Speculative Biology of a Haplodiploid Humanoid SpeciesSocial implications of intelligent species that practices external fertilizationWhat evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?Why (else) would an animal species be polymorphic?Influence of Reproduction on Culture (“double trouble” species)What mechanism would degenerate gametes of select allosome?Why would the males of a species exhibit polymorphism?Reasons and advantages to this form of sexual dimorphismHow can I create a mechanism for ejaculatory control in males?Is a naturally all “male” species possible?Can a possible humanoid species capable of changing their sex in a crisis be the dominant species of an entire planet like us?
Why is it correct to use ～た in this sentence, even though we're talking about next week?
What formula to chose a nonlinear formula?
Single word that parallels "Recent" when discussing the near future
A person lacking money who shows off a lot
Why do galaxies collide?
Canadian citizen who is presently in litigation with a US-based company
Why is the A380’s with-reversers stopping distance the same as its no-reversers stopping distance?
How to know the path of a particular software?
What would a Dragon have to exhale to cause rain?
Is it standard for US-based universities to consider the ethnicity of an applicant during PhD admissions?
Square spiral in Mathematica
multiline equation inside a matrix that is a part of multiline equation
Could a space colony 1g from the sun work?
When the match time is called, does the current turn end immediately?
Have there been any examples of re-usable rockets in the past?
Cannot remove door knob -- totally inaccessible!
Usage of the relative pronoun "dont"
"Counterexample" for the Inverse function theorem
Why would you put your input amplifier in front of your filtering for and ECG signal?
Do we see some Unsullied doing this in S08E05?
Why does Taylor’s series “work”?
Physically unpleasant work environment
Deleting the same lines from a list
What kind of environment would favor hermaphroditism in a sentient species over regular, old sexes?
Speculative Biology of a Haplodiploid Humanoid Species
Social implications of intelligent species that practices external fertilizationWhat evolutionary factors can contribute to large sexual dimorphism in large mammals?Why (else) would an animal species be polymorphic?Influence of Reproduction on Culture (“double trouble” species)What mechanism would degenerate gametes of select allosome?Why would the males of a species exhibit polymorphism?Reasons and advantages to this form of sexual dimorphismHow can I create a mechanism for ejaculatory control in males?Is a naturally all “male” species possible?Can a possible humanoid species capable of changing their sex in a crisis be the dominant species of an entire planet like us?
$begingroup$
In haplodiploid sex-determination system, female/diploid individuals are developed from fertilized eggs by means of sexual reproduction, while male/haploid individuals are developed from unfertilized eggs by means of parthenogenesis.
So assume there is a highly intelligent haplodiploid species. All female/diploid individuals of this species have the humanoid appearance (even though they do not necessarily look like human females), while all male/haploid individuals are mere egg-sized "balls" that possess neither human form nor sentience. The male/haploid individuals are produced periodically in the way similar to menstruation (or hens laying eggs) and have a very short lifespan respectively. As a result, female/diploid individuals of this species would exchange the male/haploid "eggs" (or "testes") that they produce with each other when they need to reproduce female/diploid offsprings of next generation. Since those male/haploid "eggs" (or "testes") exist outside of the bodies of female/diploid individuals and are disposable by nature, this species is technically not hermaphroditic.
So my question is whether such a radical sexual dimorphism between female/diploid and male/haploid individuals is plausible or not. It seems that in most haplodiploid species like Hymenoptera (ants, bees, and wasps) the physical morphology of male/haploid drone individuals is not radically different from female/diploid individuals despite the fact that they are technically also sperm pockets exchanged between female/diploid queen individuals of different colonies. One possible reason why this may be implausible is that sexual maturity always takes a long time (maybe one decade or even more so) to reach for a highly intelligent humanoid species even though all male/haploid individuals are just insentient "eggs". In other words, it is simply too costly for female/diploid individuals to produce disposable "testes" on a regular basis.
