing something central, the second paragraph

Parthenogenesis has nothing to do with artificial animal cloning, a process where the new organism is identical to the cell donor. Cloning does not require eggs. Parthenogenesis is truly a reproductive process which creates a new individual or individuals from the naturally varied genetic material contained in the eggs of the mother. A litter of animals resulting from parthenogenesis may contain all unique siblings without any twins or multiple numbers from the same genetic material, but they would all be female.

must be incorrect. Isn't it obvious that the genome of an embryo produced by a the mother without involvement of any other individual must be identical to the mother's own genome? Where would any other genes come from?

No, they are not identical. Consider that the mother will have two alleles for many different genes. In making an egg, only one allele goes into the egg, and that one allele gets duplicated, meaning the offspring has only one allele for that gene. So while the offspring has only DNA from the mother, it does not have all the DNA from the mother and is therefore not identical. Sad mouse 04:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A second part of the same edit (on Aug 4 by 63.232.2.106):

Parthenogenetic populations must be all-female because there is no contribution from a male. The offspring may be capable of sexual reproduction, however, if that exists in the species.

also seems logically impossible. If the population must be all-female, how would there be any males to reproduce sexually with? Mglg 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a typo, I'll go and fix it. Sad mouse 04:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I know how this happens, but it's not obvious. In sexual reproduction, the body produces the gametes (sexual reproductive cells, i.e. ovum and spermatozoon) by meiosis, where the cells produced have exactly half the genes than a normal cell. A normal cell has always two copies of every gen, and one copy of this gen is chosen at random at the time of the meiosis. In this way, gametes have all genes, but a random copy of every gene. This is called recombination, and is one of the reasons siblings are not identical amongst themselves in sexual reproduction.

An example: say the father has to sets of genes, A and B, and the mother also two sets, C and D. So the possibilities in generating a spermatozoon are choosing a gene from pool A or one from pool B. In the mother it's the same, a gene from pool C or from pool D can be chosen. So the sons and daughters can have any of all the combinations of genes: AC, AD, BC or BD.

So let's examine parthenogenesis. The mechanism of parthenogenesis is not explained in the article (and I am not a biologist myself), but let's say the gametes are generated in the same way by the mother, an ovum and a spermatozoon. They each have half the genes of a normal cell, and a random copy of every gen. But in this case, both gametes are generated by the same body, and therefore have a random copy of the same pool of genes. So if the sets of genes are in this case A or B, and both spermatozoon and ovum have to "choose" from the same pool, the combinations are AA, AB, BA or BB (AB and BA are really the same, the order is not important).

So the daughter, born by parthenogenesis, has a random recombination of the same genes as the mother, but they are not identical.

The advantage of sexual reproduction can be seen here: genes propagate much faster, and the variability of a population is much higher.

La Vida es un Carnaval 09:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

La Vida: I'd like to point out an inaccuracy in the following statement: "In this way, gametes have all genes, but a random copy of every gene". You mean to say that *chromosome* distribution is more-or-less random (see the article on genetic linkage. Because of linkage (the effective distance between genes on a chromosome), one may inherit traits in a "suite". A good example of this is the linkage between genes for freckles and red hair. Thanks. Murphy2010 (talk) 18:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources with ref tags

I would like to rearrange the citations here using <ref> tags, so that it will be easier for me to add inline citations. Anybody have an objection to this? --Zvika 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, although it makes the hard-to-read typeqriter font in the edit window even harder to read, and the name=xxx function has to be the first appearance of the ref, making it hard to move text around. There was a proposal to allow all the references to be in a reference section at the end, then use all short-form cites anywhere in the article, which would be ideal. Edison 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Komodo's Parthenogensis

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/20/uk.komodo.reut/index.html

