Talk:Sexual reproduction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Medicine / Reproductive medicine (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Untitled[edit]

What the hell is "Abuse of reproductive processes"? I'm deleting this header unless someone can explain it. Kaldari 23:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction in fishes?[edit]

So now there's no such thing as a creature known as "fish"???? Why are they left out of this article? I know they do reproduce sexually, all vertrebrates do... I know they do not fertilize each other male into female, they just leave the substances drift into each other with appropiate proximity at fecundation-time... I ignore the name of the process, that's what I was searching for... And to my surprise fishes are not mentioned at all!!!!!!!!!

The absolute majority of animals reproduce sexually. The very composition of this article seems pretty strange to me. 46.242.74.199 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Expand this thing pronto[edit]

The article doesn't even mention an iota about sexual reproduction of bacteria or other microorganisms. Someone who knows about the topic should help expand this article.

    • I have now added material on the sexual reproduction of bacteria. In particular, I have related meiosis and bacterial transformation as analogous sexual processes. Bernstein0275 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The article, as usual with Wikipedia, focuses way too much on human beings and related animals, as if humans were the only organisms that reproduce sexually. The article is way too anthropocentric.

The article should also mention the biological history of sexual reproduction. For example, it should mention the fossilized evidence that paleontologists have of sexual reproduction in earlier geological periods or even eras or eons.

Shame on the article.

Also, bacteria and plants and mammals should be mentioned before humans, because, taxonomically, they are considered "inferior".

Now look at this: "Mammal reproduction involves the insertion of the male sex organ into the female sex organ and the deposit of the male's sperm into the female through ejaculation." That sentence's so reductionistic. It treats the topic as if copulation were the only process that is part of reproduction. That's like saying that sexual reproductiion equals copulation. The sentence is not the same as the paragraph.

  • It doesn't mention gestation.
  • It doesn't mention more about meiosis.
    • I have now made the analogy between transformation and meiosis.Bernstein0275 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Note the construction of the sentence. It starts with "Mammal reproduction involves [...]". And then it just mentions copulation. Nothing else.

Then, I don't see why it uses the word "pregnancy" instead of "gestation" for mammals in general. The word "gestation" is used for mammals. Non-human mammals are not the same as humans.

Nice. It uses the term "gestation period". But why does it then use the word "pregnacy" intead of "gestation"? Then, why does the article use the term "childbirth"? Offspring are offspring. Children are children. Children are human. Offspring, not necessarily. So your pets have "children" instead of "offspring"? Why aren't cloacas mentioned under "Female reproductive system" under mammals? Monotremes are mammals too, for heaven's sake! 2004-12-29T22:45Z 05:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll deal with each of your objections as you bring them
First, bacteria do NOT reproduce sexually. From bacteria: "Bacteria reproduce only asexually, not sexually." Second, the section that has already been created, but empty merely because I do not have any knowledge of it, titled "Other forms of sexual reproduction" is obviously meant to house information about microorganisms that do reproduce sexually.
Second, you accuse the article for being anthropocentric, which is way off. There is a section of the article titled "Reproduction in mammals", which uses humans as a reference, because all readers of Wikipedia are human and have experience with human reproduction, which is an excellent model for all mammals. This section SHOULD focus on humans and related animals. There are, obviously other sections, which are regretfully empty, but nonetheless, it is clear that this article is supposed to contain non-anthropocentric information. Further, the introduction puts forth a definition of sexual reproduction which embraces all methods, regardless of species. This is the general presentation of sexual reproduction, which should be followed by as many specific examples as possible.
You're right about the archaeological evidence about the history of sexual reproduction, but the article merely needs to be expanded; it does not need clean up and is neutral.
I'm not sure how taxonomical "inferiority," whatever that is, is any reason to decide how to organize this article. As humans, most people reading about sexual reproduction would best understand by beginning with what they are familiar - humans. From there, it is more easy to draw analogies and describe the reproductive processes of other organisms.
If you would read the whole paragraph, it would become clear that the article actually does refer to gestation and meiosis; you may feel that more needs to be said, which is fair enough. The sentence itself, "Mammal reproduction involves..." does not mean that the sentence encapsulates the entirety of mammal reproduction, merely that sexual intercourse is a part of it, which it obviously is. The following sentences clearly elaborate on what else mammal reproduction involves.
I agree on your issue with using pergnancy and childbirth. I stuck with childbirth for the sake of having something more detailed to link to; there is no one article about birth in general, only one on childbirth. Perhaps one should be written.
Cloacas are not mentioned because they are the exception to the rule; I feel it would not be beneficial to list every way mammals reproduce. Instead, a caveat that most mammals reproduce this way, but not all, should be inserted, and other methods be included in an appropriate section. Jamesmusik 07:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Replying 2004-12-29T22:45Z[edit]

