yes, but only in the Deep South. (kidding, kidding… don’t sue me)
The article that is being referenced is:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_062a.html
I’m aware that Cecil was referring to the seed of the father of the child when he said " pregnant females–whether human, female, or wombat–retain no male residue once they expel the placenta after giving birth". However, if taken very literally, this statement has recently been proven to be untrue. In fact, fetal blood cells can be found in the bloodstream of the mother decades after birth.
Here’s a cite on this and the potential clinical complications that it may cause:
Further, the article states, " The researchers used Y chromosome-containing cells from male offspring as a marker of fetal cell existence." So, the mother does carry with her, in the form of these co-habitating fetal cells, a male “residue” if she gives birth to a boy.
Aside from the speculation that these cells may cause them to develop an autoimmune disorder, I find it kind of quaint that our mothers carry a little bit of us where ever they go.
It should also be pointed out that it’s definitely not true of some animals. For example many of the social insects(bees, ants, wasps) the queen only breeds at one time.(Although it could be many males, it’s only during a very specific situation) After that all her offspring are the result of that event.
sorry, I would’ve referenced the article, but for some odd reason, the OP isn’t shown… strange.
In my experience, she does. The retained traces scream, crap and ruin her sleep (and his) for many years after. And destroy your bank balance. And a wimpish legal system still forbids exposing them or drowning at birth. Damned liberals. . .
I think the point of the lawsuit has been lost. Genetically, the father of a particular litter of puppies should be irrelevant for the genetic makeup of future litters. The science behind this is sound. However, no one said that the AKC or other organizations that register purebread dogs has to follow this science. I am no expert, but I believe that if a purebred animal has a mongrel litter, that the AKC will no longer allow the registration as purebred of any subsequent litters. If this is the case, then the value of this woman’s dog for breeding purposes has been destroyed in that the offspring will have greatly diminished value. The science behind this may be nonsense, but the economic impact is real and thus she should win the lawsuit.
One question here; does anyone find Cecil’s phrase “pregnant females–whether human, female, or wombat” a little strange? I suspect, in context of the article, he meant “human, canine, or wombat.”
I’m a copy editor at heart.
Good catch, jackelope. I’ve been meaning to comment on that myself.
gdnp, I had that same observation in more of a question form in one of the other threads.
Hmm. It’s “human, canine, or wombat” in the book, but " human, female, or wombat" online. Maybe it was a test. I guess you pass, jackelope.
Uh, maybe you ought to check before trying to quote AKC policy; I have reviewed AKC policies on breeding, and they say no such thing. In fact, litters with multiple sires may be registered; if one of the sires is a mongrel, only the purebred pups may be registered.
The only time AKC will ban future progeny from registration is when the identity of the dam falls into doubt, and AKC accepts the results of DNA testing in such cases.
Now, if the dog’s owner or breeder falls into disrepute, the dogs will lose their registrations; that’s because AKC can no longer accept her word as to the dogs’ breeding.
I can’t find any record of this lawsuit, but the only basis I can see is if the plaintiff contends that the breeder has certified breeding to a registered stud, and the plaintiff says that’s not the case. If the stud is purebred, then a mongrel litter means that her dog is a mongrel, so she’s trying to salvage its pedigree by impugning the stud’s pedigree, or the breeder’s ethics.
Female guppies do retain sperm after giving birth. (Guppies are among the few species of tropical fish that store their eggs within their bodies and give birth to live young.) According to this site, this process of storing sperm is called superfoetation.
Guppies can store the sperm for several months and use it to fertilize eggs within their bodies, especially if they don’t mate again in that period of time. This means that one mating can produce several “litters” of guppies, and, if you are breeding the guppies, a mating with the wrong male actually would “ruin” the female for some time (but not forever).
Okay, as interesting as retaining sperm is, there is a difference between carrying around sperm for later use and taking on, or expressing, traits of the male partner. I would consider the latter something like becoming left handed, suddenly knowing how to juggle, growing freckles, etc. None of the examples of retaining sperm mentioned mean any physical or physiological change to the female beyond the pregnancy itself.