Timeline for Given any kind of living organism what logical reasons could result in a species having more than three genders?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:52 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/ with https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 13:19 | comment | added | Skye | There are sea slugs that have both genders, they could possibly be incorporated to have your urh 4 genders somehow | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 12:39 | comment | added | a4android | Alternatively, this question could deal with species where three individuals are involved in sexual reproduction. This is probably more likely than a triecious species. | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 12:37 | comment | added | a4android | I think what you mean are three sexes and not three genders. Sex refers to reproductive entities and not sexual identities. Humans have a slew of sexual identities or genders, but only two egg-bearers. Basically a species where there are male and female sexual organs present in distinct individuals (most often). Technically humans are diecious ( or having two egg-carriers) for the purposes of sexual reproduction. The question should be about triecious species. Who will presumably have their own plenitude of genders. | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 11:16 | answer | added | Reese Johnston | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 11:02 | answer | added | DrBob | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 10:24 | answer | added | Jack Aidley | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 8:07 | comment | added | JDługosz | See also this Q for some ideas among the answers. | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 4:47 | answer | added | Loren Pechtel | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 1:22 | comment | added | Zac Walton | Could it be that early life simply developed this way (perhaps as a natural population check on early microbes or even just by chance) and by the time anything close to an animal evolved, it was already hard-programmed and thus too late to lose? | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 23:05 | answer | added | user26182 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 23:00 | comment | added | Donald Hobson | The three way options involve creatures nurturing a child that has none of their genes. There would be an advantage to killing the life off if it has none of your genes and you have to feed it. Such situations are unlikely to evolve. | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 22:35 | answer | added | rek | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 21:38 | answer | added | Charon | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 21:24 | answer | added | Fayth85 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 21:17 | answer | added | BrettFromLA | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 21:15 | comment | added | Xplodotron | When you say "more than three" do you mean "at least four"? 'Cos I mean three is tricky enough. | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 21:11 | answer | added | Xplodotron | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 21:07 | answer | added | Michael Richardson | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 21:04 | comment | added | BrettFromLA | Yesterday I read about a virus that has 5 separate parts that, alone, do nothing, but when 4 or 5 of them get together they infect the host. (The 5th portion is optional). It certainly doesn't explain a reason, but it may be useful for you to check into. And it might be useful to know that sometimes, nature offers up weird mistakes / variations like that and they survive anyway. | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 20:56 | answer | added | Anonymous | timeline score: 13 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 20:38 | answer | added | candied_orange | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 20:25 | answer | added | Tenacity | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 20:20 | answer | added | John Feltz | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 20:17 | answer | added | Seeds | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 19:59 | history | asked | nijineko | CC BY-SA 3.0 |