The part of the article that you've mark "disputed" was originally split from the reproduction article from the section "human reproduction". However, merging and splitting hasn't been complete yet, therefore the heading "human reproduction" is not added till now. Deryck C. 07:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Deryck Chan's edits[edit]

I do not understand how this division has helped at all. Now both the humans section and the mammal section are full of information about humans and most of it overlaps. I suggest we begin with a complete discussion of human reproduction and then dicuss differences and exceptions to the general rule that mammals reproduce the same way in a separate section. Please let me know what you think. Jamesmusik 13:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

4 sections: human, other mammals, flowering plants, other sexual reps. For the first 3 sections each leading to its relevant articles (ie. the first 3 are intros to other articles) Deryck C. 15:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction in bacteria?[edit]

  • Are you pretty sure that some bacteria do not reproduce sexually? Are you sure the article about bacteria is not generalizing unnecessarily?
  • Clarification about natural history: I said paleontology, not archeology. Paleontology is the study of ancient organisms, while archeology is the study of what humans leave behind. Again, if you mentioned archeology instead of paleontology, that would be anthropocentric, in my own personal opinion. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The only thing approaching sexual reproduction in bacteria is what's called Bacterial conjugation, which is not reproduction at all, because you begin with 2 organisms and end with 2.
Sorry I changed the wording. It's irrelevant though, since I have no experience with either. Hopefully someone will come along to add that information. Jamesmusik 18:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In 1958, there were a group of people awarded the Nobel Prize for finding "sexual recombination" in bacteria. Isn't "sexual recombination" a form of sexual reproduction, or is it just a misnomer? See also genetic recombination. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No, this is not sexual reproduction. As the name suggests, it involves a recombination of genetic material passed between two organisms. The end result is still only 2 organisms. Reproduction, by definition, involves the creation of a new organism. Jamesmusik 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You say that reproduction involves "the creation of a new organism". If, in the beginning, you have two organisms, and they create two different organisms, then those two resulting organisms are "new organisms", or not? They are not more in number, but they're "new". Two "old" organims create two "new" organisms. So isn't that considered "sexual reporduction"?2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No, first of all the exchange is one direction only, so only one bacterium would be "new," but it is not really new at all; it is made entirely of the same material and at its core the same organism, only with some DNA added. Jamesmusik 19:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the following part of a MedicineNet.com article about Joshua Lederberg wrong?

"Lederberg's work, which formed the basis for his Ph.D. dissertation, demonstrated that bacteria can in fact reproduce through sexual recombination, and opened up the genetics of microorganisms to the traditional methods of the field."

(Source: http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:x0nMzJcZbeQJ:www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp%3Farticlekey%3D24828+%22sexual+recombination%22+1958&hl=en)

Note that it says that "bacteria can in fact reproduce through sexual recombination". It says, "reproduce". Is that wrong? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

They are using 'reproduce' in an overly broad sense. Reproduction, in the sense I believe this article is intending, is the creation of new organisms, leading to an increase in the population of those organisms. "Reproduction" through sexual recombination, no matter how quickly achieved, would always result in the extermination of a species if it were the sole method of "reproduction," because it is not true reproduction, merely transfer. For instance, you have two bacteria, doomed to die within 24 hours; they exchange DNA, but are still doomed to die within 24 hours. Reproduction, at least in the sense we're after here is the process of creating new organisms which begin anew the life cycle. Jamesmusik 19:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Expanding the sexual reproduction article[edit]

First of all, when an "expansion template" is put on an article, the custom is to put the template on the "discussion page" or "talk page", or whatever it's called. That's why the template says something like "elsewhere on this discussion page". At least, that's the custom. Specifically, it says "See the request on the listing or elsewhere on this discussion page.". Or at least, put it on the article, since template talk:expansion says, "Add the template {{Expansion}} to the article or its discussion page. (Consensus is not yet reached on which is preferred. See discussion here and Wikipedia:Template locations.)", becuase I don't think this article is expanded.

