Talk:Reproduction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Reproduction 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Supplemental (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

See Also - Digital reproduction. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.138.249 (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lottery Principle?[edit]

I know it's a good way of explaining it, but maybe the facts in it could be incorporated INTO the article? It just seems to be abit sudden when I was reading the article.Chessmanlau (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

it seems to have been done. Another more serious problem is that the article contradicts itself. From one side we have the two sentences: "When environmental factors are favorable, asexual reproduction is employed to exploit suitable conditions for survival "
AND
"When food sources have been depleted, the climate becomes hostile, or individual survival is jeopardized by some other adverse change in living conditions, these organisms switch to sexual forms of reproduction."
and "The lottery principle is less accepted these days because of evidence that asexual reproduction is more prevalent in unstable environments, the opposite of what it predicts." [citation needed]
The question is then: does asexual reproduction occur in stable or unstable environments? Thanks for your help. Clementvidal (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

The grammar on this page is not standard. My guess would be that it has been translated from German or Latin.

Be bold and improve! :-) --Menchi 04:25, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Separate articles on sex / asex reproduction[edit]

We could really do with this, unless it is already here under a different name... Anyone got any ideas? Mark Richards 21:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

May 2005 (UTC)

Marxism uses reproduction as a term to describe the social process of creating the material and social aspects of society Fifelfoo 05:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration Nominations[edit]

This article lacked just ONE vote of support necessary to get it to survive as one of the Collaberations of the Week, but it looks like it's dead, now. I revived the Science Collaboration of the Week and nominated it there, so the notice has been added to this talk page. Toothpaste 6 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)


'Reproductive success' (?)[edit]

The term reproductive success links to this page. RS is a technical term with a precise definition, not touched upon in this entry. --Pete.Hurd 9 July 2005.

Dominance[edit]

I disagree with the recent edit to remove the statement that sexual reproduction has the advantage of being able to mask "bad" genes. While not all dominant genes are good and not all recessive ones are bad, it is certainly the case that species survive better because they can mask those bad genes that are recessive. Perhaps I worded it poorly, but I think it is a sentiment that needs to be included. Jamesmusik 17:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Species survive better because good traits get selected for, not because they mask bad genes. With sexual reproduction, every generation the offspring are slightly different from each other. The ones with good (or "better") genes end up having more offspring themselves. That's how alleles get selected for. It is not the case that species survive better just because good dominant genes mask bad recessive ones. As you said, not all dominant genes are good and not all recessive ones are bad. It's just how the genes work in their environment. Alex.tan 01:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it's just because good dominant genes mask bad recessive ones that species survive better. It is, however, undeniable that more individuals of species survive when disadvantageous traits are masked by more advantageous ones. For instance, the incidences of cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy and phenylketonuria are much lower than they would be otherwise, simply because the alleles that cause them are recessive. Jamesmusik 07:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying that you're saying that it's "only because". I am saying that genes will get selected for based on their ability to help the species cope with its environment. Even apparently "bad" recessive genes stick around sometimes because they might have some unforseen good values too. That's another of the strenghts of sexual reproduction - keeping a larger variety of genes in the pool alive. For the sake of the argument, your statement "It is, however, undeniable that more individuals of species survive when disadvantageous traits are masked by more advantageous ones", is sadly wrong. Now, I personally don't know any competitive advantage to having the cystic fibrosis or spinal muscular atrophy genes but I do know that there are many recessive genes for hemoglobinopathies such as thalassemia, sickle cell anemia and so on where the "defective" bad genes used to make a big difference in survival because individuals who had those genes were resistant to malaria. It was the case that malaria was so widespread in the world (and still is, to some extent) that having these bad, recessive genes gave you a survival advantage. Now that we have good treatments for malaria, those genes just seem bad to most people. Similarly there might be some situation where there is a competitive advantage to having the CF gene but just because I can't think of one does not mean that there isn't one. So there are some environments where some genes are good and others where these genes are not. More members of the species survive when their gene mix is suited to the environment, not because they have more advantageous dominant genes ::::::You seem to be missing my point entirely. I'm not saying that masking deleterious genes is more important than or has contributed more to selection than the free and quick exchange of DNA in sexual reproduction, but that it is an advantage, nonetheless, to be able to mask deleterious genes, a point clearly made by both of those articles above. In particular, Otto and Goldstein put forth and substantially prove the "masking hypothesis" that masking is so advantageous that it leads to diploidy in the presence of free recombination. Jamesmusik 01:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, in that case, please go ahead and fix the article to reflect that. I just removed it because the way it was stated before, it sounded like you wanted it to say that that was the most important or only reason for you have it described now, removes the objections I had, with the possible exception of the singular "ancestor" - Marshman 04:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, evolution is typically defined as change in allele frequency in a gene pool over time, the phrase "species populations" is a bit unusual, but I know what you mean. It's a different question from whether there is a single individual which is the ancestor to all living things, or a single living ancestor to all humans. That the species Homo sapiens does not have a single original individual who was dichotomously not the same species as his/her parents is different from saying that there is no Mitochondrial