According to this article they give birth to all males and nothing of that sort is mentioned in this article at all... I don't have a biology background and think someone else would be better suited to edit this article. But is this the first time parthenogensis has been known to produce all males or is something wrong here? Sepharo 20:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, whoever added the information that "Recently, the Komodo dragon which normally reproduces sexually was found to also be able to reproduce asexually by parthenogenesis" is mistaken. The CNN article DOES NOT say that *the* Komodo Dragon has been found to reproduce through parthenogenesis. It says that *A* Komodo Dragon was found to be able to reproduce that way. That is a VERY big difference. If you look at http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-virgin-dragon,0,7186513.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines&track=email_newsletter you will see what I mean. Anyway, I'm going to leave this up to an expert. Cereal Box Conspiracy 00:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually two females, and reading the Nature paper it looks good. Sad mouse 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a "fact" tag to the info in the article which gives technical details not in the cited reference, about "polar bodies" or some "meiotic" thing being responsible for the fertilization. Please provide a source so it does not have to be removed as original research. There is a paper in Nature and someone with access to it and the scientific knowledge to follow it should include it as a better reference than the CNN or AP reports. [6] explains why the offspring will all be male in the Komodos. Edison 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading the Nature paper, there is nothing in it about the reproduction not being completely asexual, so I removed that sentence (I did add the reference though). Sad mouse 18:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the introduction

Parthenogenetic populations will be all-female if two like chromosomes determine the female sex, but male if the female sex is determined by unlike chromosomes (as in the Komodo dragon), because the process involves duplication of a single sex chromosome. I changed this from "because the process does not involve a male" to "because the process involves duplication of a single sex chromosome. The problem in generating a YZ female is not that a male gamete is required, but because duplication of a single chromosome will give ZZ or YY, but not ZY. Sad mouse 04:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As with all types of asexual reproduction, there are both costs (reduced genetic diversity generated) and benefits (reproduction without the need for a male) associated with parthenogenesis. I added the costs and benefits. Sad mouse 04:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis is distinct from artificial animal cloning, a process where the new organism is identical to the cell donor. I changed it from "totally different" to "distinct". Sad mouse 04:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the part saying that all offspring would have to be either male or female. That is not true, depending on the genetics of the organism in question. If someone has looked at the sex determination system of every organism that can undergo parthenogenesis and shown that it is incompatible with both males and females being born, I'll stand corrected, but unless someone has, this should not be added. Consider for example a species which uses temperature to determine sex, in that case a single hatchery could give both males and females. Sad mouse 04:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In theory, the process could be used to reproduce humans after extensive testing and perfection. I added "in theory" - we do not know it is possible until it is done. Sad mouse 04:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the introduction, I would have edited but not sure how to make the Greek font in Wikipedia. "ParthEnos" the Greek word has an eta, not an epsilon.

Parthenogenesis is sexual reproduction not asexual.

Asexual reproduction produces clones, by mitosis. It is not defined as involving two individuals, otherwise self-fertilization would be considered asexual reproduction. It is not. Sexual reproduction involves haploid gametes, produced by meiosis, like parthenogenesis.

Depends on how you define sex.

Bernie 189.129.200.44 (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Asexual reproduction page covers this: "A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which refers to reproduction without the fusion of gametes." This probably is a bit confusing because the usual definition of sex is that fertilization occurs (i.e. including selfing). I'll copy this to the discussion for that page, and see if a consensus can be reached to improve it. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See comments that I've added to Talk:Asexual_reproduction. Automixis is very problematic on this page, and some text is just plain wrong, but it is a lot of work to clean this up throughout Wikipedia. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionary Aspects of Parthenogenesis

How is it possible that a trait that yields the abiltity to self-fertilize is selected for? To me, a non-bilologist, the most striking omissoin in the article is the lack of information on the evolutionary biology behind parthenogenesis. It also makes the comment

"...The CNN article DOES NOT say that *the* Komodo Dragon has been found to reproduce through parthenogenesis. It says that *A* Komodo Dragon was found to be able to reproduce that way..."

that much more compelling in terms of the evolutionary significance. IMHO. 64.73.41.24 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hybridogenesis

Could somebody who has an understanding of hybridogenesis clarify this section? I have read and reread the section, but it continues to sound like it is contradicting itself. I very easily am missing something, but even so it could use clarification. Thanks! 70.234.233.35 06:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clarify it a bit and linked to a site that has a graphical representation (which is a lot easier to understand than the verbal). If someone can draw a graphical version of their own that'd be great, the website I linked copyrights everything so we couldn't use theirs. One Elephant went out to play... 15:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, Hybridogenesis has nothing to do with Parthenogenesis. For starters, it does involve sex. Shouldn't this be moved to Hybridogenesis (which is now a redirect to Parthenogenesis)? --Dietzel65 15:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sharks

