Talk:Ovoviviparity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Animals (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Ovoviviparity is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Wiki seems to be in conflict with itself on this word. Is the proper term OVOVIVIPARITY or OVOVIVIPARY? I do not know whether it is an alternate spelling or an incorrect one. The latter seems more consistant with related terms.

PJLareau (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Both spellings are in use, based on a quick Google search. I got about 1,000 hits for "ovovivipary" and 14,000 for "ovoviviparity", so the latter seems to be much more widely used. Similarly, "viviparity" is more common than "vivipary". It would seem to me best to use the "-parity" forms. I have certainly heard that version more frequently, too. Tim Ross·talk 10:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Linguistically, the "parity" form makes more sense. It is much easier to pronounce. PJLareau (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Linguistically, neither form makes more sense, nor is one easier to pronounce than the other (if anything, -pary is shorter than -parity and thus arguably easier to pronounce). Perhaps you mean that -parity makes more sense morphologically to a native speaker of English (-parous-parity, with -ity more common or at least more recognisable as Latinate morpheme for deriving nouns from adjectives, not necessary but frequently with an ending -ous, which is then replaced with -ity), but speakers of other languages may have different intuitions. To me, -pary appears more "natural" or "correct", but that is probably because of my education in Latin. Moreover, parity is already a quite different concept. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Personally I grew up with "-parity", but I have seen "-pary", sometimes in the same document. There is nothing wrong with it and it is a simpler (more natural?) form. Generally I agree with Florian. This said, I don't see why any of us should get excited about it. There is no substantial reason to exclude either just because the other sometimes is more comfortable. JonRichfield (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It says that the young come out of the mother after hatching or just before hatching. If it's just before hatching, technically there'd be no distinction between that and oviparity, right? Whether the egg remains inside the mother for a subjectively "long" or "short" period, it obviously spends -some- time in there, so unless the egg spends the ENTIRE time in the mother's body there's technically not a distinction is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Technically" in this connection simply means that one is ignoring some practical considerations and being, in a word, simplistic. Consider Bradypodion for example. The young are "laid" in an afterbirth-like packet that the baby breaks out of immediately. That "packet" happens to be the eggshell. To insist on calling it "egg laying" as opposed to "giving birth" is unrealistic. Ovovivipary is quite the appropriate term, as opposed to ovipary. JonRichfield (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Rheobatrachus silus 1100x887.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Rheobatrachus silus 1100x887.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rheobatrachus silus 1100x887.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)