Description of parthenogenetic species. Practical criteria for "species"

Leaf eaters? EMNIP, I read somewhere about the parthenogenetic species Chrysolina.

Is it possible to immediately talk about parthenogenesis if only a few females are caught?
Or is it typical for this group?

Ground beetles (!).
Parthenogenesis can be assumed (hypothesis). By the way, how many individuals do you need to catch to talk about parthenogenesis?
It is not typical for the group as a whole.

Ground beetles (!).
Parthenogenesis can be assumed (hypothesis). By the way, how many individuals do you need to catch to talk about parthenogenesis?
It is not typical for the group as a whole.

I'm not an expert on this, but cases come to mind when males can be very rare (less than one in ten, and maybe, you need to look, one in a hundred) and they don't seem to risk talking about parthenogenesis.
Why are you so secretive about your beetles? What kind of family? How many z instances are caught in each case? Maybe someone will have their own information about them.
The case may be interesting, of course, but if you want hints, then you need to reveal your "cards". Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't understand this "secrecy".

I have only heard of beetles in the families of elephants, leaf beetles, lamellidae and Peropterans where cases of parthenogenesis have been observed. I haven't seen anything about ground beetles yet. Please tell us who knows more.

Yes, it is advisable to know what the group is. Many elephants, for example, have geographically separated parthenogenetic and bisexual populations. With leaf beetles, too, everything is not so simple. Even in mass species (altik, for example) the sex ratio can be one male to fifty females. From what I remembered offhand from parthenogenetics-the usual Sericoderus lateralis (Cucujoidea: Corylophidae), and, as far as I remember, the other species of the genus are bisexual.

Here in this rather old article (1971) it is assumed that parthenogenesis SHOULD also occur in Adephage (based on the absence of males). But to read the full article, you need to register with this society, and then get it for free (unlike new articles). But I'm honestly too lazy to do it now. Maybe you can try it for anyone interested.
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/2/341.abstract

You need to register here

https://access.oxfordjournals.org/oup/regis...do?command=view

This post was edited by amara - 26.10.2010 19: 55

You can certainly describe a specific case in detail, but its concreteness may prevent you from getting useful information. Therefore, the question is interesting "in principle".
It has already become clear that with a material of more than 100 specimens, we can talk about parthenogenesis.
I caught a live female once, but they quickly die (as it turned out) when transported in a cramped empty container (a jar of baby food)
Even if I manage to "domesticate" at least one female, get and raise offspring, then even in this case, one "litter" will not be enough (unless the female was caught before puberty).

I'm afraid I'll catch 100 copies. without significant damage to the "population" it will be possible only for 5-10 years.

And yet, if it is so difficult to prove parthenogenesis, then we can assume that there are males? And feel free to describe two types?

I once read about (?)lizards (?) or frogs of some sort - I don't remember, like vertebrates. There are no males, only females. They mate with males of another species. What this leads to-normal fertilization or stimulation of parthenogenesis, I also forgot

Are they Armenian parthenogenetic lizards?
It was said that they are a hybrid of several species and from this they differ in parthenogenesis.

This post was edited by Mantispid - 26.10.2010 21: 28

Cool apologies!

Ironically, I've been thinking about this question for a year now... I created a theme yesterday... Tonight I found a male in the latest material!!! The magic of molbiol, however!

What a coincidence!!! Yes, magic!
Congratulations on the discovery)))

In some Pterostichus from Cryobius n/a, males are not known.

The male's life is short. This creates the subjective impression that ground beetles have much more females.But if you look at the fees of the first wave, the ratio seems to be equal.

This post was edited by rpanin - 29.10.2010 13: 17

The male's life is short. This creates the subjective impression that ground beetles have much more females.But if you look at the fees of the first wave, the ratio seems to be equal.

In the case I encountered, the species in question is rare in itself.
The first instance was discovered in 2002, in one of the 60 traps that worked for a week (in total). The second specimen was found in 2009, in one of the 10 traps that had been standing for about two weeks. This year, since the spring, I have been purposefully hunting for it, and I have collected a lot of specimens of a relatively similar species-Laemostenus terricola. As a result, I collected 1 copy in the spring. and in autumn 3 specimens, of which only the latest capture is a male.
There are points where I collected hundreds of copies. Laemostenus terricola and no specimens. The mysterious Laemostenus.