It would be nice to have some information about Sharks on this page. Here's a general article on putative parthenogenesis in Sharks. --Viriditas 10:13, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Confirmed. —Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Try this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16420848 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.109.64 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis in many cultural traditions

We already have an article concerning Virgin Birth. Parthenogenesis is not the place for it. —Viriditas | Talk 03:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

-- moved discussion here to accompany the article 83d40m 15:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In response, I have rewritten the section to which you objected and moved it to a more relevant part of the article. Parthenogenesis is the more correct term for the concept discussed - sorry about using the term virgin birth if you want to keep that separate as a religious term. 83d40m 15:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Now there are three problems. You are referring to the occult use of the term. There's a reason we have a dab header as it points to other topics with different scopes. Now, you've expanded upon the virgin birth and you have added it to the lead section of this article when that topic is not covered by this scope, a violation of WP:LEAD. Lastly, the information you've added is unsourced. If you can find a good, reliable, contemporary science reference that discusses the history of parthenogenesis in this manner, by all means cite it. As far as I can tell, there at least different topics here: Virgin birth, Parthenogenesis (science), and Parthenogenesis (occult). Your addition doesn't belong in the lead of this article, but may be more appropriate for another one. This topic is the primary one, so it doesn't require disambiguation. —Viriditas | Talk 02:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hummmm?

Block quote

I don't know how to "Work" wiki but i will just say that it is a pretty intreasting topic.

Jesus

It would be impossible for Jesus to be a Parthenogenesis offspring, all offspring by this process are female. That's for the person rite at the top. Idrisqu (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point and in fact I concur. Despite this, the concept of virgin birth in any species has implications of an historical and religious nature that are worth a mention here. In the same way that a sentence or two on the scientific issues on the page Virgin Birth Of Jesus is worth a mention there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuthomas4 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And despite your continued inclusion, I will continue to remove it as it lacks appropriate references. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm... the bible is an appropriate reference, since it is writ without error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.90.28 (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

New shark story worth a mention?

Yet another apparent example of parthenogenesis in sharks occurred in Hungary. Is this worth mentioning in the article? [7] Also, the whole shark section needs its references cleaned up. Oren0 (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes it's worth a mention. Be bold! thx1138 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of HOW this process actually occurs?

Anybody? Because while this pageis useful for talking about the genetics and such, how does this physically occur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.125.94 (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a section on House MD about this, not sure how accurate it is though (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RjtETGerBk#t=2m05) J-E-N-O-V-A (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed

For the religious belief, see Virgin birth of Jesus.

...because it obviously doesn't belong there in the same way that Sand doesn't have a

For the Marvel Comics character, see Sandman (Marvel Comics).

125.27.24.209 (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that billions of people don't believe that the Sandman was a real person/creature and isn't the basis for a dominant world religion. I actually don't believe it myself but you can't ignore the sheer masses of people this idea touches. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the material yet again. The references provided do not appear to support inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis in Mammals

The process that allowed for the mouse mentioned in the Mammals section to be produced artificially did so from two mothers. It is a fatherless mouse, but this is not an asexual process, as there are two parents. In addition, two mothers means it wasn't Parthenogenesis, which makes this line:

"In April 2004, scientists at Tokyo University of Agriculture used parthenogenesis successfully to create a fatherless mouse."

technically incorrect. That is, if I'm getting this right. Anyone against editting it to make this clear, or deleting it altogether?129.171.251.136 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis in Birds

A reference in the article seems to indicate that parthenogenesis does exist in birds. It seems like it is an interesting subject. Maybe a section that small is not warranted in the article. Could someone expand it? 4.242.177.43 (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