The meiosis picture is a piece of ... art[edit]

A pair of homologous chromosomes in each daughter nuclei II (haploid!) is especially fabulous. TG nb4est(at)yahoo.com

Add it if you find suitable. Deryck C. 13:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't like brackets?[edit]

Parentheses are a legitimate punctuation. I do not understand why you think they should be removed from writing. Also, some of your other changes completely destroy the flow of the sentences. It is possible to simply use shorter sentences, although that may or may not improveme understanding. Nonetheless, certain words (such as "that") are helpful to establish relationships between different parts of a sentence. While I agree, there are many ways to say the same thing, on the whole your changes have not been an improvement on the English. - Marshman 17:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

My real concern is that the overuse of brackets made the passage look weird as if the footnotes were mixed into the main passage. Deryck C. 08:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Been so long I hardly recall what the "dispute" was about. BTW, those are parentheses not "brackets". And, in a very real sense, parentheses are a form of mixing footnotes into text. Many ideas are important to the presentation in a written passage, but some may seem (to the author) somewhat peripheral to the main flow of thought or main point. Footnotes are a valid way of handling such "parallel" contributing ideas. But Wikipedia is not really set up to use footnotes in that manner (can be done, but is better suited to printed media). Parenthesis are another option. Thoughts in parentheses are meant to be taken as "extra" information, important, but outside the main thrust of the sentence. THe informatio is frequently a clarification of the word or thought preceeding. Note use of parantheses in this paragraph; the sentence could stand alone, but some readers will ask "why do you say Wikipedia is not set up..." The related ideas could be separated by a semi-colon or even a printer's m. Parentheses are just one option for a writer to order the thoughts being conveted. - Marshman 19:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
IMO it'd be a lot better if we use commas instead of parenthesis to enclose parenthesal notes into the passage. Deryck C. 02:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Rename to "Biological reproduction"[edit]

The category is "Biological reproduction". The page name should be also. There is a redirect in the way, but I will signal for an admin to do the rename if there are no objections. -- Fplay 01:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction[edit]

I apologize for the poor phrasing of my edit, but I do have some concerns with the accuracy of the current sexual reproduction section. It says that all species "have two different adult sexes". But earthworms, for example, are all hermaphroditic. Plant species also commonly produce both male (pollen) and female gametes in the same plant. These organisms do not have two different adult sexes. Also, from "Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation" by evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson, there are a few rare species (including slime moulds) that have many sexes, not just two. Again, these species do not have two different adult sexes.Lyrl 19:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the point you are making is a good one. Reverting was not the best way to correct the error or two you introduced. Look for an appropriate place to put it back in and I can help you edit it to satisfactory condition. You might consider adding it instead at Sexual reproduction which needs help - Marshman 18:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
When people talk about Sexual reproduction they mostly mean Gender reproduction (ie Male/Female). But there is another class of reproduction Hermaphroditic reproduction which both partners have male & female reproductive organs. I believe that these pages should be created talking about the specifics of their reproduction techniques. Also the stub Evolution of Genders which is a related topic needs some help. I hope that I'm not straying too far from the topic by asking for assistance. (UKPhoenix79 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

