Talk:Sexual dimorphism

message: Thanks for restoring this article. I have added a few examples off the top of my head to be helpful to anyone who checks this article for information. I will add more information later.
Patrick0Moran 15:40, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored

message: Treating the general phenomenon of sexual dimorphism as a consequence of narrow mechanism of sexual selection created many problems. It was hard to explain sexual dimorphism for characters, which with great difficulty can be related to sexual selection (e.g., leaf number and shape, branching pattern in plants). Interpretation of the same phenomenon needed different logics. For example, in birds larger size of males is explained by preference in the struggle for female and larger size of females—by advantage of laying large eggs. But it is unclear why in the first case no large eggs and in the second no struggle for female are needed. It is still difficult for the theory to explain large size of females in some mammals (bats, rabbits, flying squirrels, spotted hyenas, dwarf mongooses, some whales and seals), existence of marked sexual dimorphism in monogamic species with sex ratio 1:1, and the dependence of sexual dimorphism on the reproductive structure of the population. Geodakyan V. A. (1985). Sexual dimorphism. “In: Evolution and morphogenesis. (Mlikovsky J., Novak V. J. A., eds.), Academia, Praha” 467–477.</blockquote>
:I suspect it's either derived from a general lack of understanding of the whole preceding section, or from Creationist dogma, or perhaps both.  I can make neither head nor tail of it in scientific terms, as it deals with issues which are really not controversial.--Richard New Forest 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's more than one ideology opposed a priori to biological explanation of sexual dimorphism. Thanks for cleaning things up. Alastair Haines 00:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncertainty

message: Curiously this article is blocked at my university (can't have us biology postgraduates reading any article about sex), but checking this for the first time outside of uni I notice that it is missing niche separation as a cause of sexual dimorphism. At least in birds it is the more important cause of size differences.  for an example (lots more come up on on google scholar). Sabine's Sunbird  talk 20:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanations for sexual dimorphism 

message: I noticed this more specific article a couple of days ago, but is there really any need for it? This article isn't excessively long, and SSD is excessively short. It has some potential, but it has been poorly integrated into the network of articles - for example this article should obviously link to it (probably using summary style) and it should link back here (which it doesn't). Unless there is so much on SSD that it makes this article too long or biased towards size differences, I think the best option is to merge it here. Richard001 (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes – can't see how we could justify a separate article at present.  Richard New Forest (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's author hasn't been editing for over a year, so we can't really get any comment from that quarter. There isn't much to incorporate, though we should include the term 'sexual size dimorphism' and the abbreviation in the article somewhere. A pity the article has no references for the other statements, though I guess they could be added as well. Richard001 (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sexual size dimorphism]] 

message: Men are 34% stronger in the lower body. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
Someone please correct it. --- dnx-x1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnx-x1 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, correct it to reflect how males have been having a free ride the whole time. Natural truth isn't allowed to interfere with academic knowledge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.44.121 (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual dimorphism in humans 

message: It says that the male anglerfish is a parsite. The definition of parasite:Parasite states that the victim has only harm, but in this case, the "victim" has unlimited amounts of semen for the eggs. Therefore, the male anglerfish isn't a parsite, they're living in symbiosis. Someone correct the picture and reupp it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.11.107 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They also call it a parasite in the text. I see how it is similar to a parasite, but in reality that is a specific word with a specific meaning that is not correct in this situation. 207.61.204.116 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Text in the anglerfish picture

message: "the proposed evolutionary force" is totally overstated. Though popular, the handicap principle (actually, "handicap hypothesis" is becoming more popular among scientists in recent years) seems to apply in far fewer cases than generally assumed. For peacocks, I think it has never been proven (given they are Phasianidae, among which some sort of ornamental plumage is widespread, an "unhandicapped" male would have zero fitness!). As typical of mid-20th century ethology, this is just another "intuitive" explanation with meager empirical support.
There are probably almost as many causes as there are different sorts of sexual dimporphism, dichromatism, size dimorphism etc. Reverse size dimorphism in predatory birds is simply competition-avoidance (this has been extensively proven). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the evolution section to present what textbooks seem to say. Evercat (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Handicap

message: From the article:
Pheromonal studies also have added to the scientific knowledge of sexuality, according to Dr. Goldstein. "Sex-atypical connections were found among homosexual participants. Amygdala connectivity differences were found to be statistically significant and provided evidence towards sexual dimorphism between heterosexual and homosexual subjects. " 
I am confused by this usage of the phrase "sexual dimorphism".  Does this suggest that the meaning can be extended to members of the same gender who have different sexual preferences?  If so, should wikipedia reflect that?  97.94.199.170 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New study finds "Sexual Dimorphism" between heterosexuals and homosexuals. 