inadequate explanation

fascinating though this article is, it fails IMO to properly explain the process. Does the oocyte get produced by conventional cell division (mitosis) as opposed to meiosis? Or does meiosis occur and then the offspring has two genetically identical sets of chromosomes? Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Both. Apomictic parthenogenesis, the first one you have said, it occurs without meiosis through the mitotic oogenesis, mature egg cells are produced by mitotic divisions, and these cells directly develop into embryos. The offspring produced by apomictic parthenogenesis are full clones of their mother. Automictic parthenogenesis, the second one you have said, it occurs when chromosomes duplicate but the cell does not subsequently divide through the endomitotic cycle. Genetic recombination occurs during meiosis which can lead to a novel set of genetic information that can be passed on from the parents to the offspring. The offspring will inherit approximately half of their mother's genetic diversity. After many processes, diploidy might be restored by the doubling of the chromosomes without cell division before meiosis begins or after meiosis is completed. Embryos are developed from either fission or fusion. If genes in an oocyte don't recombine, you will be cloned to either female and male when your mom and dad mate and remake an offspring, because the eggs and sperm cells are just literally combining together, with the sperm being a sex determiner. Jaspergeli (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Birds and broken links

The turkey link had moved. It answers these questions and looks really good. I wasn't able to look at the rosslings blogspot link though, which crashes Safari for me. Does anyone else have this problem, if so perhaps it should be removed from this page? Nadiatalent (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Humans

Moved text that was inserted on the subject page by Special:Contributions/137.150.100.215:

Seriously, something about Jesus needs to be included in this article. The majority of the English speaking world believes that he was born with no biological father. Normally a virgin birth would result in a female offspring but in the case of an XXY female it is not unimaginable for her to birth a son. Additional explanations may exist that are more plausible but a section on parthenogenesis in humans is not complete without mention of the most well known example of all.

Nadiatalent (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

XXY individuals, according to Wikipedia, are male. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

46,XX/46,XY would be more plausible.★Trekker (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

article rewrite

The present article has grown organically and so is a little lacking in organisation and has accumulated some cruft(IMHO). Some missing topics just can't be easily fit in. partially done topics grayed out.

Changes planned

• mention gynogeny (pseudogamy) to the top level as it is genetically identical. also mention at toplevel the occurrence of species where mating behaviour is required but sperm penetration is not.
• mention (at toplevel)(?) facultative, cyclical, obligate
  • in relation to the above mention and link out to thelytoky and arrhenotoky
  • frequent occurence in hybrids and polyploids
• (Several requests on the talk page for something like this)mechanisms: apomictic and automictic( all associated variants: pre-endomitotic, central fusion, terminal fusion, post endomitotic) ; needs both technical terms and simple description; Description of the consequences of each of these on the degree of clonality; relation to ploidy variation.
  • new article describing technical details of automixis and its subtypes for those interested
  • (toplevel/subsection) mention of apomictic, automictic and haploid parthenogeny.
  • sex determination in parthenogeny.
• (subsection)Advantages and disadvantages: no necessity for mates, all offspring are reproductive(classical analysis of sexual vs. asexual)
• (subsection) Occurrence and types: trim down to occurance with bulk of "type" explanations in types subsection. preserve a self contained, simple two lined explanation of the specific phenomenon where possible
  • add info on fungi
• Hybridogenesis and kelptogenesis to a (single) separate article.

Other changes(not planned to execute without go ahead signal

• remove the mouse example as it is not in any way related to parthenogenesis( its cell fusion)
• mention (where and how to do it?) the addition of subgenomic levels of nuclear chromosomes to the genomes of some gynogenetic species at rare intervals. (a phenomenon in between true parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis.
• merge the pseudogamy article and gynogenesis subsections. preferabaly move the subsection to the article and change the redirect of gynogenesis to pseudogamy.
  • point from the pseudogamy to parthenogenesis for the details of development of ova and the related genetics

Staticd (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I find it excellent and amazing that you are willing to do all this work. If you look back a couple of years the record would show that there have been a lot of edits to this page that could be likened to "beating it with a stick to make it lie flat", and I hadn't expected it ever to have much chance of improving beyond where it is now. As mentioned in discussion on some other talk pages, I would ask that you proceed step-by-step, so that those of us who think about this sort of thing very slowly can grasp each step. The only comment that I have about the above, is that I don't know what haploid automixis would be; I think it would cause considerable confusion if this term is used to mean that two haploids combine to make a diploid, and I hope that authors aren't doing that (though perhaps they are). Your willingness to do this is wonderful! Carry on! Nadiatalent (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