Anisogamy & gamete names[edit]

I'm short on sleep, so I could be having a brain-fart, but this sentence makes no sense to me:

"Most organisms form two different types of gametes. In anisogamous species, these two types are referred to as male and female"

Don't you mean "sperm" and "egg" here, rather than "male" and "female"? Pete.Hurd 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This article (and the one at Sexual reproduction) suffers from a confusion of concepts between sex cells (gametes) and the organisms that produce the sex cells. The correct sense here should follow consistently through the text (or certainly within a paragraph), and I think it is about the organisms involved, not the gametes. Further rewrite is certainly in order. - Marshman 03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
They're not particularly confusable concepts. I don't think there's a serious need to consistentify articles. Just use gametes sperm and eggs when talking abou tgametes spem and eggs and adults, organisms, males and females when talking about them. Shouldn't take much effort to fix in this article. As for Sexual reproduction I'd say it's got more serious problems (It would be nice to see less of a taxonomic focus, some discussion of fun sex things like meiotic drive (oof! there's no meiotic drive article?!), and maybe a nice clear discussion of the difference between sexual reproduction and conjugation). Pete.Hurd 04:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm clear you got my point. As for other things to pursue; well there is the problem that this article has become a sort of way station for the "big" shows at asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction. So your ideas for other directions could really help out here. - Marshman 04:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Really, I'd disagree about the way station, I'd say this article has far more bang for the buck than sexual reproduction. I guess it's debatable whether most of the good stuff here really would be better off on that other page. If it really only pertains to sexual or only to asexual perhaps it should move, and that which is general remains. I'm not so motivated to actually do that myself... Pete.Hurd 04:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It need not be as I describe, but whenever a subsection begins with "See main article at....", that tells contributers to not expand that subsection, it is only a brief summary. That does not mean other related concepts cannot be pursued, but does raise questions as to what should be expanded where - Marshman 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mechanical/Robotic reproduction[edit]

This article is Biological reproduction it seems appropriate to me to move all the stuff about self-replicating robots to Self-replication or some other page geared towards non-biological reproduction. Then sentence about mass-production in the industrial age seems particularly out of place. Pete.Hurd 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Plant Reproduction with regards to specific varieties and or species[edit]

Cannabis is a big plant topic. Right now there is a discussion at [1]. If anyone would care to participate, please do. Thanks. (Simonapro 07:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

exponential growth[edit]

Organisms that reproduce through asexual reproduction tend to grow in number exponentially.

Isn't that true of everything that reproduces, no matter what the exact mechanism? See Malthusian catastrophe. --70.189.77.59 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is practically false because external conditions limit the multiplication of organisms. This is explained in ecology. Only in the case of asexual reproduction can organisms can gain virtually an infinite amount of matter for replication of cells. --Deryck C. 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge from allogamy?[edit]

I think merging to sexual reproduction is better than merging here. --Deryck C. 07:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I just updated the merge tag to reflect the date the merge was originally proposed on allogamy. It was originally posted here in the month of September 2006, but it was posted there in the month of January 2006. --Iamunknown 09:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Semelparity[edit]

Semelparity is a characteristic of r-strategists. K-selection is more closely associated with iteroparity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.77.44 (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Link articles on semelparity and iteroparity to types of reproduction section - elaborate on K and r selection or link to population biology section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimesknight (talkcontribs) 08:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Counterfactual information[edit]

The article contains the following quote:

"The lottery principle is less accepted these days because of evidence that asexual reproduction is more prevalent in unstable environments, the opposite of what it predicts."

However, this contradicts what I've read elsewhere, especially the related articles on Wikipedia, where it is asserted that sexual reproduction excels in unstable environments. Am I confused?

