This is called parthenogenesis and is a known phenomenon, albeit rare in vertebrates. Some species, like the New Mexico whiptail, rely on it (all New Mexico whiptails are female).
The New Mexico whiptail is also an F1 hybrid. If they go extinct, you can make more by hybridizing a little striped whiptail and a western whiptail. In case anyone thought that ‘species’ was a solidly defined word.
Genomic imprinting says no. It wouldn’t produce a fetus that is in congruence with the possibility of life. It could at most start growing and developing, but it would die in the womb. More akin to a tumor than to a baby.
This is called parthenogenesis and is a known phenomenon, albeit rare in vertebrates. Some species, like the New Mexico whiptail, rely on it (all New Mexico whiptails are female).
Here is a paper from 2007 that talks about parthenogenesis in hammerhead sharks..
The New Mexico whiptail is also an F1 hybrid. If they go extinct, you can make more by hybridizing a little striped whiptail and a western whiptail. In case anyone thought that ‘species’ was a solidly defined word.
Plug-in formulas
Laugh’s in mule
Ee ah ah ah
>F1 hybrid
https://youtu.be/gEzXrDL4F3k?t=4s
Wasn’t this also like the inciting incident for the original jurassic park movie?
Nah.
That one was dinosaurs changed gender to male, citing the frog DNA they completed the chain with as having that potential.
So what was supposed to be an all-female park to prevent reproduction became co-ed and then nature happened.
I’m still confused on the difference
Edit: thank you to everyone who replied, I understand the difference now
Jurassic Park’s version is still sexual reproduction. Parthenogenesis is a form of asexual reproduction.
Parthenogenesis - egg just becomes embryo, no male required
Jurassic Park - one individual turned from female to male and started making babies
One was direct development of an egg into an embryo, the other was conversion of an animal from one sex to another to facilitate mating.
Man so jesus was real
Genomic imprinting says no. It wouldn’t produce a fetus that is in congruence with the possibility of life. It could at most start growing and developing, but it would die in the womb. More akin to a tumor than to a baby.
How comes it’s possible for a bird or a fish, but not a human? If this article explains why, it is a bit obscure for non specialists.
No worries the whole concept of parthenogenesis is a really obscure and obtuse one.
Here’s a SciShow link that does a really good job of describing it in a less obtuse and confusing way.
Good to know. Didn’t expect a serious reply
And with our votes combined, we will push this good scoop to the top! Thanks, friend!