This is going to get us a lot of interesting data to test various hypotheses re: why sexually reproduce at all? Since parthenogenesis seems to remain an option for such a wide range of animals, and your clone gets 100% of your genes into the next generation (as opposed to a paltry 50% with sex) why aren't more animals taking advantage of parthenogenesis?

P.S. - I hope Saletan was kidding with his "mechanism for avoiding extinction". That's about as plausible as group selection. A complex adaptation does not appear, nor does it maintain itself, against the day when it might EVENTUALLY be useful for avoiding some species-level extinction event.

...reproduction was a response to the challenges of disease in general and parasitism in particular. Or so I recall. I guess it makes sense that enhanced genetic diversity stemming from recombination would help promote resistance and therefore be a net benefit in a world where disease is an issue, despite its cost in terms of reproductive efficiency. But if we presuppose a world in which disease is conquered by other means. Hmmm...

Hmm...I didn't know what people would come up with, but yeah, the Red Queen hypothesis (opened by Van Valen in the 70's, promoted by Tooby in the '80's and now popularized by Matt Ridley) is my personal favorite, too. I find its predictions about frequency-depended protein polymorphisms particularly compelling.