In any case, the article is locked and I can't edit personally...65.183.135.231 (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC) a sexual you only need one parent and sexual you need to parents

Can we at least have a reference? I was interested about this but without a reference there is no way to retrieve the information the author is referring too. I was gonna add a "citation requared" tag but I can't edit this article. 14:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.45.132 (talk)


Sexual Reproduction does NOT require 2 individuals[edit]

The statement at the beginning that claims sexual reproduction requires 2 individuals is flat out wrong and needs to be eliminated. The garden pea plants that Mendel experimented with, as well many other plants, can self-fertilize: there is a SINGLE parent that gives rise to offspring through sexual reproduction. And this ability for a single parent to produce offspring sexually is not limited to just plants: some species of hermaphroditic animals can self-fertilize too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Asexual Reproduction not limited to unicellular organisms and plants[edit]

A statement at the beginning says, "Asexual reproduction is not, however, limited to single-celled organisms. Most plants have the ability to reproduce asexually." That needs to be edited to indicate that some animals also reproduce asexually. A simple change to the last sentence would suffice: "Most plants and some animals have the ability to reproduce asexually." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Conjugation in bacteria is NOT reproduction[edit]

In the section ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION, conjugation is implied to be a form of asexual reproduction: it is not. Conjugation in bacteria is SEX WITHOUT REPRODUCTION. No offspring are produced. When 2 bacteria undergo conjugation, at the end, there are still only 2 bacteria ... no more. And neither is any way, shape, or form made 'pregnant' by conjugation. It is the transfer of genetic information between individuals, without reproduction.


Sexual reproduction: not always diploid and 1 allele is not always masked[edit]

In the section SEXUAL REPRODUCTION, the following is found: Sexually reproducing organisms have two sets of genes for every trait (called alleles). This is false. Many animals and a great many plants are polyploids. An explicit mention of DIPLOID needs to be made here, at the beginning. Later the following is said: Having two copies of every gene, only one of which is expressed, allows deleterious alleles to be masked, ... That applies only to traits that display completel dominance. It does not apply to traits that show incomplete dominance or codominance, for example. This needs to be made clear: otherwise, it is grossly misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That part in the opening pargraph that states what thing do reproduction should be edited. It says that viruses reproduce by taking over the host cell, but it should be noted that viruses are not living things because they lack a metabolism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.212.145 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Strategy Contradiction[edit]

"These two main strategies are known as K-selection (few offspring) and r-selection (many offspring)."

"In general, semelparity is characteristic of r strategists, while iteroparity is characteristic of K strategists."

These statements seem to logically contradict eachother. I would have tried to fix this but this article is locked. The subarticles need fixing as well. I'm pretty sure it's the second statement above that's false and not the first.

162.24.9.213 (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes[edit]

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.th

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

FYI as an unregistered user I am still blocked from editing this page (though I can edit the other trial pages). 67.187.92.105 (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I failed at protecting it correctly (I put on the new version and did not remove the old version) You should now be able to edit it. James (T C) 03:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Procreation[edit]

"Procreation" redirects here, but the article doesn't talk about that word. It should probably be in the article somewhere, right? If only to say it is a synonym. - JefiKnight (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I added it as an alternate name to the lead, per it being a common name for the term...and a redirect. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Reproduction & Its Types:[edit]

Reproduction: Reproduction is a biological process by which the organisms produces their off-springs of their own species. The organisms must have the ability of producing organisms (off-springs). By the process of reproduction living organisms produces their own kinds which ensures the continuity of their kinds. Reproduction is the one of fundamental characteristics of living things but not essential process for an individual, because a individual can live with out reproduction, although a specie can not survive with out reproduction. There are two types of reproduction i.e. Asexual & Sexual.

Asexual Reproduction: Asexual reproduction is the type of reproduction in which off-springs produced containing single parent. In asexual reproduction the produced off-springs are completely similar to that of the parent & does not create any genetic variation. In asexual reproduction binary fusion, budding, spore formation, vegetative propagation, artificial propagation, apomixes & cloning are involved.

Sexual Reproduction: Sexual reproduction is the type of reproduction in which off-springs produced as a result of the involving both male & female (parents). In sexual reproduction the produced off-springs are not completely similar to that of parents & create genetic variation in off-springs. Sexual reproduction is better than asexual reproduction. In sexual reproduction external & internal fertilization, seed germination etc are include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.246.36 (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)