Talk:Spore

message: What is the difference between a a spore and a seed?
:A spore is not much more than a bit of germ plasm (haploid or diploid cell) in a protective coat; a seed is a package that contains the next generation as an embryo (therefore diploid) along with some amount (depending on the species) of stored food, and all that wrapped in a protetive coat. - Marshman 00:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not always; many spores are reproductive or dispersal cells of macroscopic organisms.--Curtis Clark 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spore Seed

message: I think that since the Spore video game is getting so much attention in the media, the scientific meaning of Spore isn't the only relevant meaning. I think that Spore should redirect to a disambiguation page, which would have links to both the scientific and the video game meanings. This page would then become Spore (biology)Mrmoocow 02:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oh, and obviously I vote Strongly Support. Mrmoocow 02:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Apple as a company is far more widely recognised than this game -- Serephine / talk - 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I did it before. I'm actually new to wikipedia, so I didn't know the rules when it came to changes and it got reverted. It tooke me all of two minutes. The bad doesn't outweigh the good. 220.237.189.218 06:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. It's a bit more work.--Chaser T 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments.
*Not participating b/c we don't take votes on anything. We have a discussion (like below) and seek consensus.--Chaser T 03:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oh, and obviously I vote Strongly Support. Mrmoocow 02:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Apple as a company is far more widely recognised than this game -- Serephine / talk - 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I did it before. I'm actually new to wikipedia, so I didn't know the rules when it came to changes and it got reverted. It tooke me all of two minutes. The bad doesn't outweigh the good. 220.237.189.218 06:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. It's a bit more work.--Chaser T 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments.
*Not participating b/c we don't take votes on anything. We have a discussion (like below) and seek consensus.--Chaser T 03:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I think that it's pretty safe to say from an objective and subjective point of view that the request for movement to Spore (biology) is not going to carry. However, the link to the video game has been reinstated at the top of the page in the disambiguatiuon link. I have removed the "Request for move" box from the top and hope that this compromise suits everyone -- Serephine / talk - 10:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: I think the "classification of spores" section is a bit messy and hard to use.  It may be better to rearrange it in the form of a list.  Also it should include classification "by organisms", since most people, I think, would want to find a certain kind of spores based on the organism in which it is present. 石川 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup or revise needed 

message: Could someone please add a description of sporulation in yeast? I notice imparticular that the French page linked to this one is entitled "sporulation," and it's an important concept in genetics and molecular biology. I don't have the expertise just yet--maybe in a couple months. --aciel 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sporulation in Yeast 

message: Why does it cut the lede in half? Keith Galveston (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was probably done to avoid having the TOC four paragraphs down into the article.  It's a "quick fix", though.  The article is long overdue for a thorough rewrite. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree a rewrite is due, but for now I've added  as an alternative quick fix that doesn't interrupt the lede. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird content box 

message: I finally decided to be bold and tried reorganize the "classification" section. My main idea is that all kinds of spores should be mentioned on this page. Below are some explanations of my edits:
* About the link of "diaspores": I removed it because it turns out to link to a kind of mineral, and the disambig on top of that page redirects to spore. A little stupid, I think. I also changed the redirect to directly point to this section.
* The examples given for diaspores was "fungi, mosses, ferns, fern allies, and some other plants": too unspecific. Can anyone who knows more on this fix it?
* Both chlamydospores and zygospores are described as having "thick-walled resting spores", and according to zygospores it is a kind of chlamydospores, so I merged them.
* The sentence "zygospores are thick-walled resting spores (hypnozygotes) of zygomycetous fungi which are produced by sexual gametocystogamy and can give rise to a conidiophore ("zygosporangium") with asexual conidiospores" was taken out because it was horrible. First, it doesn't explain at all what "hypnozygote" is. Second, "gametocystogamy" appears to be a nonce term that's being copied from Wikipedia into all the google hits one may find. Third, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen any source that says zygomycetes produce conidia.
* I wanted to add a "By organism" classification, but then realized that the classification "By spore-producing structure" already covers much of it, so I decided otherwise.
* Most fungi does not produce mitospores according to the statement here: "However, mitotic sporogenesis is an exception and most spores, such as those of plants and most fungi and algae, are produced by meiosis." If that statement is false, you're welcomed to fix it back, but for now I've edited the section according to that.
::I've fixed the article. I don't have a reference at hand, but I'm nearly certain it's in Biology of Plants, and the article Deuteromycota covers fungi that reproduce exclusively by asexual spores, by definition.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job.  However, I would still list zygospore as a separate type under Spore-producing structure; otherwise you only have it listed by function.  I have added two types of spores found in red algae that were not yet in the list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I say, then, that zygospores are spores produced by zygosporangium? Keith Galveston (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More than that, a zygospore is a spore produced in a zygosporangium by a member of the Zygomycota; it is taxon-specific. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested to know the distinction between a zygospore and a zygosporangium; the terms seem to be used interchangeably, and as far as I was ever able to tell, the structure ordinarily consists of a single multinucleate cell inside a rather complex cell wall.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, I'm starting to doubt if "diaspore" is actually used to refer to a kind of spores. All the pages I've seen show "diaspore" either as a mineral or as a typo for "diaspora". Keith Galveston (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, just minutes after I posted this I saw what Graminophile said below. And according to [Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diaspore], it's a disseminule, not necessarily a spore, so maybe we'll have to remove that. However, that would leave only one item in the "by functions" section. Anyone got any good ideas? Keith Galveston (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to give some references (here's one anyway); a diaspore is a dispersal unit. A spore can be a diaspore, but not all diaspores are spores.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite on classification section 

message: The article doesn't make clear that diaspores are dispersal units, rather than simply a type a spore. The term can include seeds, fruits and vegetative propagules as well.
This sentence:
A chief difference between spores and seeds as dispersal units is that spores have very little stored food resources compared with seeds.
is also dubious, as some seeds (e.g. many orchids) are extremely small and smaller than some spores e.g. spores of Gigaspora can be >500µm diameter and contain a relatively large amount of food reserves.
--Graminophile (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, certainly.  This page needs lots of work.  Done properly, this page would be many times its current length. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Although isidia and soredia are indeed diaspores, they are not spores, which by general convention are unicellular (although there are certainly exceptions).--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spores & Diaspores

message: I am attempting to de-orphan the above article. I have added a link to it in the See Also section. However, if appropriate, it would probably be better if someone more knowledgeable than I work a link into the text. Thanks. --Sophitessa (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article [[Cryptospores]] 

message: Spores are defined here as "a spore is a unit of asexual reproduction that may be adapted for dispersal and for survival, often for extended periods of time, in unfavorable conditions" in the first sentence. However, sexual spores seem to exist as well, and are not defined or distinguished from zygotes. Clarification?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.98.59 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable text making reference to a sexual spore, please post that information here with the reference and, if correct, the article can be changed. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   22:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual Spores

message: Various Pages have the word Sporulation with a link ending in either Spore or some other Page relating to the process, none of which neccesarily makes it clear what "sporulation" is.  I assume sporulation is the creation of a spore.  Do we have enough information to be worth now creating the (currently Redirect) page Sporulation?  Could we create a titled paragraph on Sporulation here in Spore or wherever is deemed apt?  I suggest the latter for now, working towards a Page.
IceDragon64 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is lots of information in the literature, but the details of the process differ enormously between different groups of organisms. There could never be a single summary article on the subject with any depth to it at all; it would end up being just another page subdivided into a dozen separate mini-articles covering the process in each group. Sporulation is, simply, the production of spores. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sporulation Page? 

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