not seen "haploid automixis" any where. can you point out some usage? I'm trying to keep the edits small and modular but I might have to do do one or two rearrangements tommorow that might end up being irreducibly big; will try to isolate them from the rest of the content editsStaticd (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Just above: "automictic haploid parthenogeny". Nadiatalent (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OOps. my bad. meant apomictic, automictic and haploid.Staticd (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry all but I think I might need to keep it in use for the next day too. as it does not seem to be receiving too much edit traffic, I hope its not bad. Staticd (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

and I won't get a chance to go over these changes in detail for a while. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

next phase

• create new article on artificial uniparental and biparental reproduction- parthenogenesis, cellfusion and androgenesis, with a discussion to SCNT. remove the bulk or all such matter from this artile to tha one. (also reference the old sections using more relaiable sources- not news stories that are likely to get many scientific facts wrong)
• subsection on evolution of parthenogeneis
  • how it arises (whatever little we know + wolbachia)
  • evolutionary dead end nature
  • leaky asexual reproduction
• bring in stuff on the darwinulids and rotifers.Staticd (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesus

The "Jesus question" keeps arising on this page, and I'm inclined to think that it needs to be discussed clearly somewhere in order to reduce vandalism. Perhaps it wasn't in the best place under "natural occurrence: mammals: humans". Here is the excised text for discussion: "It would be impossible for Jesus to be a parthenogenesis offspring, as all offspring produced by this process are female in species which use the XY sex-determination system, because the mother's XX chromosome constitution cannot provide the Y chromosome necessary to produce an XY (male) offspring." Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Jesus was like Joan of Arc and actually a girl. Could explain why the Pharisees would disavow him/her. We only have artistic representations depicting a beard. Perhaps the people began questioning why Jesus didn't have a beard by age 33. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.124.190 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Klepton

In order to fix a 'bad' redirect of klepton and synklepton I have had to create a stub Klepton..

It seems this is related to Parthenogenesis#Hybridogenesis in some way..

Can someone who has a clue about biology please check the stub article, and add any relavent wiki links to and from it. Thanks.Oranjblud (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Also I don't know what categories to use.. Oranjblud (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "In popular culture"

An "In popular culture" was recently reinstated, and as one existed previously, the section can be expected to expand again. I figured it would be useful to have an open discussion about it before it reaches the state of the predecessor I deleted (which can be viewed here). The pros and cons of such sections are discussed in WP:POPCULTURE and WP:Handling trivia, and Manual of Style guidelines for trivia are covered in WP:TRIVIA. From WP:POPCULTURE: ...passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. In short, "In popular culture" sections are prone to attracting trivial mentions and/or original synthesis, and must be handled carefully. Simply because a movie, book, or TV show mentions parthenogenesis, that may not be significant enough to warrant inclusion in an article about the real biological phenomenon, and so guidelines and/or inclusion criteria may help prevent trivial buildup, or worse, listcruft.

First, if secondary sources have discussed the impact of parthenogenesis on pop culture with specific examples, those should get top priority, with reliably-sourced discussion of the example's relevance. Lower priority should go to examples in which parthenogenesis is obviously a significant element of the work, but which secondary sources haven't discussed. Lowest (or no) priority should go to works which tangentially or passingly mention parthenogenesis (which may represent undue weight), or for which the editor must infer the work is based on parthenogenesis (which may constitute original research), and at this level they may not be worthy of inclusion at all. As an example the previous "In popular culture" section contained the entry "Parthenogenesis" is found in the lyrics of Shriekback's song "Nemesis" from their 1985 album Oil and Gold", which is simply a fact from a primary source, but for which might better be covered on the band or album's article with a link to parthenogenesis rather than the other way around. Higher priority may go to a 2008 Dr. Who episode, which was named- though not discussed- as a pop culture appearance of parthenogenesis in Herring; et al. (2013). "Like a virgin (mother): analysis of data from a longitudinal, US population representative sample survey" (PDF). BMJ. 347. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help), and thus the fact that a secondary sources mentioned it may make it more appropriate to include.

If the "In popular culture" section is to stay, then perhaps an invisible prompt can be included to warn editors against adding trivial entries, and lay guidelines for a more informative, encyclopedic coverage. For example, something to the effect of:

<!-- Rather than simply listing appearances, please consider explaining the subject's impact on popular culture by citing secondary sources -->

Looking forward to opinions. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly support__DrChrissy (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Too much detail on hybridogenesis?

