Re: Why Sexual reproduction is more popular

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"Tim Tyler" <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://alife.co.uk/essays/gender_division/

Nice essay, Tim.

Thanks. It needs rewriting - but it makes a basic point and has some
references.

But there are two features of animal hermaphroditism
that you ought to mention and include in the essay.
1. Some hermaphroditic animals require reciprocal coitus. But plants
don't/can't use this strategy. Instead, they broadcast the male pollen.
Why don't plants engage in coitus? My guess is because they don't
have a fixed shape. (Well, also because they are immobile).

This is true. However, how this relates to separated genders is not
immediately obvious to me. It could be implicated - but you haven't
proposed how.

2. Other hermaphroditic animals are serial hermaphrodites. But I don't
think that any (presumably perennial) plants are. Note that a serial
hermaphrodite is automatically sexually dimorphic and subject to
both male-combat and female-choice forms of sexual selection. My
own speculation is that serial hermaphroditism is the evolutionary
precursor of dioecious sexuality.

That is interesting and relevant. It weakens the argument for
the "different roles" theory a bit. However, it doesn't weaken it
terribly much. Control over development from birth provides more
in the way of options for specialisation than is present with
sequential hermaphrodism - which I understand is called "dichogamy".

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichogamy

.....for the story with plants.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to
reply.

.