Talk:Heterochrony

message: Intent to update and flesh out the data in the lead, in paedomorphosis, and in human heterochrony. For example, in human heterochrony, there is mention of "30 neotenies" identified in humans compared to chimpanzees, without identifying specifics or how these were determined. Likewise, the paedomorphosis section does not provide adequate information or intra-wiki links to support the section's usefulness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth.leep (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi there, and good luck. I guess you know the lead is meant as an (uncited) summary of the cited material in the body, so it shouldn't introduce anything new. I'm not convinced that detailing 30 aspects in humans is wise - that sort of detail would be for the article 'Neoteny in humans', but a cited mention and a few details would be fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't planning to go into all 30 of them in any kind of detail. I just felt it was odd to mention a specific number and then not detail any of them, so I figured I'd do something like a "such as" and mention two or three, with a list of citations where more could be found. Or, as you say, links to other articles where a more complete list can be found. Thanks for your input! Kenneth.leep (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Planned edits for this page

message: Hi. I bring this up because I removed a sentence in the article and wanted to explain. There was an uncited claim that "Paedomorphic species are mainly aquatic, while peramorphic species are mainly terrestrial." which I see two problems with. First (and easiest), I doubt that this has ever been tested. If it has then it should have a citation; if not it should probably be removed. Even if an author has stated this, if it has not been evaluated, we shouldn't echo it here. Second, even if it has been tested in the sense of "things that look paedomorphic" are found in water, it is almost always confusing, or just incorrect, to refer to a species (or genus etc.) as being paedomorphic. Heterochrony acts on the different parts of the organism differently (as in the Irish Elk example). If what is being referred to here is something that covers the whole body such as the end of deterministic growth or sexual maturity, then that should be referred to. Changes in developmental timing are very rarely a total on/off switch, which is why the idea of Humans as big babies has been mostly abandoned (we are paedomorphic in some important ways but peramorphic in others). This may seem nuanced, but heterochrony is complicated and I think it's worth it to tinker with potentially misleading parts of the article. -Paleoaskari (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sentence was not based on the cited source, and looks like a simple piece of WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can organisms be paedomorphic/peramorphic? 

message: When you added the stuff about Walter Garstang's suggestion, you presented it in such a way that readers might believe the tunicata origin of vertebrates to be an established fact.  However, neither the few articles and books I've seen treating this, and nor the source that you gave actually claims this.  (McNamara actually writes that Garstang suggested this, but I found no claim of his that this suggestion is correct or even a majority opinion.)  Moreover, e. g., the phylogeny given in Chordates (grouping vertebrates and tunicates within the clade Olfactores, with the lampreys as an 'outgroup') is hard to reconcile with Garstang's hypothesis.  I rewrote this as precisely an hypthesis, still held by some biologists, but not by a consensus.  Do you find this reasonable, or do you have other reliable sources in favour of Garstang's hypothesis? JoergenB (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I got the source wrong, I'm sorry; gave it my best shot. Happy that you've done your best with the additional material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present acceptance of Garstang's hypothesis