What I think is that this article should talk more about the biological evolution of sexual reproduction. For example, it should state how sexual reproduction started. It should say, for example, that sexual reproduction started with small eucaryotes about 1.2 billion yeras ago in the Precambrian. Then it should say how sexually reproducing organisms evolved through time, how anthophytes (flowering plants) came to existence, and so on, until we reach the time period of Homo sapiens (humans). 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If you want an article to be expanded, you should put the expansion tag on the article itself. I agree it should be expanded, but your last edit on the article was to remove the expansion tag. The talk page doesn't need expanding, the article does, so leave the tag there. As for your suggestions, I would say they would make the current page overly long and instead a separate page, perhaps Evolution of Sexual Reproduction would be more appropriate. Jamesmusik 23:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
If you want to talk about "how sexually reproducing organisms evolved through time" try expanding on Evolution of Genders this stub needs some help. (UKPhoenix79 21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

I don't think mentioning evolution would make the article longer, since mentioning evolution gives the article a more "natural" sequence. You start with the "lower" organisms (organisms that are less "related" to humans) and then you go through evolution until you reach the "higher" organisms and humans. Making a separate article right now is not economical, since this very article is not expanded. I think that this article should be expanded first, and if it grows, then you make a separate article. The topic of evolution gives the article a sequence for the sections. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I just changed the template. Now it says, "the corresponding discussion page" instead of "this discussion page". 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that such a sequence would give the article a "natural" sequence. It is more natural and considerably simpler to begin with what one is familiar with. Jamesmusik 00:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mammalian reproduction[edit]

I suggest splitting the mammalian reproduction section into another article. Deryck C. 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the section or article is currently long enough to warrant that. James 17:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
So leave it. I thought it'll be a good suggestion if we have an article series on reproduction. Deryck C. 17:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The following line is troubling:

In primates, the sexual partner for each primate is monogamously specific. For most other mammals, males and females occasionally exchange sexual partners.

I am not a primatologist, but my understanding is that many primate species are not, as a rule, monogamous. Many humans certainly have non-monogamous partners. The wording of the sentence about other mammals implies that monogamy is the default, although some trading of partners does occur. These looks to me like the kind of "facts" that support a moral agenda. Someone with a biology background needs to add the correct, objective information. Craigbutz 17:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it flies in the face of most facts about sexuality in mammals. - Marshman 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Marsupials[edit]

Currently the marsupial section of the article begins

Marsupials reproduce in essentially the same manner, though their young are born at a far earlier stage of development than other mammals

Could someone knowledgeable please clarify this?

  1. This section is immediately after the one for the Monotremes, which would suggest that "essentially the same manner" refers to monotremes, not placental mammals, except the "are born at a far earlier stage of development" doesn't make sense in that context.
  2. Shouldn't Marsupials be indented one level to make it another subsection of Mammals?

Thanks, Bruce Kiore (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've replaced the section with the relevant part of Evolution of mammals#Metatheria as it answered my question and more while covering everything that was in the marsupials section. Kiore (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Female+female reproduction[edit]

This wasn't in the article, nor in any of the other articles that I could see. I have been curious to know if two females could successfully reproduce by fusing two eggs together? In a world where animals are cloned, I'm sure this could be done. The resulting embryo would have two X chromosomes, just like a normal female. I started thinking about this after reading about lesbian couples who go through lengthy adoption processes and wondered if this was the future for same sex females. (Obviously this wouldn't work for two men since one X is needed) Does anyone know if there has been any research on this and if there is a wikipedia article about it? Thanks. Dukemeiser 03:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that has been done (once) in the lab, but that does not happen in nature, at all, ever. This article is currently covering natural sexual reproduction. Commentary on the female-female and male-male (half of men's sperm have X-chromosomes, just insert two sperm into an egg that's been stripped of it's own nucleus) reproduction would be better put in assisted reproductive technology. Lyrl Talk Contribs 12:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Plant reproduction screwy[edit]

