C. elegans, one of the simplest known animals, has hermaphrodites and males, with hermaphrodites massively outnumbering the males.
That’s really interesting!
Perhaps being male is a strategy to make others bear your offspring, while you don’t have to
The underlying question is: why would this strategy pay off more than also having your own kids? E.g. imagine a hermaphrodite equilibrium in which everyone wants to be impregnated by whoever has already borne the healthiest kids. In that equilibrium, males wouldn’t have a chance—so why is the “some males” equilibrium selected instead of that one?
in which everyone wants to be impregnated by whoever has already borne the healthiest kids.
This would only possibly work in a species who kept track of these things. Aside from homanids, and maybe dolphins or elephants, most species aren’t tracking who is who’s child.
Also, being male means less resources on birth, so more on chasing a partner.
That’s really interesting!
The underlying question is: why would this strategy pay off more than also having your own kids? E.g. imagine a hermaphrodite equilibrium in which everyone wants to be impregnated by whoever has already borne the healthiest kids. In that equilibrium, males wouldn’t have a chance—so why is the “some males” equilibrium selected instead of that one?
This would only possibly work in a species who kept track of these things. Aside from homanids, and maybe dolphins or elephants, most species aren’t tracking who is who’s child.
Also, being male means less resources on birth, so more on chasing a partner.