Or maybe the reproductive mechanism of this species can actually work?
Update 1: Another possible issue may be that the radical sexual dimorphism between female/diploid and male/haploid individuals diminishes the main evolutionary advantage of haplodiploidy. It has been proposed that haplodiploidy may evolve as a mechanism to get rid of defective genes that are much more visible in haploid individuals. But if those male/haploid individuals are mere balls, then it would be nearly impossible for female/diploid individuals to observe the existence of those harmful mutations. That is to say, if male/haploid individuals are mere balls, then the risk of accumulating recessive traits (or inbreeding) would be greater for them.
Update 2: Since @Willk points out that this species is functionally equivalent to simultaneous hermaphrodites, the post now can boil down to the question whether or not it is evolutionarily plausible for a human-like species to evolve a way of fertilization without the involvement of penile objects.
PS: I prefer using terms like "diploid" and "haploid" to terms like "female" and "male" to avoid some unfortunate implications.
science-based biology creature-design evolution reproduction
edited May 12 at 0:36
Cyn
13.5k22863
asked May 11 at 14:15
H. HayashidaH. Hayashida
586
New contributor
H. Hayashida is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In haplodiploid sex-determination system, female/diploid individuals are developed from fertilized eggs by means of sexual reproduction, while male/haploid individuals are developed from unfertilized eggs by means of parthenogenesis.
So assume there is a highly intelligent haplodiploid species. All female/diploid individuals of this species have the humanoid appearance (even though they do not necessarily look like human females), while all male/haploid individuals are mere egg-sized "balls" that possess neither human form nor sentience. The male/haploid individuals are produced periodically in the way similar to menstruation (or hens laying eggs) and have a very short lifespan respectively. As a result, female/diploid individuals of this species would exchange the male/haploid "eggs" (or "testes") that they produce with each other when they need to reproduce female/diploid offsprings of next generation. Since those male/haploid "eggs" (or "testes") exist outside of the bodies of female/diploid individuals and are disposable by nature, this species is technically not hermaphroditic.
So my question is whether such a radical sexual dimorphism between female/diploid and male/haploid individuals is plausible or not. It seems that in most haplodiploid species like Hymenoptera (ants, bees, and wasps) the physical morphology of male/haploid drone individuals is not radically different from female/diploid individuals despite the fact that they are technically also sperm pockets exchanged between female/diploid queen individuals of different colonies. One possible reason why this may be implausible is that sexual maturity always takes a long time (maybe one decade or even more so) to reach for a highly intelligent humanoid species even though all male/haploid individuals are just insentient "eggs". In other words, it is simply too costly for female/diploid individuals to produce disposable "testes" on a regular basis.
Or maybe the reproductive mechanism of this species can actually work?
Update 1: Another possible issue may be that the radical sexual dimorphism between female/diploid and male/haploid individuals diminishes the main evolutionary advantage of haplodiploidy. It has been proposed that haplodiploidy may evolve as a mechanism to get rid of defective genes that are much more visible in haploid individuals. But if those male/haploid individuals are mere balls, then it would be nearly impossible for female/diploid individuals to observe the existence of those harmful mutations. That is to say, if male/haploid individuals are mere balls, then the risk of accumulating recessive traits (or inbreeding) would be greater for them.
Update 2: Since @Willk points out that this species is functionally equivalent to simultaneous hermaphrodites, the post now can boil down to the question whether or not it is evolutionarily plausible for a human-like species to evolve a way of fertilization without the involvement of penile objects.
PS: I prefer using terms like "diploid" and "haploid" to terms like "female" and "male" to avoid some unfortunate implications.
science-based biology creature-design evolution reproduction
edited May 12 at 0:36
Cyn
13.5k22863
asked May 11 at 14:15
H. HayashidaH. Hayashida
586
New contributor
H. Hayashida is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome to the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange! Your highly interesting question has been written is a confusing manner for non-biologists, could you perhaps rephrase it to make the question more accessible for other readers?