I just corrected the paragraph on plant reproduction as it was plain incorrect. Pollen grains are not gametes - they are multicellular gametophytes consisting of a pollen tube cell and two sperm cells (in angiosperms - gymnosperm pollen grains even have eight cells). Ovules in plants are not gametes either - they contain multicellular female gametophytes. In angiosperms, one cell out of eight is an egg cell. In gymnosperms, the female gametophyte can have thousands of cells and develops archegonia which produce the egg cell(s). Flowering plants do double fertilization after successful pollination. "Lower" plants like ferns and mosses do it differently again altogether and depend on water for fertilization via motile sperm cells. - tameeria 04:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Need a sentence adding!!![edit]

So... does it actually say anywhere within the first paragraph or two what sexual reproduction actually is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.9.132 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It does now. The first paragraph was removed by vandalism, nearly four months ago. I've put it back. Graham87 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds[edit]

Amphibians, reptiles, and birds should be mentioned in the article. From what I recall, amphibians reproduce in a manner very similar to fish, whereas most reptiles are much like monotremes. Some reptiles give live birth, but since this trait evolved independently of live birth in mammals, it may differ in substantial aspects. An improved version of the article should include all of these. --Speight (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Or these should be part of the more general missing subtitles Viviparity and Oviparity? 66.11.179.30 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agency[edit]

If, in this transit, it meets with sperm, the egg selects sperm with which to merge; this is termed fertilization.

This seems to give an egg a lot of agency. Is the ovum really selecting the sperm with which to merge? Does it really have discretion over the matter? Should we not use a more specific term than "selects"? --Mr.98 (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the egg is really selecting, and it only merges with one sperm. That section needs citations, but I'm not the person to find them. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Main article links[edit]

Is there some way to remove the hash-marks (#) from these links? I've attempted a few clever tricks, without success. Perhaps, instead of "Main article" links, these should be changed to "For further information..." 'Hatnotes', e.g.:

For further information, see the subsection on Reproductive system in the Marsupial article.

Presumably, this is the proper way to do this when referring to a sub-section, rather than a page title. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC) - I went ahead and changed most, but couldn't figure out how to 'fix' the multiple "See also..." links under 'Mammals' section. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

See Template:Main, which documents parameters to the template that can do this. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I've reviewed the documentation again, and there still doesn't seem to be a means of formatting 'See also' template for multiple links with user-defined names. - I manually formatted a 'Hatnote' instead. Looks as it should; whatever... Done. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"It occurs both in eukaryotes and in prokaryotes."[edit]

It can be decided the meaning of sex in this article. Sex (in the meaning of sexual reproduction - the process of combining and mixing genetic traits, associated with the generation of new individuals) don't occurs in prokaryotes. Sex (in the meaning of mixing genetic traits solely) occurs between them. Bacteria exchange DNA, but it is not a means of reproduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.56.5.101 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The citations given in the lead paragraph are authoritative. Sex is often defined in eukaryotes as fertilization, a subtly different definition from combining and mixing genetic material. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The line "It occurs both in eukaryotes and prokaryotes" is false and misleading. A process that is similar to sex occurs in prokaryotes but this does not lead to sexual reproduction which is the subject of this article. The misleading line cites footnote 3 which links to the science article "Adaptive value of sex in microbial pathogens" [1] The science article states: "Although sex is usually thought of as a means of reproduction, this is not always the case. Indeed, in many groups—including viruses, bacteria and most of lower eukaryotes, sex is un-coupled from reproduction;" Again, I must point out that sex in prokaryotes does not lead to reproduction so the article is wrong to claim that it does. I'm changing the article. RonCram (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
RonCram, what you added is not sourced, while was was there does seem to have been sourced (I'll read that source later to see). We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, per WP:Verifiability. And like WP:Verifiability states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Sminthopsis84, what say you on RonCram's above comment and changes to the article? Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, RonCram, looking above at the quote you cited from the source, it is definitely wrong for that source to have been used to support something it does not support. Again, I'll read the source later. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, I don't remember a source ever describing bacteria as truly sexually reproducing either; it's considered inaccurate to classify archaea (which also reproduce asexually) as bacteria, though, in modern times. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I did a quick search through the source before making my subsequent edit; the linked PDF file is difficult to read with my screen reader. As far as I could tel, it hardly mentions Prokaryotes at all. Graham87 06:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Flyer22 for calling my attention to the activity on this page. I'd say that RonCram has a point that the page title is Sexual reproduction so sex without reproduction is another matter. The article as it stands is not particularly helpful to the reader, though. It seems to me that we need another page, perhaps called Sex (genetic mechanisms), because the page called Sex is entirely devoted to the sexes that occur in sexually reproducing organisms. Is anyone up to the challenge of making a draft of such a page? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Sex article also covers asexual reproduction, as it should. If asexual reproduction is considered underdeveloped there, the solution is to further expand material on it there. I don't think that creating a Sex (genetic mechanisms) article is a solution, and this is because I think it would only lead to more confusion and I'm generally not a fan of WP:Spin out articles; I think they should only be created when needed, and I don't see one as needed in this case. Besides, unless WP:Reliable sources discuss sex in such a way, as "sex (genetic mechanisms)," I don't think it's wise for Wikipedia to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I struck out the line above because I was confusing that article with the Reproduction article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
But, yeah, we already have the Asexual reproduction and Reproduction articles to cover reproduction among prokaryotes. And what I see when Googling sex genetic mechanisms is mostly information about sex determination and differentiation, and Wikipedia apparently has enough articles about that. Flyer22 (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't think wikipedia currently has adequate coverage of the material that used to be here, what sex actually is in eukaryotes and bacteria and archaea. Genetic exchangeability goes to gene flow, … it's a mess. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Transformation is sex, conjugation is not?[edit]

