Talk:Sex linkage

message: Thus most individuals with Rett syndrome are females, presumably because the male version is usually not viable.
I removed this sentence because MECP2 mutations are viable in male embryos. I wrote Rett syndrome#Gender and Rett syndrome to deal with this. Out of curiosity, has anyone done an article on embryonic lethality? Thanks, anonymous IP 203.34.41.146 23:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I would like to merge this article with autosomal and re-name it autosomal versus X-linked inheritance. sex linkage, sex chromosome, autosomal chromosome, and autosomal would redirect to autosomal vs X-linked inheritance. Right now, Sex chromosome incorrectly forwards to sex determination system. autosomal dominant is already proposed for a merge into dominance relationship which is where most of it belongs. I'll just take what I need for autosomal vs sex-linked inheritance and put the rest in dominance relationship Dr d12 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging these articles as proposed seems like a bad idea to me. In the first place, organisms other than humans have letters other than X and Y designating their sex chromosomes. For example, birds use a ZW sex determination system, and many organisms use an XO system, where O stands for the absence of a chromosome. There can be Y-linked inheritance as well. How would we integrate bees, wasps and ants into this system, when a male's genome consists of half of a females autosomes, meaning that all or none of their chromosomes are sex chromosomes? Furthermore, a look at the scientific literature reveals that sex chromosomes are the source of far more richness than just a "versus" the autosomal chromosomes. Webofscience finds 5,228 articles with "x chromosome" in their title, 1,623 articles with "sex chromosome" in their title, and 395 with "autosome" in the title. Only 58 articles use the term x (or sex) chromosome in a title with the term autosome. Speciate 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I vote no. Perhaps a summary article discussing sex linked inheritance might be appropriate but if you merge you'll end up with one of those huge overly complex articles which put off the readers. There is too much info for one mega article IMHO.Trilobitealive (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a huge mega article should be avoided.  However, if you look at each of the individual articles, they are all quite small and are really only informative in the context of each other.  Thus the suggestion to merge.  And really, the Sex linkage article seems to attempt this but is currently not well done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medical geneticist (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense so I'll change my vote to neutral. But it would probably do better with one person doing most of the initial work so as to reduce confusion. If you know what you want you might create a sandbox on your userpage, then build the article there to see if it turns out the way you want it. Then its just a matter of putting it up, getting some help for final edits then fitting in the parts you'd want to move.Trilobitealive (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge and rename

message: Is this a misspell or does it really exist?
I googled it and couldn't find a Lfesch-Nhgnyhan syndrome ... the Nhgnyhan is a surname that's usually spelled Ngnyan
Svizac 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lfesch-Nhgnyhan sygndrome]]

message: Why should an article on sex linkage contain a long list of hereditary conditions that are not sex-linked?  Any objection to removing these sections? —Tamfang (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just coming to ask that question myself, when I saw your post. I have removed the section. --Khajidha (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autosomal inheritance 

message: In the subsection "Sex-linked traits in other animals", two different entries are marked as the first sex-linked gene discovered: Drosophila melanogaster and Abraxas grossulariata.  This seems like a contradiction that needs fixing or clarifying.  Thoughts?
JMCorey (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking in many months later--no comments received.  The latter seems to have been published in 1906 and the former in 1910, so I updated the text to avoid the confusion.
JMCorey (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two different firsts?