Talk:Ontogeny

message: 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 130.238.36.246 (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comment at main page moved over

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Ontogeny" or "Embryology"

message: 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)
replies: text: Done already. DiptanshuTalk 04:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Search results for "Ontogenetic"

message: would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  embryology 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Large overlap with [[Developmental biology]] - suggest merging 

message: 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.Maturana, H. R., Varela F. J. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications Inc., page 74"
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)
thread_title:  Removal of confusing and questionable definition in intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: I just saw the same error; I wonder how it can be corrected? The uploader may be Anatomist90, an apparently very prolific image uploader, who may be difficult to reach? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toers?