I'd like to recognize and thank Darekk2 for expanding coverage on hybridogenesis throughout Wikipedia, but I wonder if the level of detain in this article, especially regarding frogs, might best be relegated to more focused articles like Hybridogenesis in water frogs, Edible frog, and/or similar specific articles. Although this article (Parthenogenesis) is in need of revision in many sections (beyond the scope of this comment), I think it better to err on the side of too general rather than too specific, per Summary style, and think that for the sake of improving comprehension for the general reader most of the technical discussion of the Pelophylax species and hybrids might be pared away. Interested in hearing thoughts. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

most of text in this section is not mine. The image help to understand the text. Darekk2 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposing merge from Parthenote to Parthenogenesis

• Merge - Parthenote is a stub and just a noun for the subject of Parthenogenesis. --Nessie (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Merge - I think that parthenote seems to violate WP:WINAD. Interestingly, the Wiktionary entry seems to differ from the article in that the Wiktionary states that a parthenote is a cell while the Wikipedia states that it is an organism. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Merge. "Parthenogenesis" is clearly the main topic. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Merge. Can include most of that article as part of the first paragraph in this one with the term bolded and the redirect pointed to this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis male counterpart?

Do parthenogenesis has a male counterpart? Because it will be unfair for the male individuals if there is parthenogenesis counterpart.

Check this out: In XY sex-determination system, parthenogenetic offspring will have two X chromosomes, thus all offspring are female, while in ZY sex-determination system, parthenogenetic offspring will either have two of each chromosomes Z or W, in which, can be ZW (female), ZZ (male), or WW (superfemale). Even if WW (superfemale) is not possible if we sum up all the female possibilities in both sex-determination systems, they are higher than males (150...% females, 25...% males, 25%... superfemales). I know that males can't be pregnant, but there's should be also a phenomenon in males that can create YY (supermales). So what is the theoretically possible or possible phenomenon that can happen to males? Jaspergeli (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I got it. You really need to have a necessary reproductive system to bear offspring like females. So basically females can live without males and males can't live without females. If males evolve wombs like females, then males will basically become like females too. I've accepted and made solid explanations for this. I think it's just about acceptance that males aren't the same as females. That's why I consider females as superior sex (not gender, we're in biology) in terms of reproduction.

My explanations are like this:

Technically, all microorganisms that reproduce by binary fission are females. We can infer that all bacteria are females since females, for example, some reptiles and theoretically all females can do apomictic parthenogenesis that clones their parent exactly and bacteria do binary fission. Bacterial cells reproduce asexually by binary fission which is like parthenogenesis, which is also asexual. One cell divides in half giving rise to two identical daughter cells, which are essentially clones of one another.

Unicellular organisms don’t produce gametes but since multicellular organisms have diverse, specialized cells, unlike unicellular organisms, in which, their cell is simple; does all the job, they produce cells that are specialized for reproduction.

Mitosis the counterpart of the binary fission in eukaryotes.

Apomictic parthenotes produce diploid gametes which turn into a female offspring. Not all sexually reproducing organisms produce haploid gametes.

Parthenogenesis can occur without meiosis through mitotic oogenesis. This is called apomictic parthenogenesis. Mature egg cells are produced by mitotic divisions, and these cells directly develop into embryos. The offspring produced by apomictic parthenogenesis are full clones of their mother.

Why sister chromatids and daughter cells but not brother chromatids and son cells?

During the days when philosophers used to debate, they tended to regard reproduction as a feminine trait. So the organisms that are capable of producing offspring are regarded as feminine. The parent cell is often called the mother cell, and the daughter cells are so named because they eventually become mother cell themselves.

We can infer to the above that prokaryotes are females since they have the trait to produces and bear clones, given the fact that daughters come from their mothers and that the daughter cells and parthenogenetic daughter cells (egg cells) do binary fission from their mother cells, and that's why most successful unisexual organisms use XY sex-determination system is because females (XX) produce females (XX), unlike others that use ZW sex-determination system which females (XX) produce males (ZZ) and WW.

