>By asexual I'm referring to the lack of necessity for a male and a
female to mate in order for reproduction to occur.<
Purely as personal prejudice, I do not find that persuasive. For one thing, for some creatures reproduction is optionally sexual; for others some generations are parthenogenic, others sexual. In most of those last types, each generation has its own functions in its evolutionary and ecological strategy.
Then again, when a creature uses the full sexual apparatus (and sometimes depends on relic control mechanisms for reproduction, such as parthenogenic reptiles or dandelions or citrus mating to produce ofspring) then I regard it as sexual in at least certain senses. Now, when reproduction is somatic, such as when plants such as Bryophyllum or certain Watsonias, Orchids, and Agaves drop plantlets developed from somatic tissue, *THAT* I would call asexual reproduction. However, all those plants also have perfectly functional flowers and seeds, so I would not call them asexual in general.
>So, anatomically these geckos are female (I have read that there are
indeed males, but nothing of their roles or lack thereof in the act of
reproducing). However, since obviously they are able to fertilize their
eggs autonomously, wouldn't they fall into the asexual category?<
Apart from my reservations foregoing, I still am not happy with that point of view. Parthenogenic, yes, undoubtedly, but if they produce fertile eggs via a meiotic step with genetic recombination (which I don't in fact know whether they do or not) then I see that as meeting every criterion of sexuality bar one. Call it autosexuality if you like. A technical quibble, you might argue? Nay, not so, say I; evolutionarily and adaptively the distinction is of critical importance.
Yes?
Jon
