|WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
An encylopedia should probably have more about biological mutants than Marvel Comics' mutants. -- The Anome
I agree. The Marvel Universe stuff really should be forked off to a new article.
I will begin doing this tonight, with luck. ClockworkTroll 02:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Whose decision was it to rename the article and make "wildtype" the opening description? I propose reverting the name and making Wildtype a footnote, or at least not the main thrust of the article. --- Noclevername 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- agreed. Wildtype is only a minor mention in the article. Also, Wildtype vs. Mutation is a missleading title. Immedate change recommended. --Eldarone 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've moved the page, per the request listed at WP:RM, and the discussion here. I agree that the previous title was unintuitive and misleading. I've added a dablink in case anybody finds their way here when looking for The Mutants or The Mutants (San Francisco). -GTBacchus(talk) 03:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Can anybody explain to me the wikilinking of the word "Sport"?
- Agreed, it merely links to the athletic definition of sport, with a link back to mutant. I'm unlinking it. Noclevername 10:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Link #3 has died.
Isn't body hair or an extended tail an atavism, not a full mutation?
- It's both; In the cases you mentioned, the characteristic gets superceded by another gene which blocks the expression of the original genes. Absence of the blocking gene allows the earlier version to be expressed. (I'm an amateur, if someone with a background in genetics can explain it better it would be appreciated). Noclevername 23:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't every living thing subject to (admittedly mostly imperceivable) mutations and may thus be termed a mutant? If so, could we have it mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Mutant or developmental abnormality
Yesterday I came across some 'double' daisy, and I uploaded a picture of it onto Commons, calling it a mutant. But reading this article, I'm not so sure about that anymore. Do such strange forms always indicate a developmental abnormality rather than a mutation? Apdency (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- To my way of thinking (fruitfly genetics background) it would depend if it's heritable or not. I'd call it a mutant (in the genetic sense) if its offspring (either F1 or F2, depending if dominant or recessive) are also doubled. Otherwise, it might just be indicative of a developmental abnormality. -- Flyguy649 talk 18:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Flyguy. My intuition is that it's more likely to be a developmental abnormality, but crossing this with a regular daisy and intercrossing the offspring would be the way to tell. It might be a good idea to rename the file to indicate that it's not known for certain that it's a mutant. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I've seen very similar growth forms before in dandelions and in a euphorbia. I asked a lecturer of mine and they informed me it was most likely caused by a small dose of herbicide affecting the plant's development. I notice that you said you took the photograph at a nature reserve though so that seems unlikely. It's not impossible to see how the genes involved in flowering (see ABC model of flower development) could be disrupted so that it gained a linear form as well as being circular. You could of course test if it where genetic by gathering the seeds from the flower and growing them. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)