$endgroup$
– A Lambent Eye
May 11 at 14:19
$begingroup$
@A Lambent Eye Thank you for your advice! I'll try to reduce my use of biological jargons in this post.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 14:30
$begingroup$
Interesting question! While I probably would have upvoted it anyway, you get my +1 for sure for including a clear definition of your terms at the opening to the question.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
May 12 at 0:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In haplodiploid sex-determination system, female/diploid individuals are developed from fertilized eggs by means of sexual reproduction, while male/haploid individuals are developed from unfertilized eggs by means of parthenogenesis.
So assume there is a highly intelligent haplodiploid species. All female/diploid individuals of this species have the humanoid appearance (even though they do not necessarily look like human females), while all male/haploid individuals are mere egg-sized "balls" that possess neither human form nor sentience. The male/haploid individuals are produced periodically in the way similar to menstruation (or hens laying eggs) and have a very short lifespan respectively. As a result, female/diploid individuals of this species would exchange the male/haploid "eggs" (or "testes") that they produce with each other when they need to reproduce female/diploid offsprings of next generation. Since those male/haploid "eggs" (or "testes") exist outside of the bodies of female/diploid individuals and are disposable by nature, this species is technically not hermaphroditic.
So my question is whether such a radical sexual dimorphism between female/diploid and male/haploid individuals is plausible or not. It seems that in most haplodiploid species like Hymenoptera (ants, bees, and wasps) the physical morphology of male/haploid drone individuals is not radically different from female/diploid individuals despite the fact that they are technically also sperm pockets exchanged between female/diploid queen individuals of different colonies. One possible reason why this may be implausible is that sexual maturity always takes a long time (maybe one decade or even more so) to reach for a highly intelligent humanoid species even though all male/haploid individuals are just insentient "eggs". In other words, it is simply too costly for female/diploid individuals to produce disposable "testes" on a regular basis.
Or maybe the reproductive mechanism of this species can actually work?
Update 1: Another possible issue may be that the radical sexual dimorphism between female/diploid and male/haploid individuals diminishes the main evolutionary advantage of haplodiploidy. It has been proposed that haplodiploidy may evolve as a mechanism to get rid of defective genes that are much more visible in haploid individuals. But if those male/haploid individuals are mere balls, then it would be nearly impossible for female/diploid individuals to observe the existence of those harmful mutations. That is to say, if male/haploid individuals are mere balls, then the risk of accumulating recessive traits (or inbreeding) would be greater for them.
Update 2: Since @Willk points out that this species is functionally equivalent to simultaneous hermaphrodites, the post now can boil down to the question whether or not it is evolutionarily plausible for a human-like species to evolve a way of fertilization without the involvement of penile objects.
PS: I prefer using terms like "diploid" and "haploid" to terms like "female" and "male" to avoid some unfortunate implications.
science-based biology creature-design evolution reproduction
edited May 12 at 0:36
Cyn
13.5k22863
asked May 11 at 14:15
H. HayashidaH. Hayashida
586
New contributor
H. Hayashida is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
In haplodiploid sex-determination system, female/diploid individuals are developed from fertilized eggs by means of sexual reproduction, while male/haploid individuals are developed from unfertilized eggs by means of parthenogenesis.
So assume there is a highly intelligent haplodiploid species. All female/diploid individuals of this species have the humanoid appearance (even though they do not necessarily look like human females), while all male/haploid individuals are mere egg-sized "balls" that possess neither human form nor sentience. The male/haploid individuals are produced periodically in the way similar to menstruation (or hens laying eggs) and have a very short lifespan respectively. As a result, female/diploid individuals of this species would exchange the male/haploid "eggs" (or "testes") that they produce with each other when they need to reproduce female/diploid offsprings of next generation. Since those male/haploid "eggs" (or "testes") exist outside of the bodies of female/diploid individuals and are disposable by nature, this species is technically not hermaphroditic.