message: I'm concerned about including the anecdotes of someone who specializes in insects on human sexual dimorphism. As there really isn't a genetic basis for the differentiation of race, the unsubstantiated comments in the "Race and sexual dimorphism" section come off more as hearsay than actual fact. It contains outdated terminology, and half of the section gets its information from the opinions of an unqualified expert. I think the section should just be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.40.174 (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not explain why you removed the citation to Ashley Montagu who taught anthropology at Princeton University. The citation was cited to a reliable source -- an expert speaking within his field of study. --Ephert (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race and Sexual dimorphism 

message: "Dichromatism is where a sex of a given species is more than one color including that of saturated, vibrant hues."
For the life of me I can't work out what the author of that sentence was trying to convey.  Also, it (Dichromatism) seems to have no logical connection to the preceding sentences, the paragraph, or the article.
Aaah.  Such is Wikipedia...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.209.12 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'American English'? 'British English'?  Some other language? 

message: someone fix this badly written article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.44.60 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected the article's wrong conclusion and provided more appropriate language for referring to a single study. You are encouraged to be bold and edit the article yourself! -Rushyo Talk 16:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's running times are not 11 percent faster than males. Where did they get that information from the citation displayed.? 

message: This omission is surprising, considering that this is one of the most obvious forms of sexual dimorpism in many species. Jarble (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article can't discuss sexual dimorphism in every species there is or in most species, just as most Wikipedia articles can't discuss a topic in every species there is or in most species, without the article becoming gigantic. There is also the matter that most things are not studied in every species there is. We give examples, as you should know by now. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought about the fact that you may mean "discuss the matter that primary sex characteristics is a form of sexual dimorphism in most species." Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the hatnote that I added previously, since it would be redundant to add this information. Jarble (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? You added a "missing information" tag to this article, and it's still there. I removed the merged tag you added, documented here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: This article doesn't discuss sexual dimorphism of primary sex characteristics in most species

message: This article's got sections on plants, fish, herptiles, birds and mammals, IMO it could use a section covering sexual dimorphism in arthropods. -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthropods 

message: I am curious as to why under the section dedicated to sexual dimorphism drifts to discussing birds and general topics not directly pertaining specifically to humans.  These bits towards the end are interesting, and I would assume correct, but they don't seem to belong in this location.  At the same time I am not really qualified on the topic at large to properly move this information to a different more correct location.--MDVang (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on SD in Humans drifts off 

message: Can this be replaced? The current image is eurocentric, displays sex dimorphism through unnatural differences like hair length, and is clearly tainted by social bias, i.e the male is standing in a more direct pose, whilst the female isn't even standing up straight. If possible, it really should be replaced by a more scientific diagram.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.194.198 (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Dimorphisism Image 

message: Intra- vs. inter-sexual selection tends to produce different types of sexually dimorphic adaptations.  This article really should have a couple of subsections on these topics. Memills (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimorphisms due to intra- vs. inter-sexual selection 

message: source of info?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.46.137 (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Females are taller, on average, than males in early adolescence, but males, on average, surpass them in height in later adolescence and adulthood" 

message: I had some concerns with this section and the facts presented and some that were not mentioned at all.
1.) There still can be a dimorphism and equal parental contributions from both sexes. Although males do not produce eggs many stay and provide food while the females protect the offspring. The statement made only provided the extremes of sexually dimorphic males either providing no contribution or all contributions after reproduction.
2.) The topic of monogamous relationships between the birds was not mentioned. 
3.) Also not all phenotypes correlate to fitness and there is a type of female selection called runaway sexual selection that is solely due to the female preference of the males and produces a positive feedback for this preferred trait.
Willis.421 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird section thoughts. 

