Talk:Germ plasm

message: The two stated articles are essentially the same, and hence should definitely be merged. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but the page should be at germplasam which is how the phrase is used now.--Peta 02:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference for that? Every time I've read the term, it's been in two words. Phasmatisnox 02:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I only know the term germplasm as a collection of genetic ressources in breeding. What is explained in the article "germ plasm" is something completely different. Therefore I'd propose to keep the articles separate.
The two terms descibe totally sparate entities. Merging them makes no sence whatsoever.
I also am only aware of the term "germplasm" and is a single word and refers to seeds and other genetic materials usually related to plants. the discussion "germ plasm" in the associated page (which is proposed to be merged) has no relevance whatsoever to the context in which I am used to seeing the word. If the articles were to be merged the merger would need to be caveated so the user is aware of the different contexts and meanings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.171.34 (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: I put up the merger template. I think this one is self-explanatory. Phasmatisnox 02:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.... the subject of the two articles is obviously completely unrelated: a germplasm is a living gene bank, in the form of seeds or plant collections, while "germ plasm" is a cytological term. I'm removing the template. --NoahElhardt (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: I think this page should be renamed into Germ plasm theory. The current name, and page structure —one large paragraph, dedicated to the theory— is the outcome of a 2007 split from the Germplasm article (diff). It seems obvious the main topic here is the theory. The “germ plasm” term (in two words) is hardly ever used in another context. Tinm (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move page ? 

message: This raises a question which I've tried to resolve with this edit. Basically, Lamarck had a bundle of transformism / transmutation ideas including inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin rejected much of what Lamarck proposed, but accepted what he called Effects of Use and Disuse. Darwinism as proposed by Huxley meant evolution in general, without necessarily insisting on natural selection. Later on, Weismann's stricter approach and insistence that natural selection is the central mechanism came to be known as Darwinism (or Neo-Darwinism), and inheritance of acquired characteristics was called Lamarckism (or neo-Lamarckism). Not sure if the statement "Thus, the historian of science Rasmus G. Winther states, Weismann was not a Weismannian, as he, like Darwin, did believe in the inheritance of acquired characteristics" actually adds anything to the article, but have left it while adding a clarification. Sources available if required. . . dave souza, talk 12:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Darwin Lamarckian?