This post was edited by Adamov - 29.10.2010 13: 42

And I have a general question! Where does parthenogenesis come from? What are the main theories and is there any evidence?
Well, the options are: 1) parthenogenesis developed as a consequence of evolution, in conditions where males became less and less and they could not serve as a mechanism for procreation. 2) This is a property that has been preserved since the time of division - that is, species that have always reproduced in this way. 3) This is the restoration of the rudiments of the skill to reproduce in this way, activated over time under certain circumstances that contributed to this phenomenon. 4) It is an acquired skill that has developed under random or favorable circumstances, but does not depend on the prehistory of living organisms.
This is so, the first thoughts that appeared in my head.

It just raises a lot of questions - how it appears and as a result of what, or is saved. Well, for example, if these are females that have a similar shape to other females of similar species of the genus, then there must have been males for them once, otherwise these females would not have had a similar appearance, and would not have been similar to similar species, since they should have separated much earlier. So this skill (program) appeared later than the division of creatures into 2 sexes. then there are 3 questions: did parthenogenesis appear as a completely new skill, or is it a restoration of the oldest of all skills - division, i.e. is it division at the macro level (in pritsnip, we can say that any life and its emergence is the ability to divide - create its own copies, which is still what each cell does?) and the third question is whether any more complex organisms have survived to our time, which have never been divided into 2 or more sexes? It would be interesting to find out what if there are organisms. which always followed the chain of development of division.. Maybe some worms that can create viable copies of themselves?
I am also interested in the question of trifoliation or more - for example, ants or queen bees, a drone, a worker bee-these are 3 different sexes, aren't they? By the way, this question immediately arises : if a female gives birth to a male, then the male is already a female (although this has long been proven, since cases are described when, with the help of hormones and, like, genital transplantation of the other sex, the animal changed its characteristics and became an individual of the other sex)., all floors are one floor?
Who can explain even a small part of this question to me?

Here it is worth saying that parthenogenesis is not asexual reproduction - it is sexual reproduction, but without fertilization, virgin reproduction, if you will. Thus, it has nothing to do with direct division, asexual reproduction. Undoubtedly, this is an acquired skill that originates from the traditional bisexual method of reproduction. Further. There are hermaphrodites-bisexual organisms, but this only means that they have 2 sexual systems, and more often such hermaphrodites still mate with each other, providing gene exchange, than with themselves. Further. Workers and soldiers in social insects are nothing more than undeveloped females, specific to a certain skill, and not the third sex. And finally, in most cases, it is possible to make a male out of a female no worse than the other way around.

Aquarists know the sex change in fish, such as swordfish. It was very disappointing when large and prolific females suddenly changed their sex... Moreover, there were no "normal" males in the offspring of such sobs.

As for parthenogenesis, formally this is a variant of sexual reproduction, but in fact - the main meaning is not fulfilled here - there is no heterozygosity of offspring, and this method is basically similar to simple mitotic division, as in asexual reproduction in protozoa.

As for parthenogenesis, formally this is a variant of sexual reproduction, but in fact - the main meaning is not fulfilled here - there is no heterozygosity of offspring, and this method is basically similar to simple mitotic division, as in asexual reproduction in protozoa.

a) What about ameyotic parthenogenesis?
b) what about meiotic?

Aquarists know the sex change in fish, such as swordfish. It was very disappointing when large and prolific females suddenly changed their sex... Moreover, there were no "normal" males in the offspring of such sobs.

I'm an aquarist myself, and I've only observed sex changes when conditions were critical. In general, some fish have adopted parthenogenesis and are very much ahead of it, carp when they populate small, small reservoirs are represented there entirely by females and give birth only to females. And in large rivers and ponds there are also males, I myself caught males with milk, so the fact that carp roe is fertilized by other carp may be true,but still males have carp.

By the way, I have always been interested in the question of the transition of a parthenogenetic population to a normal one and vice versa. I read that sometimes bee eggs laid by unfertilized females can develop into females, and there are some species of ants that can easily produce females by parthenogenetic means if the uterus has died!(and this is despite the fact that normally all common hymenoptera parthenogenetically display only males, and the same ants normally display only males).

a) What about ameyotic parthenogenesis?
b) what about meiotic?

Well, I do not know if there is non-meiotic parthenogenesis, I thought that parthenogenesis always goes through meiosis, but at the same time heterozygotes do not come out.
In order for the offspring to be heterozygous, two dissimilar cells are needed, where do they come from in a parthenogenetic female?
When parthenogenesis occurs essentially clonirovnaie - this is clearly seen in populations of the same carp - I saw a population in which a hump on the tail was purely genetically determined - and a dent on the head, and the entire population was one in one with such defects.

There is an interesting day butterfly that no one has done yet. Only females are caught. Most likely parthenogenesis.
http://szmn.eco.nsc.ru/picts/butterfly/Sat...patrushevae.htm