Why can bacterial transformation be considered as a form of sex, while conjugation is not? The transforming bacteria do not need a partner, they can take up and integrate any DNA from their environment, regardless of it's origin. It doesn't even need to be of the same species. On the other hand, conjugation is a process, where two bacteria from the same species change genetic material directly. It sounds more like a sexual process to me.

Also, the article at present form is totally incoherent with the articles bacterial conjugation and transformation. Kenadra (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sexual Reproduction in Bacteria[edit]

Scientific citations needed for this. One has to look at this in the cellular level... for instance if binary fission is similar to mitosis how about transformation , conjugation, transduction - is there a meiotic similarity to be called sexual reproduction ? Deeply contrasting and comparing the two and by sticking to the fact that a cell is one individual organism the more comprehensive is the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.12.104 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

See #"It occurs both in eukaryotes and in prokaryotes." discussion above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I. Savillo's statement-Comparison: Mitosis is binary fission; Meiosis 1 is conjugation , transformation, transduction, Meiosis 2 is mitosis... therefore if this person who wrote this means ( but they do not lead to reproduction. Prokaryotes reproduce through asexual reproduction)... referring to binary fission as a source of reproduction in bacteria... there is also meiosis 2 in higher org which is mitosis or binary fission too... get it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.12.104 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is just to show the validity of the use of sexual reproduction in bacteria. In meiosis (higher org) it is more complicated but as a whole there is comparative mechanism with the bacteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.8.70 (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Logical quotation[edit]

@Flyer22: Per this edit summary, the logical quotation guideline applies to all quotation marks, not just quotes. Graham87 02:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where that's clear in the guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It's under the subheading "Quotation marks". Graham87 14:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You're talking about MOS:QUOTEMARKS; I see where it states, "The term quotation in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as those for titles of songs, chapters, episodes, unattributable aphorisms, literal strings, 'scare-quoted' passages, and constructed examples. Quotation marks existing in other sources should be changed to match the format described below when being brought into Wikipedia." And I see that WP:Logical quotation is a subsection of it, but WP:Logical quotation focuses on sentences; it does not address quotation marks by themselves. Anyway, I should ask about this at the guideline's talk page. Maybe they'll make the guideline clearer on this matter. I have seen others do what you did. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Positioning[edit]

At a minimum, this page should reflect the content of the parent page Reproduction that refers to it. That positions it in the hierarchy of biological pages. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

New Suggestions[edit]

There should be a small focus on the different types of sexual reproduction. Some examples could be autogamy and allogamy. There could also be a discussion about internal and external reproduction.

Another addition could talk about how population size determines if sexual reproduction actually is beneficial in the ways that are suggested within this article. Certain articles suggest that population size determines how quickly an adaptation within a trait will be fixed in a population.

Finally, a section at the beginning of the article should be included about the start of life and explaining the use of asexual reproduction. This would give a perspective as to what occurred before the evolution of sexual reproduction and help to support the fact that sexual reproduction appears to be more widely beneficial than asexual reproduction for many organisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strange.33 (talkcontribs) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)