This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I created an illustration based on those in Norms of reaction to illustrate a canalising trait. Perhaps someone better familiar with the concept of this article can let me know if this is a helpful presentation, or if the graph should perhaps be modified in some manner. I did not make the two "plateaus" strictly horizontal, but allowed a minor variation within each of the bimodal forms... that seemed more realistic; but the variation within a morphological form is much less than the variation between the forms.
I am not sure that the image is especially applicable to the canalization of a trait. Does phenotype A represent a non-canalized trait? Vokesk (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It is hard to draw a "canalized trait". Instead, a genotype has a trait that is canalized or robust to a specified perturbation relative to an alternative reference genotype. For different environmental changes (x-axis shifts), one can make different arguments about which is the more canalized of the genotypes in this figure. Even if the figure is kept, the legend needs improvement. Joannamasel (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This article says that canalisation means, that a phenotype is robust against environmental changes because of its genotype. However, this article (Rando and Verstrepen, Timescales of genetic and epigenetic inheritance, Cell 128, 655-668, 2007) says this insensitivity of a phenotype to genetic mutation is often referred to as 'robustness' or 'canalization'. So whats the correct description? 126.96.36.199 12:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"Canalisation (canalization in American English) is a measure of the ability of a population to produce the same phenotype regardless of variability of its environment or genotype" Was this Waddington's defintition or did Waddington coin the term but not this specific definition. It would be nice to have Waddington's definition here, if there is one handy, as well as a more recent reference to how current researchers actually use the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eudoxus (talk • contribs) 06:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)