So my question is whether such a radical sexual dimorphism between female/diploid and male/haploid individuals is plausible or not. It seems that in most haplodiploid species like Hymenoptera (ants, bees, and wasps) the physical morphology of male/haploid drone individuals is not radically different from female/diploid individuals despite the fact that they are technically also sperm pockets exchanged between female/diploid queen individuals of different colonies. One possible reason why this may be implausible is that sexual maturity always takes a long time (maybe one decade or even more so) to reach for a highly intelligent humanoid species even though all male/haploid individuals are just insentient "eggs". In other words, it is simply too costly for female/diploid individuals to produce disposable "testes" on a regular basis.
Or maybe the reproductive mechanism of this species can actually work?
Update 1: Another possible issue may be that the radical sexual dimorphism between female/diploid and male/haploid individuals diminishes the main evolutionary advantage of haplodiploidy. It has been proposed that haplodiploidy may evolve as a mechanism to get rid of defective genes that are much more visible in haploid individuals. But if those male/haploid individuals are mere balls, then it would be nearly impossible for female/diploid individuals to observe the existence of those harmful mutations. That is to say, if male/haploid individuals are mere balls, then the risk of accumulating recessive traits (or inbreeding) would be greater for them.
Update 2: Since @Willk points out that this species is functionally equivalent to simultaneous hermaphrodites, the post now can boil down to the question whether or not it is evolutionarily plausible for a human-like species to evolve a way of fertilization without the involvement of penile objects.
PS: I prefer using terms like "diploid" and "haploid" to terms like "female" and "male" to avoid some unfortunate implications.
science-based biology creature-design evolution reproduction
science-based biology creature-design evolution reproduction
edited May 12 at 0:36
Cyn
13.5k22863
asked May 11 at 14:15
H. HayashidaH. Hayashida
586
New contributor
H. Hayashida is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited May 12 at 0:36
Cyn
13.5k22863
asked May 11 at 14:15
H. HayashidaH. Hayashida
586
New contributor
H. Hayashida is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited May 12 at 0:36
Cyn
13.5k22863
edited May 12 at 0:36
Cyn
13.5k22863
edited May 12 at 0:36
Cyn
13.5k22863
13.5k22863
asked May 11 at 14:15
H. HayashidaH. Hayashida
586
New contributor
H. Hayashida is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked May 11 at 14:15
H. HayashidaH. Hayashida
586
asked May 11 at 14:15
H. HayashidaH. Hayashida
586
586
New contributor
H. Hayashida is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
H. Hayashida is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
Welcome to the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange! Your highly interesting question has been written is a confusing manner for non-biologists, could you perhaps rephrase it to make the question more accessible for other readers?
$endgroup$
– A Lambent Eye
May 11 at 14:19
$begingroup$
@A Lambent Eye Thank you for your advice! I'll try to reduce my use of biological jargons in this post.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 14:30
$begingroup$
Interesting question! While I probably would have upvoted it anyway, you get my +1 for sure for including a clear definition of your terms at the opening to the question.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
May 12 at 0:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Welcome to the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange! Your highly interesting question has been written is a confusing manner for non-biologists, could you perhaps rephrase it to make the question more accessible for other readers?
$endgroup$
– A Lambent Eye
May 11 at 14:19
$begingroup$
@A Lambent Eye Thank you for your advice! I'll try to reduce my use of biological jargons in this post.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 14:30
$begingroup$
Interesting question! While I probably would have upvoted it anyway, you get my +1 for sure for including a clear definition of your terms at the opening to the question.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
May 12 at 0:35
$begingroup$
Welcome to the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange! Your highly interesting question has been written is a confusing manner for non-biologists, could you perhaps rephrase it to make the question more accessible for other readers?
$endgroup$
– A Lambent Eye
May 11 at 14:19
$begingroup$
Welcome to the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange! Your highly interesting question has been written is a confusing manner for non-biologists, could you perhaps rephrase it to make the question more accessible for other readers?
