So in birds, sex chromosome arrangement is a reverse of what we have in humans. Their males are ZZ and the female is ZW. Which is why only males appear from this parthenogenesis.
From my very shallow understanding:
- The fact that females are defined by unmatched sex chromosomes rather than matched ones means that in haploid parthenogenesis (a split and rejoining of a single half of a genome, rather than fertilisation by male and female sex cells), the resultant sex cells are either ZZ (vialble male) or WW (nonviable "super-female").
- Parthenogenesis in mammals on a similar basis isn't possible as the umatched chromsome is found in males (giving a viable XX female) ... but without an ovum or womb. A self-replicating female egg would be XX.[1] There's ... some research into parthenogenesis in mammals, and at least one apparent observed instance.[2]
- In the case of Avian or similarly Z/W species, parthogenesis is a potentially viable option for resuming sexual reproduction of a population in which all males have been lost. For mammallian populations, not so much. In any case, there'd likely be an extreme genetic bottleneck.
________________________________
Notes:
1. Religious implications for spontaneous mammalian parthogenesis resulting in male offspring are left ... undiscussed.
2. See Google Scholar for a literature overview: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=7%2C39&q=par...
Could you explain the mechanism? If the female has both chromosomes, why couldn't it produce offspring with both?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Sex_of_the_off...
It's perhaps best shown in this figure: https://rep.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/rep/155/6/image...
(Via this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29559496/)
No, wait, half clone. Yup, I'm fully confused by this turn of events.
On the other hand, if a mammal were to produce a viable fertile offspring through parthenogenesis, then that offspring would be a clone of it's mother.