From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Reference 3 seems to describe "the development [or ontogeny] of a cell" rather than describing that the word ontogeny can be used in this setting. The word ontogeny is not used a single time in the article, and the whole thing seems more like a closed circle argument than an actual proof for what is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Was there any reason for the removal of content added by I was the person that added the information. I thought that simply saying recapitulation does not reflect evolution in an absolute sense without detailing the documented phenomena of recapitulation that reflects evolution in a more subtle manner was misleading. There are dozens of extremely convincing examples of recapitulation in nature that I think should be at least mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Comment at main page moved over[edit]

This kind of text gives evolutionary scientists who are actually trying to do good work a bad name. Babies do not have "gill pouches", or even the appearance of such. Do we really need more creationists slamming evolution for its erroneous/fraudulent evidences? In the face of such material still being purported, creationists can have a field day. Thank you so much Wikipedia for being a thorn in the side of scientists who are doing their best to fight off creationism with good science. (Moved IP user's comment from main article) NawlinWiki 11:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What does "this kind of text" refer to, the whole article? While I agree that there is danger of good science being misinterpreted as evidence of creationism, it is also important for scientists to recognise that neo-Darwinian evolution is not the only process in biology. The study of ontogeny and intentional moves away from (excessive) focus on genetics and evolution are valid scientific endeavours. Without clarification / specification as to what NawlinWiki is referring to, I don't see how this complaint can be addressed. --Weematt (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Ontogeny" or "Embryology"[edit]

I am a high school student planning to go into biochemistry in university, and one of the topics that I have learned in biology class was "Embryology". "Ontogeny" from this article sounds the same as "Embryology", but does anyone know which term is correct? Dilbert 23:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is my take on the terms. Ontogeny is concerned with the process of development in general, like plants and animals, single cell and multicellular, while embryology is specifically applied to the development of multicellular animals. One does not speak of an embryology of a plant, even if the seed is an embryo. Further, ontogeny addresses the cell cycle of prokaryotes, while embryology does not. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Search results for "Ontogenetic"[edit]

Can somebody please link this article to show up in the results for the search term "ontogenetic"? Currently (03 Aug 2006) searching for ontogeny leads to this page, but ontogenetic says that no entry exists. I don't know how to hook this up, otherwise, I would do it myself. Thanks in advance. --Fatmuttony 13:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Done already. DiptanshuTalk 04:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [1]Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced and incorrect material removed from page[edit]

I have just removed the following two sentences from the lead of the topic, because they are incorrect and are unreferenced/uncited:

Ontogeny, as opposed to phylogeny, refers to the history of an organism from birth, as opposed to its genetic makeup.
Ontogeny is to phylogeny as nurture is to nature, in reference to the Nature versus Nurture debate.

--AlotToLearn (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be incorrect AlotToLearn. I have just finished reading Wolfman (by Freud) and it does appear to have this value, although I cannot say this for certain concerning the nature/nurture issue. However, it does seem this way to me. You may have been too expeditious. However, my proposed Freud addition will make people ponder this question themselves and will serve as a properly sourced replacement for it.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It was correct of AlotToLearn to remove the material he did. Frued was not a biologist, but rather a psychologist and philosopher, as this is an article about the biological use of the term ontogeny. That being said, I would not recommend adding the material on the philosophy page either, as 'Wolfman'(Freud) is an outdated source and is nonrepresentative of contemporary use of the term 'ontogeny' in either the psychology field or in the life sciences. Fan Singh Long, are you sure your not confusing 'ontogeny' with 'oncology'? Additionally, the article page of wikipedia (fashioned as an online encyclopedia) is not the place to add "questionable" material in the way you describe, but a place to aggregate the most current factual information that is available. That being said, there is no such thing as a bad question and your input in the talk page is most appreciated.Russot1 (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Addition proposed[edit]

Ontogeny in Psychoanalysis[edit]

Ontogenesis in a psychoanalytical context is the development of the whole organism, viewed from the light of occurrences during the life, not in the last place in the pre-history of early childhood, which has become unconscious[1], according to Sigmund Freud. After the possibilities of ontogenesis have been exausted, phylogenesis might be explanatory of the development of a neurosis[2].

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The weekend is over and I see no comments. I think I will be bold about it.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lake ontogeny[edit]

Also used in limnology. Sometimes used wouthout adding the Lake.--MärgRätik (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Large overlap with Developmental biology - suggest merging[edit]

The pages Ontogeny and Developmental biology have a very large overlap, and should probably be merged, since Ontogeny is by definition more or less equal to Developmental biology. Fileunderwater (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of confusing and questionable definition in intro[edit]

In addition to cleaning up and reorganizing the intro, I have removed the below phrase from the intro section because it is ambiguous and confusing to the reader.

Removed sentence: "In more general terms, ontogeny is defined as the history of structural change in a unity, which can be a cell, an organism, or a society of organisms, without the loss of the degree and type of organization which allow that unity to exist.[3]"

Additionally the book cited is outdated (1987) and is not a life sciences reference book, but rather a book exploring philosophy, psychology and its relationship to biology. This is not to say that the source book is nonreputable, but rather that it is an inappropriate choice for deriving definitions. --Russot1 (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Text in picture: toes maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:700:303:3:218D:D6A9:12F7:FAF0 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Sigmund Freud, Wolfman, Penguin Books, Great Ideas, P113
  2. ^ Sigmund Freud, Wolfman, Penguin Books, Great Ideas, P112
  3. ^ Maturana, H. R., Varela F. J. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications Inc., page 74