$endgroup$
– A Lambent Eye
May 11 at 14:19
$begingroup$
@A Lambent Eye Thank you for your advice! I'll try to reduce my use of biological jargons in this post.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 14:30
$begingroup$
@A Lambent Eye Thank you for your advice! I'll try to reduce my use of biological jargons in this post.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 14:30
$begingroup$
Interesting question! While I probably would have upvoted it anyway, you get my +1 for sure for including a clear definition of your terms at the opening to the question.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
May 12 at 0:35
$begingroup$
Interesting question! While I probably would have upvoted it anyway, you get my +1 for sure for including a clear definition of your terms at the opening to the question.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
May 12 at 0:35
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
These are hermaphrodites, and what you are calling males are actually gametes.
Your "males" are haploid (like gametes), and are nonsentient (like gametes). They are produced in excess (like gametes) and their sole function is to mediate sexual reproduction (like gametes).
Your "females" can make these male gametes and also receive them, presumably to combine with some internal different sort of gametes. Because the "females' can make both types of gamete, they are hermaphrodites.
Answering the comment:
/the question becomes whether it is evolutionarily plausible for a humanoid, mammalian-alike species to evolve a non-penetrative way of reproduction other than parthenogenesis/
Sure. The gamete you describe (the "male") is an egg. You could call an egg an external womb though probably fairer to call a womb an internal egg, since eggs were first. The "male" gamete is big and presumably resource rich. It is fertilized by the other partner with a spray of gametes onto the egg (in fish, called milt). The embryo develops inside because that is how eggs work. There is no reason humanoids could not lay eggs.
answered May 11 at 16:37
WillkWillk
122k28229510
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your insightful answer! I think you are right that they are functionally equivalent to simultaneous hermaphrodites, so the question becomes whether it is evolutionarily plausible for a humanoid, mammalian-alike species to evolve a non-penetrative way of reproduction other than parthenogenesis?
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 16:48
$begingroup$
@H.Hayashida I sense the possibility of an "external womb" question, that (as far as I know) would be quite novel. Bravo for breaking new ground.
$endgroup$
– Hoyle's ghost
May 11 at 19:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There could definitely be such a difference, just look at other examples of sexual dimorphism. What you are thinking of is called sexual gigantism, and is predominant in spiders. While perhaps not originating in the exact way that you are describing, take a look at an example of this, and you will see that the females can be much bigger and more complex than the males. This is rampant throughout many other spiders, simply because the females have to raise the young while the males die soon after fertilization. This is why they are smaller and less complex, because when they are basically disposable, you don't want them to have to be so big. The males also die soon after fertilization. Concerning Hymenoptera, while there is not such a drastic dimorphism, it is still there.
answered May 11 at 14:41
H FranklinH Franklin
1686
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your informative answer! I think the main difference between the golden orb-weaver spiders and the haplodiploid species of this post is that those male spiders are still functional individuals and have intrasexual (male-male) competition regarding mating despite the danger of being eaten, while the males/haploids of this species lack individuality completely like post-fusion male anglerfishes.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 15:50
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
H. Hayashida is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f146811%2fspeculative-biology-of-a-haplodiploid-humanoid-species%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
These are hermaphrodites, and what you are calling males are actually gametes.
Your "males" are haploid (like gametes), and are nonsentient (like gametes). They are produced in excess (like gametes) and their sole function is to mediate sexual reproduction (like gametes).
Your "females" can make these male gametes and also receive them, presumably to combine with some internal different sort of gametes. Because the "females' can make both types of gamete, they are hermaphrodites.