message: Currently, the article claims
In the United States, adult males are, on average, 4% taller and 8% heavier than adult females.
and references
#National Health Statistics Reports
#United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2002
in support.
I don't see how the sources support the claim. The figures given there for adults 20 years and over are:
#females 74.7 kg (p. 7) / 162.2 cm (p. 13), males 88.3 kg (p. 9) / 176.3 cm (p. 15)
#females 74.0 kg (p. 9) / 162.0 cm (p. 11), males 86.1 kg (p. 9) / 175.8 cm (p. 11)
I.e., American males are on average 8.5% taller and 16%–18% heavier than females.
—Naddy (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult human height/weight differences 

message: I thought that you did a good job explaining that sexual size dimorphism in spiders directly relates to sexual cannibalism as well. I thought you did a good job concisely explaining that larger females are selected due to being more fecund, and that males tend to mate with larger females because they are less likely to cannibalize the male. I added the sentence, “All Argiope species, including Argiope bruennichi, use this method.” In addition, I also thought you did a good job not summarizing any individual studies. Lastly, I changed “is more prominent” to “is more prominently selected for”. Great work! Leflame123 (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  spiders and sexual cannibalism review 

message: Enteryourcleverusername, this bit you added needs sourcing. As for what you stated in the #Human sexual dimorphism section above, keep in mind that, as noted as Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, old sections are commonly overlooked. It's often best to start a new section for a new query. As for creating a Human sexual dimorphism article, we already have a Sex differences in humans article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing and response to latest human sexual dimorphism query 

message: Help required with Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex: the article of apparently fringe theory is based almost exclusively on primary sources and edited by a people with strong connection to the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex

message: Overall, this article uses reliable sources that are up to date and unbiased. The references provide information on a wide variety of living organisms ranging from plants to mammals. The factual claims on sexual dimorphism in different species are heavily supported by over 100 references. Also, the lead paragraph is a good example of concise summary of the topic discussed. However, the section on physiological differentiation is a topic that is underrepresented. To improve this section, a definition of physiological differentiation would be helpful, as well as more examples of this phenomenon in nature. The evolution of sexual dimorphism is one other area that is underrepresented. However, another benefit to this article are the vast amount of pictures which provide visual examples of the variability of sexual dimorphism exhibited across species.––Jenniehorstmann (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluating articles and sources

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sexual dimorphism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712075849/http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/eelgr.html to http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/eelgr.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924055056/http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/losos/jblosos/pdfs/butler2000.pdf to http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/losos/jblosos/pdfs/butler2000.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604094727/https://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10042&mode=toc to https://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10042&mode=toc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "On average, males have larger hearts, 10 percent higher red blood cell count, higher hemoglobin, hence greater oxygen-carrying capacity. They also have higher circulating clotting factors (vitamin K, prothrombin and platelets). These differences lead to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance."
This part quoted above on human sexual dimorphism relies on a very old textbook as proof. I request evidence from the last 20-25 years as a lot of work has been done in that time. 
My main issue however are the conclusions drawn about men having a higher tolerance. EVERYONE knows that people's tolerance to pain can also be severely influenced by how they have been socialised. Men all over are socialised not to cry, put their big boy pants on, taught to see pain as a feminine weakness. Therefore it stands to reason that men seeming to have a higher pain tolerance could be greatly impacted by nurture not nature and might not be as conclusive a dimorphic feature as represented above between cis gendered people. 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690315/ 85.255.233.197 (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please respect non-American users of English Wikipedia and keep your social justice struggles out of the article. Thank you. 78.139.95.32 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pain tolerance and Sexual Dimorphism 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture :File:Colias dimera copulating.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 7, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-06-07. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Colias dimera copulating.jpg scheduled for POTD 

message: As repiles and avians are two separate and distinct things, except for being chordates. The term non-avian reptile is equivalent to reptile. Just like non-reptilian mammal is just a mammal. 68.118.187.196 (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a non-avian reptile? 

