Talk:Cline (biology)

message: I am a student at Imperial College London, and will be expanding this article as part of an assignment for the Science Communications module. I plan on giving an overview, and expanding the article so that it includes subsections.
Jbadcock (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding the article

message: The central large section of this article Rejection of "race" for cline resembles an essay (a well referenced one) not an informative encyclopedia article.--ZayZayEM 00:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I'v removed it. Alun (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I've restored the section to allow discussion, in the long run I would have no objection to its removal.  WBardwin (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, let's leave it a while to see if there are any serious considerations. Alun (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, it doesn't fit the article at all, and possibly should be merged into one of the 'Race' article's debated issues sections. If I were reading this for the first time, I would not only come away still having no idea what a cline is, but would know whoever wrote the article sure had strong feelings about the term "race". I've studied this stuff for a while now and this pretty much zero context in defining a cline. It's just one minor area it's used in, and in fact many biological anthropologists, like George Gill use cline and race as 2 criss crossing yet valid classification methods, rather than rival terms ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html ), as well as Carleton S. Coon, who acknowledged a similar pattern across Mendelian populations, co-existing with 'race'. Thus, cline is it's own entity and not merely a biproduct of the race debate. All that said, the irony that the comparison to the term 'race' dwarfs the very definition of cline (what the article is supposed to be about) is pretty awkward. Cold polymer (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay? 

message: It seems to be a summary of the main article, which itself is the not best written--Victor falk 13:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite ring species

message: I've found this, from Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803):
:Lastly, I could wish the distinctions between the human species, that have been made from a laudable zeal for discriminating science, not carried beyond due bounds. Some for instance have thought fit, to employ the term of races for four or five divisions, originally made in consequence of country or complexion: but I see no reason for this appellation. Race refers to a difference of origin, which in this case either does not exist, or in each of these countries, and under each of these complexions, comprises the most different races. For every nation is one people, having its own national form, as well as its own language: the climate, it is true, stamps on each its mark, or spreads over it a slight veil, but not sufficient to destroy the original national character. This originality of character extends even to families, and its transitions are as variable as imperceptible. In short, there are neither four or five races, nor exclusive varieties, on this Earth. Complexions run into each other: forms follow the genetic character: and upon the whole, all are at last but shades of the same great picture, extending through all ages, and over all parts of the Earth. They belong not, therefore, so properly to systematic natural history, as to the physico-geographical history of man. 
--Extremophile 21:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken.  This is not rejection of race, but simply a more realistic viewpoint than that taken by both critics and most adamant followers of. W124l29 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier rejection of "races", and implicit suggestion of clines 

message: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not a dictionary. The word cline is used in population genetics in exactly the same way it is used in any other way, it is not a technical word that describes any sort of biological phenomenon, it is an adjective that describes how allele frequencies are geographically distributed, the way it is used in population genetics is not a specialised use. We do not need a long discussion of "race", the fact that clinal genetic/phenotypic variation has been used to argue against categorical "races" should be addressed in articles specifically about taxonomy and "race" and not here. As far as I can see this article serves no purpose. If we want to say the genes/phenotypes vary clinally and we want to include a link to a definition of cline, then we can easily link to the Wiktionary definition like this cline, which gives cline. Wikipedia is not here to provide definitions, it is here to provide encyclopaedia articles, this article is just a definition of "cline". Alun (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a notable topic, and if we can't write enough about it for its own article we could perhaps merge it with ecotype, which is similar but with separation between populations. Wiktionary is always a last resort. Richard001 (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that genes have a clinal distribution is notable, this should be discussed in the article Human genetic variation. Use of the word cline in population genetics is not a "topic" and is hardly notable, it's use is not specialist it is descriptive. This leaves little more than a definition of "cline" associated with "genetic distribution". As I said wikipedia is not a dictionary, the best this article can possibly hope to achieve is to give a definition of cline, the meaning of which is not restricted to genetics. It is an adjective, used in this context to describe how genes vary, it is not a population genetics technical term. How is it a "topic" in it's own right at all? How is it's use notable? I really don't think this article serves any purpose except to artificially inflate wikipedia with pointless articles that can not serve any encyclopaedic value. Alun (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alleles and haplotypes have a clinal distribution. Genes in the strict sense do not vary between between individuals in a population of one single species (normally) - you do not have one gene in some humans and another gene at the same locus in other humans. Read anything by Cavallli-Sforza to get an idea what's going on here. For an easy example, there is a cline of "typical Mongol" haplotypes all across Eurasia; certain genetic combinations run from very common in Mongolia to quite rare in central Europe. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by "genes in the strict sense". I think you are talking about a locus? In my experience the word gene is usually synonymous with allele, but that's hardly relevant. The question is not whether or not genes are distributed clinally, clearly they are, but whether we need an article called "Cline (genetics)", which I think we don't, use of the word "cline" in genetics is not technical or specialist, it is simply descriptive, so why have a special article about it? I don't see the relevance of your post to the discussion to be quite frank. Alun (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a dictionary