Answering the comment:
/the question becomes whether it is evolutionarily plausible for a humanoid, mammalian-alike species to evolve a non-penetrative way of reproduction other than parthenogenesis/
Sure. The gamete you describe (the "male") is an egg. You could call an egg an external womb though probably fairer to call a womb an internal egg, since eggs were first. The "male" gamete is big and presumably resource rich. It is fertilized by the other partner with a spray of gametes onto the egg (in fish, called milt). The embryo develops inside because that is how eggs work. There is no reason humanoids could not lay eggs.
answered May 11 at 16:37
WillkWillk
122k28229510
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your insightful answer! I think you are right that they are functionally equivalent to simultaneous hermaphrodites, so the question becomes whether it is evolutionarily plausible for a humanoid, mammalian-alike species to evolve a non-penetrative way of reproduction other than parthenogenesis?
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 16:48
$begingroup$
@H.Hayashida I sense the possibility of an "external womb" question, that (as far as I know) would be quite novel. Bravo for breaking new ground.
$endgroup$
– Hoyle's ghost
May 11 at 19:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
These are hermaphrodites, and what you are calling males are actually gametes.
Your "males" are haploid (like gametes), and are nonsentient (like gametes). They are produced in excess (like gametes) and their sole function is to mediate sexual reproduction (like gametes).
Your "females" can make these male gametes and also receive them, presumably to combine with some internal different sort of gametes. Because the "females' can make both types of gamete, they are hermaphrodites.
Answering the comment:
/the question becomes whether it is evolutionarily plausible for a humanoid, mammalian-alike species to evolve a non-penetrative way of reproduction other than parthenogenesis/
Sure. The gamete you describe (the "male") is an egg. You could call an egg an external womb though probably fairer to call a womb an internal egg, since eggs were first. The "male" gamete is big and presumably resource rich. It is fertilized by the other partner with a spray of gametes onto the egg (in fish, called milt). The embryo develops inside because that is how eggs work. There is no reason humanoids could not lay eggs.
answered May 11 at 16:37
WillkWillk
122k28229510
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your insightful answer! I think you are right that they are functionally equivalent to simultaneous hermaphrodites, so the question becomes whether it is evolutionarily plausible for a humanoid, mammalian-alike species to evolve a non-penetrative way of reproduction other than parthenogenesis?
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 16:48
$begingroup$
@H.Hayashida I sense the possibility of an "external womb" question, that (as far as I know) would be quite novel. Bravo for breaking new ground.
$endgroup$
– Hoyle's ghost
May 11 at 19:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
These are hermaphrodites, and what you are calling males are actually gametes.
Your "males" are haploid (like gametes), and are nonsentient (like gametes). They are produced in excess (like gametes) and their sole function is to mediate sexual reproduction (like gametes).
Your "females" can make these male gametes and also receive them, presumably to combine with some internal different sort of gametes. Because the "females' can make both types of gamete, they are hermaphrodites.
Answering the comment:
/the question becomes whether it is evolutionarily plausible for a humanoid, mammalian-alike species to evolve a non-penetrative way of reproduction other than parthenogenesis/
Sure. The gamete you describe (the "male") is an egg. You could call an egg an external womb though probably fairer to call a womb an internal egg, since eggs were first. The "male" gamete is big and presumably resource rich. It is fertilized by the other partner with a spray of gametes onto the egg (in fish, called milt). The embryo develops inside because that is how eggs work. There is no reason humanoids could not lay eggs.
answered May 11 at 16:37
WillkWillk
122k28229510
$endgroup$
These are hermaphrodites, and what you are calling males are actually gametes.
Your "males" are haploid (like gametes), and are nonsentient (like gametes). They are produced in excess (like gametes) and their sole function is to mediate sexual reproduction (like gametes).
Your "females" can make these male gametes and also receive them, presumably to combine with some internal different sort of gametes. Because the "females' can make both types of gamete, they are hermaphrodites.
