wouldn't a wouldn't a mother capable of both asexual and sexual reproduction have higher chances of propagating her genes than a mother who is only capable of s

wouldn't a wouldn't a mother capable of both asexual and sexual reproduction have higher chances of propagating her genes than a mother who is only capable of sexual reproduction? A lot of animals are social. In that case, finding a mate of the opposite sex is not really a problem. In a herd of cows, or a flock of birds, there will be both males and females. Animals that don't live in groups often have mating calls or attractive scents, or various other ways of attracting a mate. And then there's organisms that just do reproduce asexually when necessary, like the snakes in the article. Or like grass, which only reproduces sexually when it gets long enough to "go to seed" and otherwise just spreads asexually. The question of why sexual reproduction exists at all is a very deep question in evolutionary theory. You shouldn't feel bad about asking it, because a lot of people have, and come up with some very different answers. The Red Queen is an interesting book about this topic.