Talk:Comparative anatomy

message: Chronospecies is a current candidate on Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week. If you would like to see this article improved  vote for it here. --Fenice 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week]]

message: Why no mention of Georges Cuvier, founding father of comparative anatomy and giant in the field (see the Wikipedia article on GC)? It's like discussing evolution without mentioning Darwin.
213.7.17.134 (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No Cuvier?

message: I'm suggestion merging comparative anatomy with comparative vertebrate anatomy, since the latter is even more of a stub than this, and a single page will be more than sufficient to explain the subject in detail. I'm going to completely re-write the page once the merge is complete. Mokele (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The introduction of Vesalius and his critique of Galen is rather abrupt - who are they and what is their connection to human anatomy. This is compounded by the disconnect with the previous paragraph; in fact, the time-line with the other material is confusing because your addition would have preceded the content mention in previous paragraphs. The format of the foot-note is very messy  with the superscript and illogical line shift. I wonder if a University web site requires mention of all the members of the staff - not sure; however, the list could grow very long if all staff members have to be accounted for.--JimmyButler (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits to History 

message: Have a look in the first picture in this page, the picture of the Dolphin and the Shark. take a close look at it's caption. what "Ogga Bogga Chicken Fart" has to do with anything here? I tried to take it out but can't find how. when you try to edit this part, you see that the caption is all right with no ogga's but when you view the article it does appear...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.197.196 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated text in picture's caption 

message: I was a little confused about the article's description of the role of genomics in comparative anatomy. I think that this could be cleared up by adding a section on phylogeny and explaining that the trees are made up from genetic data, specifically conserved genes, but that the physical characteristics derived from anatomical structures is mapped onto those trees to show connections between organisms. I think this is an important aspect because it clearly shows the relationships between species, which is a large part of comparative anatomy.  This addition could be expanded upon to list some of the larger groups that are commonly mentioned, like chordate for example. 
Another section could be on form and function that relates to the homologous and analogous definitions on the page. Hobbscassidy (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody has suggested a role for genomics in CA. What is stated, correctly, is that CA's role in providing evidence for evolutionary relationships is now shared by genomics. I'd agree that a short mention of phylogeny could clarify this: on condition that the focus of the article remains CA, which is its subject. So one could have a section on the role of CA in establishing phylogeny, make the point briefly that this role was important historically, but that now it's largely been taken over by genomics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions 

message: I recently added a new citation in relation with phylogeny trees on how to read them and also how are they usually used with the study of Comparative Anatomy.
Blancapaola2 (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welcome to Wikipedia, and good work. We actually don't normally cite the lead section, though given this article's odd structure you're probably right to do so. I guess you have to discuss it here for your classwork: we don't normally discuss every citation, either, but why shouldn't people celebrate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Citation added! 

message: For the definition of Analogy, I suggest rephrasing the definition as follows:
Analogous Structures - structures with similar functions between phylogenetically distinct organisms as a result of convergent evolution. An example is the streamlined torpedo body shape of porpoises and sharks, because while they both allow for faster locomotion through water, the porpoise and shark do not share a recent common ancestor.
Also, for the definition of Homoplasy I would also recommend this change:
Homoplastic structures - structures that look similar, are derived from convergent evolution, and the two organisms displaying homoplasy may or may not share a common ancestor.Kardong, KV.2014 Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution , 7th Edition. (ISBN-13: 978-
0078023026, ISBN-10: 0078023025) Instead, they may have evolved in common environments and the traits arose due to natural selection.[4] This can be seen most prominently in species that have camouflage capabilities, like an insect that can look like a leaf, but has no photosynthetic capability.
Theambivert20 (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're certainly right that the current "Three major concepts" are confusingly worded. The discussion indeed needs to be cited, and taken out of the lead, which should be a short summary of the rest of the article. Currently convergent evolution is in 2 of the items, which is frankly highly confusing, and the relationship of analogy and homoplasy is not clear at all (in this context, they're basically the same thing); I think a bolder and more far-reaching rewrite is required. Actually that raises a deeper problem - everything in the article except the History section is basically a WP:FORK duplicating convergent evolution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for editing of term definitions 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Comparative morphology. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 31#Comparative morphology until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I still firmly believe it should be called Comparative morphology, not Comparative anatomy or certainly not any of the other newfangled terms proposed here like Evolutionary physiology. Amphioxys (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Comparative morphology" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]