Answering the comment:
/the question becomes whether it is evolutionarily plausible for a humanoid, mammalian-alike species to evolve a non-penetrative way of reproduction other than parthenogenesis/
Sure. The gamete you describe (the "male") is an egg. You could call an egg an external womb though probably fairer to call a womb an internal egg, since eggs were first. The "male" gamete is big and presumably resource rich. It is fertilized by the other partner with a spray of gametes onto the egg (in fish, called milt). The embryo develops inside because that is how eggs work. There is no reason humanoids could not lay eggs.
answered May 11 at 16:37
WillkWillk
122k28229510
edited May 12 at 0:37
answered May 11 at 16:37
WillkWillk
122k28229510
answered May 11 at 16:37
WillkWillk
122k28229510
answered May 11 at 16:37
WillkWillk
122k28229510
122k28229510
$begingroup$
Thank you for your insightful answer! I think you are right that they are functionally equivalent to simultaneous hermaphrodites, so the question becomes whether it is evolutionarily plausible for a humanoid, mammalian-alike species to evolve a non-penetrative way of reproduction other than parthenogenesis?
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 16:48
$begingroup$
@H.Hayashida I sense the possibility of an "external womb" question, that (as far as I know) would be quite novel. Bravo for breaking new ground.
$endgroup$
– Hoyle's ghost
May 11 at 19:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you for your insightful answer! I think you are right that they are functionally equivalent to simultaneous hermaphrodites, so the question becomes whether it is evolutionarily plausible for a humanoid, mammalian-alike species to evolve a non-penetrative way of reproduction other than parthenogenesis?
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 16:48
$begingroup$
@H.Hayashida I sense the possibility of an "external womb" question, that (as far as I know) would be quite novel. Bravo for breaking new ground.
$endgroup$
– Hoyle's ghost
May 11 at 19:00
$begingroup$
Thank you for your insightful answer! I think you are right that they are functionally equivalent to simultaneous hermaphrodites, so the question becomes whether it is evolutionarily plausible for a humanoid, mammalian-alike species to evolve a non-penetrative way of reproduction other than parthenogenesis?
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 16:48
$begingroup$
Thank you for your insightful answer! I think you are right that they are functionally equivalent to simultaneous hermaphrodites, so the question becomes whether it is evolutionarily plausible for a humanoid, mammalian-alike species to evolve a non-penetrative way of reproduction other than parthenogenesis?
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 16:48
$begingroup$
@H.Hayashida I sense the possibility of an "external womb" question, that (as far as I know) would be quite novel. Bravo for breaking new ground.
$endgroup$
– Hoyle's ghost
May 11 at 19:00
$begingroup$
@H.Hayashida I sense the possibility of an "external womb" question, that (as far as I know) would be quite novel. Bravo for breaking new ground.
$endgroup$
– Hoyle's ghost
May 11 at 19:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There could definitely be such a difference, just look at other examples of sexual dimorphism. What you are thinking of is called sexual gigantism, and is predominant in spiders. While perhaps not originating in the exact way that you are describing, take a look at an example of this, and you will see that the females can be much bigger and more complex than the males. This is rampant throughout many other spiders, simply because the females have to raise the young while the males die soon after fertilization. This is why they are smaller and less complex, because when they are basically disposable, you don't want them to have to be so big. The males also die soon after fertilization. Concerning Hymenoptera, while there is not such a drastic dimorphism, it is still there.
answered May 11 at 14:41
H FranklinH Franklin
1686
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your informative answer! I think the main difference between the golden orb-weaver spiders and the haplodiploid species of this post is that those male spiders are still functional individuals and have intrasexual (male-male) competition regarding mating despite the danger of being eaten, while the males/haploids of this species lack individuality completely like post-fusion male anglerfishes.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 15:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There could definitely be such a difference, just look at other examples of sexual dimorphism. What you are thinking of is called sexual gigantism, and is predominant in spiders. While perhaps not originating in the exact way that you are describing, take a look at an example of this, and you will see that the females can be much bigger and more complex than the males. This is rampant throughout many other spiders, simply because the females have to raise the young while the males die soon after fertilization. This is why they are smaller and less complex, because when they are basically disposable, you don't want them to have to be so big. The males also die soon after fertilization. Concerning Hymenoptera, while there is not such a drastic dimorphism, it is still there.
