Talk:Developmental biology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Developmental biology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Don't forget the mouse as a model system! Sjoerd de Vries

Exactly my thoughts! I think that it would be good to have all developmental model systems listed here, but not in the text of the article. I'll put the most important ones in the text, and all of them will be listed at the end of the article. AdamRetchless 01:34, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We could use zebra fish,drosophila, and nematodes too as model organisms.GetAgrippa 20:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I made links for the model systems. It would be nice to have the scientific names listed and have information about the development of each of those model systems. I don't know if development should go in the species' main page or in a separate page, such as "Chicken (development)" AdamRetchless 03:07, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe some thought should be given to the role of Wikibooks in the presentation of this material. Where do we draw the line between what should be here in wikipedia and what should be in a Developmental Biology textbook at Wikibooks? Anyhow, to answer you question, I would vote for pages like Chicken (development). Some day we might want to use such separate pages as starter material for the wiki Developmental Biology textbook.
Good point. We obviously need to keep the encyclopedia article to a managable size. Maybe we should make a template page for reference. Anyway, I think the Wikipedia article should cover
  • Why the organism is a good model organism
  • The basic life cycle including major processes/stages in development. It would also be nice to point out homology to stages/processes in other organisms.
  • Mention important tools/techniques with this organism? (such as Quail-Chick chimeras)
  • Ignore molecular interactions except in the most general terms (morphogens, maternal mRNA, etc) AdamRetchless
I vote for a complete move of the section "Molecular mechanisms of development" to Wikibooks instead. This article can't be a collection of everything that possibly belongs to Developmental biology. Everything can be found by clicking the links, and just links to the complete field of this study is going to be enough to make a very, very long article. A summary can be done in that Wikibook, if it is possible to make a summary of the subject at all. Mikael Häggström 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to study five organisms (frog, fish, chick, mouse, fly) for an upcoming exam, so maybe I'll write articles for them as a way of studying. I'll try to be complete and direct future contributors to the textbook project. AdamRetchless 01:51, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think developmental biology is one of the general subfields of biology as well, what do you think? If so, I would like to add it to the footer, but up to now I couldn't find the page.. Could somebody send me the link? Thanks, Nina 12:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Added to footer. When you go to edit the page, links to the templates that appear on the page show up; to edit one of the templates (such as the footer template), just follow the link. --Eric Forste 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Expansion request[edit]

I came here to find a description of fertilized human eggs turn into babies, and I didn't find it, or a link to it. -- Beland 05:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I would also expect to find such info or links on other pages. Shouldn't there be a navigation bar that sequences human development? I'm looking at Gestation, Morphogenesis, Embryogenesis, Embryo, Embryology, Fertilisation, Childbirth, Fetus, and these articles and concepts are not very well connected. -- Beland 06:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This article needs more links to other pages in general. The "studied phenomena" section in also disjointed and needs to be more directed/focused. Links to the above mentioned terms, as well as other key terms in development should be included. Jtrivedi92 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


Does anyone happen to know any embryologists? I think Embryology really needs a lot of expert attention. would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [1]Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC) .

I think the embryology need infrastructure for a reference to developmental biology artilce. The embryology really needs a big picture page, because a number of embryology topics already have detailed articles. In the embryology article you can highlight cardiovasculature or nervous system embryology and then in developmental biology article talk about the cellular and molecular biology aspects of these developmental processes.GetAgrippa 02:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! Will you start work on that? (I am simply not qualified) Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have been working on other interest as of late, and I was prepared to work on Evodevo next. I feel comfortable with vertebrate embryology, but not invertebrate. I'll try to write some, but may just vomit a bunch of information on the talk page and let others edit, choose, and write the article. I'll try to work on it soon. GetAgrippa 17:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Never let me get in the way of your working on evo-devo!! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

cleanup of concents of developmental biology[edit]

I think that this section should be cleaned up. As it is right now, the section is worthless. There are important concepts in there and these should be organized and defined. A lot of the concepts aren't important enough to be on this main page and should be linked from other pages. --Eubanks718 15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Overlap with Ontogeny[edit]

This page has a large overlap with Ontogeny (which it failed to link to - I have added link now), and the pages should probably be merged. Ontogeny is after all defined as the development/developmental history of individual organisms (usually including origin/fertilization). Fileunderwater (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Additions[edit]

I propose to add a section on organogenesis before the section on metamorphosis. It is important to understand how the basic organism begins to function before it morphologically changes. I also think that definitions of, or at least links to articles regarding mesoderm, ectoderm, and endoderm ought to be added to the section on cell differentiation. -Estephe9 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Since organogenesis is part of embryogenesis it should instead be a subsection of the embryonic development section which currently precedes the metamorphosis section.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


This is an important field of study for both undergraduate (e.g., pre-med) and post-grad students / researchers. Developmental Biology = Comparative Embryology. This seminal area of biology requires a history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosware (talkcontribs) 01:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Major edit to Developmental Biology[edit]

I am proposing to update and make more logical the entry on Developmental Biology. I don't doubt that this is looked at by a lot of students but the current version is out of date and idiosyncratic. I'd like to make it more systematic and relevant for students. I shall also aim to improve the literature citations. Jonathan Slack JMWSlack (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


Yes, I agree with a recent edit comment, that there is too much detail in the section about plants. I put it here to have something about plants to balance the text about animals AND because it fits better here than in Plant morphology. Should we make yet another copy in Plant development and reduce the version that is here? We could then make a similar reduction in Plant morphology --Ettrig (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Really not in favour of multiple copying from material of unevaluated quality, followed by the difficult process of deciding what shape is actually needed and attempting to force square pegd into round holed. It is almost always better to think out what is required in each article and edit that afresh, with the best sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of the quality, this text was already in Wikipedia and uncontested. Now it is (also) in an article where it fits better. The suggestion was to copy it to an article where it fits even better. With that copy in place we would be justified to cut down drastically on the first two copies. I hope we agree that both Plant morphology and Developmental biology shall have some introductory text on Plant development. In essence the suggestion is a low effort operation to cut the copies dow to the "right size". This can be done today. The two alternatives are so different in scope and effort that I don't really see a conflict. --Ettrig (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Development = Ontogeny[edit]

This article begins: Developmental biology is the study of the process by which animals and plants grow and develop, and is synonymous with ontogeny. I have difficulties sorting statements between subject area and phenomenon. This article is about a subject area. The article ontogeny is about a phenomenon. Is ontogeny both a subject area and a phenomenon? Nevertheless, (1) if it is both then it is still rather confusing than clarifying to state this synonymy without further explanation. (2) Is it true that developmental biology is limited to animals and plants? What about fungi? (3) Is ontogeny limited to multicellular organisms? Is development also? In one book I found a description of the development of a virus. In this article, the development of a cell is called differentiation. It is also called specialization. (4) Wouldn't it be more straight forward to call it development? We would then have development on at least two levels, cell and multicellular organism. Regardless of what is best, we must use the prevailing terminology. Do cells develop? --Ettrig (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I've said "their ontogeny", i.e. ontogeny is the process. On the broader question, the article is desperately out of date and seriously under-cited, in other words it needs a rewrite. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)