Talk:Mendelian inheritance

message: Could somebody with a better knowledge of genetics correct this sentence?
:Mendel based theory on they could be both cross-pollinated between two plants or self-pollenated with just one.
silsor 04:49, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
:Done, I think this what the author meant to say. --Lexor|Talk 10:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Older discussion

message: A simpler figure of a dihybrid cross can be found at Dihybrid_cross. neffk 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure 

message: When I came across this article, I found it rather counter-intuitive, in that Mendel's second law comes before the law of segregation, which I believe is his first. Is there a reason I'm missing for this order? The one I can think of is that the law of independent assortment (the second law) is linked to metaphase I, which comes before anaphase I in meiosis. But in my AP Biology textbook, Biology, the law of segregation precedes the law of independent assortment. Auricfuzz 01:19, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
:I too was confused by that, and I support the reordering of these parts of the article so that Mendel's First Law comes before his Second Law. — Brim 02:36, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
:: Have changed it. AndyZ 16:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of article? 

message: If the two alleles differ, then one, the dominant allele, is fully expressed in the organism's appearance; the other, the segregate during gamete production. 
The above sentence doesn't make sense. I looked through the article's history and found this old version which shows that the sentence was created by splicing two pre-existing sentences and leaving out the bit in the middle. Sorry I can't fix it myself, but I don't understand the subject well enough (that's why I'm reading the article) and would probably make it worse. --Heron 19:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed it; it might have been an accidental deletion. AndyZ 16:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrambled text 

message: This article needs a lot of work.  While all the information is there, it is repetitive and disorganized.  In addition, some of what is describes is non-Mendelian.  Let's see if we can get this thing worked up to a great article!
===Parts to Mendelian inheritance===
The first problem is the organization of the material.  It seems to list Three "Laws."  I quickly used "Mendel's Second Law" in a google search and came up with several different answers.  Unfortunately, this means that the numbering for Mendel's Laws are quite suspect.  However we want to organize it, there are five parts to Mendel's Laws, and each one was an important divergence from the common theories for inheritance at the time:
#Characters are unitary.  That is, they are discrete (purple vs. white, tall vs. dwarf).
#Genetic characteristics have alternate forms, each inherited from the two parents.  Today, we call these alleles.
#One allele is dominant over the other (Concept of Dominance).  The phenotype reflects the dominant allele.
#Gametes are created by random segregation.  Heterozygotic individuals produce gametes with an equal frequency of the two alleles.
#Different traits have independent assortment.  In modern terms, genes are unlinked.
Now, how do we want these?  I've seen them call Mendel's Laws, Mendel's Hypotheses, and Mendelian Principles.  There are probably others.  Some of the google results combined the first three principles into Mendel's First Law; Others combined the first four into Mendel's First Law.
I'm inclined to use Mendel's Five Principles or Mendel's Five Laws, and spell it out in gory detail.
Is there any preference? Or discussion of where we should go? Ted 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After thinking about this and looking at various sources, I think the best way to proceed is to talk about Mendel's Five Principles, and correlate them with "Mendel's Laws" in all their messy glory.  Are there really no comments?  That's hard to believe after all the "discussion" on the various other genetics articles. Ted 07:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: The first problem is the organization of the material.  It seems to list Three "Laws."  I quickly used "Mendel's Second Law" in a google search and came up with several different answers.  Unfortunately, this means that the numbering for Mendel's Laws are quite suspect.  However we want to organize it, there are five parts to Mendel's Laws, and each one was an important divergence from the common theories for inheritance at the time:
#Characters are unitary.  That is, they are discrete (purple vs. white, tall vs. dwarf).
#Genetic characteristics have alternate forms, each inherited from the two parents.  Today, we call these alleles.
#One allele is dominant over the other (Concept of Dominance).  The phenotype reflects the dominant allele.
#Gametes are created by random segregation.  Heterozygotic individuals produce gametes with an equal frequency of the two alleles.
#Different traits have independent assortment.  In modern terms, genes are unlinked.
Now, how do we want these?  I've seen them call Mendel's Laws, Mendel's Hypotheses, and Mendelian Principles.  There are probably others.  Some of the google results combined the first three principles into Mendel's First Law; Others combined the first four into Mendel's First Law.
I'm inclined to use Mendel's Five Principles or Mendel's Five Laws, and spell it out in gory detail.
Is there any preference? Or discussion of where we should go? Ted 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After thinking about this and looking at various sources, I think the best way to proceed is to talk about Mendel's Five Principles, and correlate them with "Mendel's Laws" in all their messy glory.  Are there really no comments?  That's hard to believe after all the "discussion" on the various other genetics articles. Ted 07:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parts to Mendelian inheritance