Example species

The New Mexico whiptail (Aspidoscelis neomexicanus) is a female-only (unisexual) species of lizard that reproduce exclusively via parthenogenesis. It is a crossbreed of a western whiptail and little-striped whiptail.

Then why did males evolve if females can sustain themselves?

Males are additional sex for the organisms to quickly diversify, unlike cloning in parthenogenesis that diversifies very slowly which is potentially easy to wipe out by changing conditions compared to the addition of males. However, it is possible for the females to diversify, but very slowly. Without males, it would be really hard for the variety of genes to pass down to their offspring and it would be very likely for that type of organism to face extinction.

Conclusion

Regarding the reproduction as a feminine trait, the organisms that are capable of producing offspring are feminine, particularly to those who bear and can create their own offspring. These things give us the reason why females can possibly sustain their type on themselves without the need of males and also the fact that prokaryotes are also a female-only type of organism.

We can also realize in the observation that binary fission and apomictic parthenogenesis have the same concepts as if they are “bearing” their offspring which is relevant in vertebrates such as some fish, amphibians, reptiles, and very rarely, birds when they do parthenogenesis.

The only downside to all of these parthenogeneses is the slow diversification.

In addition to all above, a little note from my own observation that the more the cells you have, the younger the cell you are producing compared to the ratio of the number of cells of the mother to always one cell of the daughter since binary fission only happens in a single cell. Imagine a unicellular organism reproduces, she will divide herself into two equal parts, the mother and the daughter cell has the same age, while a bicellular organism reproduces, divides one of her cells into two equal parts, apparently, the mother is older and the daughter is younger.

Jaspergeli (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Bony fish? Needs reference, or a new heading, or remove the mention

Currently the article has a heading, Sharks. Within that heading, there is this wording:

This type of reproduction had been seen before in bony fish, but never in cartilaginous fish such as sharks, until this documentation.

The bony fish (Osteichthyes) are an immense class, with far more species than the cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes, including sharks). Among the vast diversity of bony fish, there may well be some instances of "this type of reproduction." However, I don't see any reference about this. The article should somehow be revised. Perhaps the revision would be to add a suitable reference within the Sharks heading, where the quoted sentence now is. Another approach would be to add a heading, Bony fish; that heading would, of course, include suitable references. A third approach would be to delete mention of bony fish from this article. Oaklandguy (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The article mentions guppies (which are bony fish), but the reference is to Time magazine, rather than to a scientific source. The article mentions Poeciliopsis (which are bony fish), and provides references to scientific papers; but that is in the heading on Hybridogenesis, which is a "similar phenomen[on]", rather than parthenogenesis as the article generally understands it. Oaklandguy (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Reported virgin pregnancies in American humans

I have no interest in this subject, but those who do might find this article useful. The results section says:

• Results 45 women (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology. Although it was rare for dates of sexual initiation and pregnancy consistent with virgin pregnancy to be reported, it was more common among women who signed chastity pledges or whose parents indicated lower levels of communication with their children about sex and birth control.

Brief edit (facultative vs. accidental)

The text previously stated, "Other reptiles, such as the Komodo dragon, other monitor lizards, and some species of boas, pythons, filesnakes, gartersnakes and rattlesnakes were previously considered as cases of facultative parthenogenesis, but are in fact cases of accidental parthenogenesis." (emphasis added) But the cited reference does not present this as fact; it states "Widely popularized examples of rare parthenogenesis in vertebrates are typically interpreted as facultative parthenogenesis [9], including reports of parthenogenesis in sharks [10,11], snakes [5] and Komodo dragons [4], producing offspring while kept solitarily in captivity. Given the current evidence, these examples are, however, most likely cases of accidental rather than facultative parthenogenesis, mimicking the high incidence of accidental parthenogenesis among invertebrates." (emphasis again added) Note that this is speculation on the part of the authors, not something they were able to determine as "fact". (I would also add that the article, in my opinion, makes a very poor distinction between "facultative" and "accidental" parthenogenesis, but that's another matter.) 98.192.193.83 (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The previous text was incorrect however I think we should say "most likely" because that is the source's statement. Without a contradictory source we should accept this source's position. Invasive Spices (talk) 19 October 2022 (UTC)