Talk:Chromosomal polymorphism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Wrong title for article!

The title of this article should be Karyotype variation becuse that's what the content is about. I know some people use terms like polymorphism loosely, but the phrase chromosomal polymorphism has a 70-year history in classical genetics and cytology, and this should be respected. The refernces given suggest rather strongly that classical sources have not been consulted.

References:

Painter T.S. 1933. A new method for the study of chromosome rearrangements and the plotting of chromosome maps. Science 78: 585-586.
Dobzhansky T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species. 3rd ed, Columbia University Press, New York
Dobzhansky T. 1970. Genetics of the evolutionary process. Columbia University Press N.Y.
[Dobzhansky T.] 1981. Dobzhansky's genetics of natural populations. eds Lewontin RC, Moore JA, Provine WB and Wallace B. Columbia University Press N.Y.
Ford E.B. 1975. Ecological genetics. 4th ed. Chapman & Hall, London.
White M.J.D. 1973 The chromosomes. 6th ed, Chapman & Hall, London.
White M.J.D. 1973. Animal cytology and evolution. 3rd ed, Cambridge University Press, London.

I'm suggesting change the title to Karyotype variation or (if you can't bear losing that word) Karyotype polymorphism. Macdonald-ross 20:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather expand the page than move it. I wrote most of this thing, and have asked several times for a more competent review. As I understand it, what you would call "Karyotype variation" is a subset of the more general concept, and would properly be included as a subsection of a more complete article. Any good online references you can point me at to correct the flaws? Kww 21:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you might look at Dobzhansky 1951 and Ford 1975 as a minimum. It really is necessary to go to the people who made the advances wherever possible -- and read their books! The web has its limitations. However, I notice in the link to Genetics and the Origin of Species there's another link to a more recent colloquium on Dobzhansky's ideas. And you could look at Polymorphism (biology), which is based on classic ecological genetics. Polymorphism is not synonymous with variation, it's a much more specific term.

The term Karyotype was invented pretty much for the things your article discusses. It is the correct term for what you want to discuss. Macdonald-ross 20:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]