message: Figures start with fig. 3 and after that fig. 1
:I moved the figures into a table so that they would be together and in order. They're a little too big to be put on separate lines. Regarding Figure 2, I'm not that happy with it since the 'short hair' trait seems to be represented by a variation in the color of the bunny. I made a different version of this that I uploaded (:Image:Dihybrid cross.png). Unless anyone objects I'll use it to replace Fig. 2. Tocharianne 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no one protested so I went ahead and replaced it. (Manx cats rule!) Tocharianne 20:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure numbers 

message: I added a new section to the article. I would appreciate it if someone else looked over it and makes sure it's okay. Tocharianne 16:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section: Mendelian mutations 

message: The article on Mendel says, "At first Mendel's work was rejected (and it was not widely accepted until after he died)". This article says, "Mendel's results were largely accepted". AFAIK this article is wrong, but I'll leave some time for comment before I change it. Rjm at sleepers 10:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's weird. My understanding is that his original work wasn't accepted or rejected, rather it was ignored because people didn't understand the significance at the time (and because it had a lot of math which biologists weren't used to). The opening paragraph of this article says that when his work was rediscovered it was controversial, but then finally accepted. The History section is a little unclear as to whether his work was accepted or controversial--it probably needs to be clarified. Tocharianne 12:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The strange wording appeared on 10th June, probably as vandalism. I've taken the text back to an earlier version. Rjm at sleepers 10:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial acceptance (or not) 

message: Someone edited this and put some immature rude stuff in, which amused me because what loser could possibly have a beef with dear old Gregor Mendel? But anyways, this article has some animal-centric language (such as characterizing gametes as specifically egg and sperm, which they are not necessarily, or identifying parents as specifically male or female) which could be done away with. And in some places, this article seems to be more from simple english than regular english, and appears directed at small children. I think it would serve this article well the be completely rewritten by someone extraordinarily knowledgeable about Mendel (with some of the better parts salvaged), instead of some 14 year old kid who heard of him in his biology class.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.30.239 (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalization? and other issues. 

message: We have two parent types (of a different species), and the resulting cross is an intermediate for the most part in phenotypes. In terms of Mendelian Genetics, even after many generations, are both parent types manifest in the hybrid population? In other words, will a few rare individuals that resemble each parent be evident as a "throwback", and if so, what is that phenomenon referred to as? Thanks. Ledboots (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assumptions seem to be a jumble of blending theory and early twentieth century ideas on racial hierarcies that have little or nothing to do with Mendelianism, though there is a link to the concept of atavism. Paul B (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Help in Defining

message: This gem of an excerpt from the independent assortment section:
"mendel also do a experiment.he cross different flowers and as a result 3:1 ratio is Independent assortment occurs during meiosis I in eukaryotic organisms, specifically metaphase I of meiosis, to produce a gamete with a mixture of the organism's maternal and paternal chromosomes."
Haven't had time to read the rest of the article, but clearly this needs to be cleaned up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.172.117 (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup Required

message: mendel'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.174.31 (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  mendel's view  