message: There should really be some mention of the problem of human races in this article, since it's not that uncommon for physical anthropologists etc. to point out that "cline" is a rigorously definable and measurable concept, while "race" is not.... AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a sentence, because the article really needed some reference to this... AnonMoos (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but feel that's a non sequitur. So cline is definable, but how is that relevant to the non-definability of "race"? Alun (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a non-sequitur, but it's an established and somewhat conventionalized non-sequitur.  The practical context in which it emerged is mid-to-late 20th century geneticists or physical anthropologists etc. replying to popular questions or assertions about the scientific basis of race, and pointing out that scientifically, "race" is rather poorly defined, and can only really be adequately measured by using rather high-level correlations -- while other things, such as the concept of gene cline, can be rigorously mathematically defined, and can often be fairly directly measured (without the need for abstruse higher-level statistical abstractions).  I think that Ashley Montague wrote a whole book devoted to some degree to developing this theme... AnonMoos (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know all of the arguments, but they always occur in discussions about "race". I'm not against including some comment here about the idea that clinality demonstrates the non-concordance of characteristics and the non-discrete nature of variation. Some time ago the overwhelming majority of this article was devoted to a discussion of "race", it was really little more than a coatrack. As long as we can avoid that I'm quite content. Maybe we could put in a bit more context, but I just don't want to go over the top. Cheers, Alun (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just wanted to put in something, however brief; feel free to develop it further... AnonMoos (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Race again

message: Clines are not related to races. Human races are not distinct sub-species. Races are phenotypical variations within the same sub-specie, homo sapiens sapiens. Skin colour certainly not follows genetic variation. For instance, Papuans are more closely related to Europeans than to Khoisan. walk victor falk talk 03:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Khoisan itself is a race, as race has not meant sub-species since the earth 20th century--and so is quite the strawman arguement.  Race means macro-population group, a traceable migratory population with shared ancestry (DNA) & cultural inheritance, so linguistics, religion, cuisine, architecture what have you.  Clines are related to races, and are representative of the bounds crossed by nomadic populations.  Clines are not perfectly applicable to Humans, however, as southern Indians, Dravidians, C Y-DNA, origin of Roma, though rather Caucasoid/Caucasian, do not have white-skin gene, though are no further from the equator than much more pale populations.  Though there exists a common misconception that somehow sub-species cannot intermate, incorrect, what races are can be understood to be a type, a varieta, variety, of the Human sub-specie, as macro-population groups of shared ancestry (copulation) & cultural inheritance (contact). W124l29 (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: About humans

message: The link to types of clines is confusing; I thought they would give examples of ecoclines, but rather they where different kinds of gradients. Addition of examples of, say, thermoclies leading to ecoclines would be helpfull.128.120.105.143 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  types of clines