answered May 11 at 14:41
H FranklinH Franklin
1686
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your informative answer! I think the main difference between the golden orb-weaver spiders and the haplodiploid species of this post is that those male spiders are still functional individuals and have intrasexual (male-male) competition regarding mating despite the danger of being eaten, while the males/haploids of this species lack individuality completely like post-fusion male anglerfishes.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 15:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There could definitely be such a difference, just look at other examples of sexual dimorphism. What you are thinking of is called sexual gigantism, and is predominant in spiders. While perhaps not originating in the exact way that you are describing, take a look at an example of this, and you will see that the females can be much bigger and more complex than the males. This is rampant throughout many other spiders, simply because the females have to raise the young while the males die soon after fertilization. This is why they are smaller and less complex, because when they are basically disposable, you don't want them to have to be so big. The males also die soon after fertilization. Concerning Hymenoptera, while there is not such a drastic dimorphism, it is still there.
answered May 11 at 14:41
H FranklinH Franklin
1686
$endgroup$
There could definitely be such a difference, just look at other examples of sexual dimorphism. What you are thinking of is called sexual gigantism, and is predominant in spiders. While perhaps not originating in the exact way that you are describing, take a look at an example of this, and you will see that the females can be much bigger and more complex than the males. This is rampant throughout many other spiders, simply because the females have to raise the young while the males die soon after fertilization. This is why they are smaller and less complex, because when they are basically disposable, you don't want them to have to be so big. The males also die soon after fertilization. Concerning Hymenoptera, while there is not such a drastic dimorphism, it is still there.
answered May 11 at 14:41
H FranklinH Franklin
1686
answered May 11 at 14:41
H FranklinH Franklin
1686
answered May 11 at 14:41
H FranklinH Franklin
1686
answered May 11 at 14:41
H FranklinH Franklin
1686
1686
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your informative answer! I think the main difference between the golden orb-weaver spiders and the haplodiploid species of this post is that those male spiders are still functional individuals and have intrasexual (male-male) competition regarding mating despite the danger of being eaten, while the males/haploids of this species lack individuality completely like post-fusion male anglerfishes.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 15:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your informative answer! I think the main difference between the golden orb-weaver spiders and the haplodiploid species of this post is that those male spiders are still functional individuals and have intrasexual (male-male) competition regarding mating despite the danger of being eaten, while the males/haploids of this species lack individuality completely like post-fusion male anglerfishes.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 15:50
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your informative answer! I think the main difference between the golden orb-weaver spiders and the haplodiploid species of this post is that those male spiders are still functional individuals and have intrasexual (male-male) competition regarding mating despite the danger of being eaten, while the males/haploids of this species lack individuality completely like post-fusion male anglerfishes.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 15:50
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your informative answer! I think the main difference between the golden orb-weaver spiders and the haplodiploid species of this post is that those male spiders are still functional individuals and have intrasexual (male-male) competition regarding mating despite the danger of being eaten, while the males/haploids of this species lack individuality completely like post-fusion male anglerfishes.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 15:50
add a comment |
H. Hayashida is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
H. Hayashida is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
H. Hayashida is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
H. Hayashida is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f146811%2fspeculative-biology-of-a-haplodiploid-humanoid-species%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Welcome to the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange! Your highly interesting question has been written is a confusing manner for non-biologists, could you perhaps rephrase it to make the question more accessible for other readers?
$endgroup$
– A Lambent Eye
May 11 at 14:19
$begingroup$
@A Lambent Eye Thank you for your advice! I'll try to reduce my use of biological jargons in this post.
$endgroup$
– H. Hayashida
May 11 at 14:30
$begingroup$
Interesting question! While I probably would have upvoted it anyway, you get my +1 for sure for including a clear definition of your terms at the opening to the question.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
May 12 at 0:35