message: In the first paragraph, the line: "They were initially derived from the work of Gregor Mendel..." would it be "They" or "It" since it is referring to Mendelian Inheritance, not "Inheritances", right? Melara... (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: In the first reference it says "The Monk in the Garden : The Lostgvnfjvkbn nhjegj g vjf grn vnr g g jkbbn qle fa fealrlb ndk vj g cm kjlkcm m blmvdlc, mlmm cs...ii based myt project on his dumb ass shit... and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics. Houghton Mifflin"
I have a feeling that is not the title of the book. 72.208.36.87 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference #1

message: To many terms used in this article are merging ideas from the sinthethic theory of inheritance or cromosomical theory of inheritance. I think that Mendel never uses terms as genetics, homozigosis or F1/F2... So Mendel never ... "summarized his findings in two laws; the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment." as it now claims the article. Maybe Tschermak, Correns or De Vries made it or maybe in english papers from Fisher, Bateson, Punnet or Morgan, later. I don't know when the become formally and textually "Laws". So, anyone have the source?--Bestiasonica (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anacronisms 

message: Some parts of the page correctly refer to the fact that during crossover the maternal and paternal chromosomes are paired up and mixed to produce new chromosomes for the offspring, but other parts of the page are written as if maternal or paternal chromosomes are passed down unmodified. Clement Cherlin (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of chromosomal inheritance ignores crossover 

message: Just noting that Law of Dominance redirects here, but has still not been incorporated into the text. Danger High voltage! 17:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law of Dominance 

message: The Law of Segregation states that every individual possesses a pair of alleles (assuming diploidy) for any particular trait and that each parent passes a randomly selected copy (allele) of only one of these to its offspring. 
I removed "of only one of these" since you cannot randomly select more or less than one from a pair of alleles. Maniacq (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law of Segregation 

message: The Law of independent assortment is generally considered the Third law (sometimes the second), but the law of dominance is considered the first, never the third.--Miguelferig (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbering of Laws

message: This article is missing data that I believe could be important. To start Mendelian used a pure purple and a pure white flower the data is missing on witch color flower was the father and witch one was the mother after this the plants were inbreed so I believe this data would be important in determining if there would be different results with better breeding at the time of this experiment incest was legal but for about three generations now incest has been outlawed in the US and I have seen evidence in my family tree that would contradict Mendelian laws now that incest is outlawed. 2001:558:6012:1B:5CF8:2FED:C347:768E (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's just how your textbook illustrates the concept. ~  Amory (u • t • c) 01:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual Data

message: I made some new graphics easier to understand. They correspond to the plants Mendel used for his experiments. Sciencia58 (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: New Graphics

message: There are no homozygous Manx cats with the genetic defect for short tail, because homozygosity is lethal and the embryo dies in the womb. Instead we can use this picture with coat colour genetics of cattle as example for independant assortment, as it is very similar to the coat colour genetics of dogs. 
Sciencia58 (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law of independant assortment 

message: TedE, Miguelferig, Bestiasonica and Clement Cherlin Can you please have a look at my proposals in sections 24 to 26 and tell your opinion. Sciencia58 (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hallo  

message: In the sections we must make a clear distinction between the methodological path Mendel followed in his discoveries and the principles he discovered. If he has not worked with Mirabilis jalapa, but this plant can serve as an example of the principle of segregation, which applies in intermediate inheritance too, we must mention it in the Principles section, not in the Non-Mendel Inheritance section.  Sciencia58 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oranisation of the article  

