Reading through the archives and came across the aphids column (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_223.html). In this you mention that there has been “only one case of human parthogenesis.”
This may be inaccurate. Forgive me the murkiness on the detail, BUT
I definitely recall reading - perhaps in an edition of the Book of Lists, or the companion People’s Almanac - that there was at least one case in (if I remember correctly) South Africa where a young lady was caught by her boyfriend er…orally servicing another man. When this event occurred, the boyfriend decided to take the low road and stabbed our heroine in the abdomen.
The knife allegedly cut through enough of her abdomen to transport live sperm cells from her digestive tract to the interior of her uterus, where it fertilized.
Apparently, this woman suffered from a rare medical condition whereby the hymen is thick and not perforated - not only was she “technically” a virgin, she had to be.
As I recall, the child was delivered, healthy, via cesarian.
Sorry I can’t give more detain, but frankly I’m too lazy to look it up:D I am certain, however, that I considered the source unimpeachable, or else I would not bother relating.
Great service you provide, Mr. Adams and Staff! Keep up the good work.
Okay, now, I’m still confused about this. Is “parthenogenesis” just when a woman who’s a virgin gives birth? Or is it, as the dictionary says, “A form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual, occurring commonly among insects and certain other arthropods.” (I’m seriously asking; I know many dictionaries aren’t great with medical terms.)
If it requires an unfertilized egg, then the case in South Africa would not qualify, right? The egg was still fertilized, but not via sex, right?
Isn’t an offspring produced by parthenogenesis genetically identical to its mother? Don’t they have to be female? If so, what the heck is the one well-publicized case?
I’m not a doctor, but wouldn’t cutting through her digestive tract cause significant amounts of bacteria to spill into her innards and cause a huge infection, if not death? Please indulge me and check out the source… then we can decide if it’s unimpeachible
I’m pretty sure the “well-publicized case” Cecil was referring to was the biblibcal accounts of Mary and Jesus. Religious wars aside, it would be interesting to see research on how it might have actually occured from a scientific standpoint. As you stated, textbook parthenogenesis would definitely produce a female, and Jesus was supposedly male… so I’m at a loss there.
Parthenogenesis, IIRC from my college bio courses, is when an individual can reproduce without the benefit of a male fertilizing her eggs. I seem to remember there is at least one species of lizard, not to mention quite a few insects that reproduce in this manner. At any rate, assuming the S. African tale (which smacks of Urban Legend to me) is true, it still wouldnt’ be parthenogenesis.
ph317, I agree about the Jesus allusion. Don’t bust your head thinking about the Jesus being male, I think we can be fairly confident that Cecil intended it as what we call a “joke”
Okay, if that’s what the joke is, I’ll take it for that. I just got the impression that there were actually Christians who tried to explain Jesus’ birth via medical parthenogenesis, and Cecil was poking fun at them.
So am I right in understanding that offspring produced by parthenogenesis are genetically identical to their mother?
Sometimes yes, but I think there are other cases where they aren’t genetically identical. Once again, my memory of this is sketchy, but some animals are capable of getting by with half a set of genes (they’re known as haploid instead of diploid, so instead of chromosome pairs they just have one of each set), so I am pretty sure you can get offspring that have genes identical to a random half of their mother’s DNA
aha… found some more info on parthenogenesis. http://www.bartleby.com/65/pa/partheno.html
I don’t know why I didn’t remember this, but honeybees are an excellent example. The drones (males) are unfertilized, whereas the workers and queens are fertilized. It’s kind of like the puny Y chromosome in humans, i.e. it is missing genes that are duplicated in a female who has XX instead of XY.
Several species of whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus) are unisexual. All individuals are female and reproduction is by parthenogenesis. Occasionally a female of one of these species will mate with a male of another species, resulting in triploid hybrids. Various other lizards and possibly a couple of primitive snake species are known to reproduce parthenogenetically.
Well, if we’re going to count bizzare stories of almost-fatal woundings for virgin births, what about artificial insemination? I would imagine that at least once in history, a virgin woman has been impregnated by artificial insemination, and I can’t imagine that the use of a mere syringe would cuase her to no longer be considered a virgin.
You have to decide surely whether or not to accept parthogenesis = virgin birth. If you are artificially inseminated, and parthogenesis necessarily involves an unfertilised egg then it doesn’t count as parthogenesis. It will fit your definition of virgin birth, however, depending on how the insemination procedure is administrated if the hymen remains intact.
What a nice topic to wander into before tootling off to work in the morning btw. Serves me right for logging on I guess!
It’s definitely muddied terminology for the sake of the joke. Parthenogenesis is birth without sex (i.e. no sexual reproduction). Birth without sex means she’s a virgin.
