I was just thinking about two news stories I read recently. I posted one here—it was about two male flamingos raising a chick together. (This is apparently fairly common among certain types of birds.) The other was about a female shark who had lived in a tank with two other females for more than 3 years, but who gave birth in spite of her lack of male companionship. The baby was DNA tested and, sure enough, there was no genetic trace of a male parent. This female had conceived and produced offspring, all on her own.
When I mentioned these news stories to Mr. O’Reilly, he reminded me of a line from Jurassic Park, “Life will find a way to go on.” Or words to that effect. (If you recall, all the dinosaurs in the park were female, but they still managed to reproduce.) His reference was to the female shark story, but it made me wonder . . . .
What if the homosexual bird pairs (from what I have read, they are usually male) are ALSO nature’s way of meeting a need. It seems to me that, if all the available adult birds (or other animals) in a given community were actively engaged in raising their own young exclusively, or else were unattached, there would be nobody left to care for the orphans. If a young animal were to be left orphaned, this would be a tremendous waste of resources in a community. All the food, shelter, effort, etc. that was expended to get a female pregnant and to the egg-laying or offspring-producing stage would be lost if the young never survived to mate. Sometimes a female that has lost her own young can be induced to raise another individual, but not always. What better way for nature to protect against this loss that to put a perennial “nanny” into a community, in the form of adult individuals who will not reproduce on their own, but who will happily raise orphans?
It’s an interesting thought, no?
No comments:
Post a Comment