message: In the section "independant assortment":
1. "There are many violations of independent assortment due to genetic linkage." The statement sounds right, if you beleive the principles were laws. A law can be violated by a person, who doesn't follow that law. If we generally use the word principles, the sentence can be formulated correctly as a statement of facts without criminalizing biological organisms for what happens naturally inside of them: "There are many deviations of the principle of independant assortment due to genetic linkage." 
2. "Of the 46 chromosomes in a normal diploid human cell, half are maternally derived (from the mother's egg) and half are paternally derived (from the father's sperm). This occurs as sexual reproduction involves the fusion of two haploid gametes (the egg and sperm) to produce a new organism having the full complement of chromosomes." This sounds confusing, because a haploid cell does have one complete set of chromosomes. So here the formulation must be: "... to produce a zygote and a new organsim, in which every cell has two sets of chromosomes (diploid). 
3. "During gametogenesis — the production of new gametes by an adult — the normal complement of 46 chromosomes needs to be halved to 23 to ensure that the resulting haploid gamete can join with another gamete to produce a diploid organism. An error in the number of chromosomes, such as those caused by a diploid gamete joining with a haploid gamete, is termed aneuploidy." 
Production of new gamets "by an adult" only applies for men. In humans the development of the egg cells, the meiosis, takes place during early childhood. Every species has its own certain number of chromosomes. Meiosis takes place on both sides during the production of gametes, to avoid that two diploid cells merge during fertilization, not one diploid and one haploid. Aneuploidy is not the topic of this article. This belongs in the article meiosis.
4. "In independent assortment, the chromosomes that result are randomly sorted from all possible maternal and paternal chromosomes. Because zygotes end up with a random mix instead of a pre-defined "set" from either parent, chromosomes are therefore considered assorted independently." Here the way how they segregate is not explained.  The gametogenesis in women and men is different, therefore Oogenesis and Spermatogenesis are to be mentioned separately.  
5. "As such, the zygote can end up with any combination of paternal or maternal chromosomes. Any of the possible variants of a zygote formed from maternal and paternal chromosomes will occur with equal frequency. For human gametes, with 23 pairs of chromosomes, the number of possibilities is 223 or 8,388,608 possible combinations." Human gametes do not have 23 pairs of chromosomes! This part of the sentence contradicts what has been said before.  
6. The zygote will normally end up with 23 chromosomes pairs, but the origin of any particular chromosome will be randomly selected from paternal or maternal chromosomes. This contributes to the genetic variability of progeny." Okay.  
7. "Any of the possible variants of a zygote formed from maternal and paternal chromosomes will occur with equal frequency." This is an impermissible generalisation, because in a number of organisms there is a non-accidental segregation of chromosomes . The statements go beyond the scope of this section anyway and there are too many repetitions. 
In my reworked version I expressed it more concise. A numbering of the principles, which are still called laws in the new version, is unnecessary. 
Sciencia58 (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the revised version of the article. It shouln't remain in a sandbox forever.  Sciencia58 (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more content-related inaccuracies  

message: I wouldn't be surprised if Campbell or Reece had read the wrong order of Mendel's rules here. This is a common phenomenon today that people use Wikipedia as a source and reproduce content without crediting. Then, in the worst case, we find our own mistakes in the newer literature sources. However, this should not lead us to refer to these sources as a matter of priority, otherwise a vicious circle would develop. Campbell and Reece have also noticed, however, that the uniformity rule is mentioned first in some sources, namely in the original sources. Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece: Biologie. Spektrum-Verlag Heidelberg-Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-8274-1352-4, page 295. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicious circle 

message: The article on Huntington's#History mentions that Mendel was not the first to describe this principle, although he probably did more thorough research and publicised it. Worth a mention here as well? --Murata (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Huntington published in 1872. Mendel published in 1865-6. The history section refers to the 1900 rediscovery by Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns, and Erich von Tschermak. If there is to be a discussion of this discovery which occurred during the interval, it should should be based on academic sources discussing the relevance. Without such sources, it is a distraction. BiologicalMe (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier discovery by Huntington 

message: *Would adding something on the additional variable that leads to Non-Mendelian Inheritance be a useful addition to that section?
--Eric Lotze (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gene Expression 

message: — Assignment last updated by Cara.begley (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: BIOL 412 HONORS

message: There is an interesting account of the controversy here: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aab3846 --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Father of scientific misconduct"