message: The audio for this article seriously needs an update.CycoMa (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The audio needs an update 

message: Just a random suggestion as I pass through. This is a great New York Times article about a leaf-mimic insect that is so strikingly dimorphic that it was long thought to be two different species—for one of which only females had been observed—and one only males:
He Was a Stick, She Was a Leaf; Together They Made History
BananaSlug (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazing example that could be included on this page 

message: This article is on sexual dimorphism: "di" as in divergent, and "morphism" as in morphology (shape or form). It has always been my understanding that the differences in reproductive organs are not considered as characters in sexual dimorphism. Under the heading Humans, subjects such as metabolic rates, blood cells, granulocytes, antibodies, psychological tolerance to pain, the brain, testosterone, estrogen, genes, and chromosomes are discussed in some detail. Sexual dimorphism does not include ALL differences between males and females. I believe it is only about the physical shape, form, or morphology, the appearance,. I am not the ultimate arbiter on the subject, and I'm not questioning the accuracy of the content, but most of the content under the heading of humans seems off the subject to me.WiLaFa (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual dimorphism and humans

message: I keep getting my edits deleted because I am self-citing. Since I have been a researcher of sexual dimorphism for 25 years, I feel that there is some validity in self-citing, however (and I do not only self-cite; there are a number of interesting themes missing from this page written by others, believe it or not). But apparently, peer review is stricter on Wikipedia. This is a good method to keep scientists off Wikipedia, so I guess I'll fuck off. (Which is a bummer; this page needs to be looked over.) But if you want to improve the quality of the page, feel free to enter the following citations in the context indicated (as it is now, several claims are unsourced).
In a large proportion of mammal species, males are larger than females. 
Marine mammals show some of the greatest sexual size differences of mammals, because of sexual selection and environmental factors like breeding location.
Modern day Homo sapiens show a range of sexual dimorphism, with average body mass between the sexes differing by roughly 15%.
Sexual dimorphism in immune function is a common pattern in vertebrates and also in a number of invertebrates. Most often, females are more 'immunocompetent' than males.  PzychoPat (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Providing sources 

message: After reading the source material for this line in the "human" section of the article I've found that this line "In males, pain-causing injury to the peripheral nerve occurs through the microglia, while in females it occurs through the T cells (except in pregnant women, who follow a male pattern)" citing: Dance A (27 March 2019). "Why the sexes don't feel pain the same way". Nature. 567 (7749): 448–450. Bibcode:2019Natur.567..448D. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00895-3. PMID 30918396. S2CID 85527866. Is at best misleading and at worst completly false. The article in question does not mention humans once inr regards to research actually conducted, and specifically covers pain research in mice. Additionally this is a relatively new article and research that merely suggests that the pathways for pain reception differences in human males and females MIGHT be different if the THEORETICAL differences in mice are the same. The above claim should either be moved to the general mammal section of the article or removed all together. The source material simply doesn't support what is written. Made an account just to point this out. C. Mich. Dav. (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate information in human section of article. 

message: User:Lina Magull altered some long standing edits without explanation. The changes did not appear to be useful for the following reasons.
* the original reference "Strength training for female athletes" was published in a semi-academic journal representing a professional and cited all of its sources. It had been replaced by two sources, the first of which is an unsourced and unreliable web page on a commercial site. The second site, although on a more reputable popular online magazine, is also unsourced and written by an author with no background in the subject.
* 40-60% had been changed to 70%, with the first reference used. There is nothing in that reference that could possibly be used to indicate the figure of 70%. The second reference supplied gives a figure of 50-60%
* 70-75% had been changed to 80-90%, with the second reference used. This figure is one derived "when you take into account body size" but its use in the Wikipedia article is for "absolute strength"
* 40% had been changed to 30%, and 335 to 348. It is not clear where the figure 348 comes from as the suggested source, Olympic weightlifting records, has 335. Even if the figure 348 is used the difference is still = (1-348/429)*100 = 41%. Note all of the measurements in the paragraph to that point had been comparing female to male, thus the male figure must be the denominator in the formula.
* 11% changed to 10% when the study clearly states 11% with error margins less than 0.5
I reverted that changes. These were nearly immediately reverted back without explanation by User:Germany 6-0 Spain. Suspect that User:Germany 6-0 Spain and User:Lina Magull are the same person.
The above issues need to be addressed, or else the text should return to its original condition. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up. I believe I've resolved the issue with these edits. Generalrelative (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of the entire article, and the general uncertainties involved I'm not going to fight it. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male vs female strength in humans 

message: The picture caption says: "...adult female (left) and adult male (right)," but the picture actually shows most of a third animal, and while it is possible to guess from the context what is meant, it would be clearer to specify the middle animal and the one on the right - if, of course, I have guessed right!  Or to specify that the two animals on the left are females.  Thoughts?  FloweringOctopus (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearer caption for map turtle image?