▲ | lolc 4 days ago | |||||||
Still if the foreign DNA is beneficial in keeping the hive going, it will help spread the queen's DNA. Should some allele work against the adoption of the foreign DNA, fitness drops, and that allele would become less frequent. Who is doing the removing at fertilization is interesting mostly in a mechanical sense. The mechanisms that worked against it are being suppressed or selected out entirely. It sure is an interesting case that one ant species is having another species promote their males if one looks at it from a gene perspective. A very weird case of symbiosis. | ||||||||
▲ | im3w1l 4 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
Here's my theory of how it may have happened. Stage 0: 5 million years ago they were the same species. Stage 1: Subspecies. Ibericus and Structor became distinct populations of the same species still capable of mating. Stage 2: Parasitism. Structur became capable of replacing Ibericus dna with their own in eggs. Stage 3: Loss of function. Because of rampant structor parasitism nearly all workers were structor. So when Ibericus lost the ability to make their own workers it was a neutral mutation. If I understand it correctly their theory is as follows. Stage 0: 5 million years ago they were the same species. Stage 1: Subspecies. Ibericus and Structor became distinct populations of the same species still capable of mating. Stage 2. Loss of function. Ibericus lost the ability to create their own workers, but as Ibericus and Structor existed in the same places hybrid workers allowed Ibericus to survive despite this. Stage 3: Ibericus learns to clone structor males to live in places where there are no Structors naturally. Kinda interesting that even though the end result is the same who is considered the parasite is different. | ||||||||
|