Talk:Reproduction

message: See Also - Digital reproduction. Why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.138.249 (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The grammar on this page is not standard. My guess would be that it has been translated from German or Latin.
: Be bold and improve! :-) --Menchi 04:25, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: We could really do with this, unless it is already here under a different name... Anyone got any ideas? Mark Richards 21:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate articles on sex / asex reproduction 

message: A pair of homologous chromosomes in each daughter nuclei II (haploid!) is especially fabulous.
TG nb4est(at)yahoo.com
:Add it if you find suitable. Deryck C. 13:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meiosis picture is a piece of ... art 

message: Parentheses are a legitimate punctuation.  I do not understand why you think they should be removed from writing.  Also, some of your other changes completely destroy the flow of the sentences. It is possible to simply use shorter sentences, although that may or may not  improveme understanding.  Nonetheless, certain words (such as "that") are helpful to establish relationships between different parts of a sentence.  While I agree, there are many ways to say the same thing, on the whole your changes have not been an improvement on the English. - Marshman 17:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My real concern is that the overuse of brackets made the passage look weird as if the footnotes were mixed into the main passage. Deryck C. 08:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Been so long I hardly recall what the "dispute" was about.  BTW, those are parentheses not "brackets". And, in a very real sense, parentheses are a form of mixing footnotes into text.  Many ideas are important to the presentation in a written passage, but some may seem (to the author) somewhat peripheral to the main flow of thought or main point.  Footnotes are a valid way of handling such "parallel" contributing ideas.  But Wikipedia is not really set up to use footnotes in that manner (can be done, but is better suited to printed media).  Parenthesis are another option.  Thoughts in parentheses are meant to be taken as "extra" information, important, but outside the main thrust of the sentence. THe informatio is frequently a clarification of the word or thought preceeding. Note use of parantheses in this paragraph; the sentence could stand alone, but some readers will ask "why do you say Wikipedia is not set up..." The related ideas could be separated by a semi-colon or even a printer's m.  Parentheses are just one option for a writer to order the thoughts being conveted. - Marshman 19:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO it'd be a lot better if we use commas instead of parenthesis to enclose parenthesal notes into the passage. Deryck C. 02:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't like brackets? 

message: The category is "Biological reproduction".  The page name should be also.  There is a redirect in the way, but I will signal for an admin to do the rename if there are no objections. -- Fplay 01:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to "Biological reproduction" 

message: I apologize for the poor phrasing of my edit, but I do have some concerns with the accuracy of the current sexual reproduction section.  It says that all species "have two different adult sexes".  But earthworms, for example, are all hermaphroditic.  Plant species also commonly produce both male (pollen) and female gametes in the same plant.  These organisms do not have two different adult sexes.
Also, from "Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation" by evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson, there are a few rare species (including slime moulds) that have many sexes, not just two.  Again, these species do not have two different adult sexes.Lyrl 19:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point you are making is a good one.  Reverting was not the best way to correct the error or two you introduced. Look for an appropriate place to put it back in and I can help you edit it to satisfactory condition. You might consider adding it instead at Sexual reproduction which needs help - Marshman 18:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: When people talk about Sexual reproduction they mostly mean Gender reproduction (ie Male/Female). But there is another class of reproduction Hermaphroditic reproduction which both partners have male & female reproductive organs. I believe that these pages should be created talking about the specifics of their reproduction techniques. Also the stub Evolution of Genders which is a related topic needs some help. I hope that I'm not straying too far from the topic by asking for assistance. (UKPhoenix79 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual reproduction 

message: I'm short on sleep, so I could be having a brain-fart, but this sentence makes no sense to me:
:"Most organisms form two different types of gametes. In anisogamous species, these two types are referred to as male and female"
Don't you mean "sperm" and "egg" here, rather than "male" and "female"? Pete.Hurd 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article (and the one at Sexual reproduction) suffers from a confusion of concepts between sex cells (gametes) and the organisms that produce the sex cells.  The correct sense here should follow consistently through the text (or certainly within a paragraph), and I think it is about the organisms involved, not the gametes.  Further rewrite is certainly in order. - Marshman 03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not particularly confusable concepts.  I don't think there's a serious need to consistentify articles.  Just use gametes sperm and eggs when talking abou tgametes spem and eggs and adults, organisms, males and females when talking about them.  Shouldn't take much effort to fix in this article.  As for Sexual reproduction I'd say it's got more serious problems (It would be nice to see less of a taxonomic focus, some discussion of fun sex things like meiotic drive (oof! there's no meiotic drive article?!), and maybe a nice clear discussion of the difference between sexual reproduction and conjugation). Pete.Hurd 04:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm clear you got my point. As for other things to pursue; well there is the problem that this article has become a sort of way station for the "big" shows at asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction. So your ideas for other directions could really help out here. - Marshman 04:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, I'd disagree about the way station, I'd say this article has far more bang for the buck than sexual reproduction.  I guess it's debatable whether most of the good stuff here really would be better off on that other page.  If it really only pertains to sexual or only to asexual perhaps it should move, and that which is general remains.  I'm not so motivated to actually do that myself... Pete.Hurd 04:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It need not be as I describe, but whenever a subsection begins with "See main article at....", that tells contributers to not expand that subsection, it is only a brief summary. That does not mean other related concepts cannot be pursued, but does raise questions as to what should be expanded where  - Marshman 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anisogamy & gamete names

message: This article is Biological reproduction it seems appropriate to me to move all the stuff about self-replicating robots to Self-replication or some other page geared towards non-biological reproduction.  Then sentence about mass-production in the industrial age seems particularly out of place. Pete.Hurd 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechanical/Robotic reproduction

message: Cannabis is a big plant topic. Right now there is a discussion at . If anyone would care to participate, please do. Thanks. (Simonapro 07:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant Reproduction with regards to specific varieties and or species 

message: Organisms that reproduce through asexual reproduction tend to grow in number exponentially.
Isn't that true of everything that reproduces, no matter what the exact mechanism? See Malthusian catastrophe. --70.189.77.59 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is practically false because external conditions limit the multiplication of organisms. This is explained in ecology. Only in the case of asexual reproduction can organisms can gain virtually an infinite amount of matter for replication of cells. --Deryck C. 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  exponential growth 

message: I think merging to sexual reproduction is better than merging here. --Deryck C. 07:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[allogamy]]? 

message: Semelparity is a characteristic of r-strategists. K-selection is more closely associated with iteroparity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.77.44 (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semelparity 

message: The article contains the following quote:
"The lottery principle is less accepted these days because of evidence that asexual reproduction is more prevalent in unstable environments, the opposite of what it predicts."
However, this contradicts what I've read elsewhere, especially the related articles on Wikipedia, where it is asserted that sexual reproduction excels in unstable environments. Am I confused?
In any case, the article is locked and I can't edit personally...65.183.135.231 (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we at least have a reference? I was interested about this but without a reference there is no way to retrieve the information the author is referring too. I was gonna add a "citation requared" tag but I can't edit this article. 14:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterfactual information 

message: The statement at the beginning that claims sexual reproduction requires 2 individuals is flat out wrong and needs to be eliminated.  The garden pea plants that Mendel experimented with, as well many other plants, can self-fertilize: there is a SINGLE parent that gives rise to offspring through sexual reproduction.  And this ability for a single parent to produce offspring sexually is not limited to just plants: some species of hermaphroditic animals can self-fertilize too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual Reproduction does NOT require 2 individuals

message: A statement at the beginning says, "Asexual reproduction is not, however, limited to single-celled organisms. Most plants have the ability to reproduce asexually."  That needs to be edited to indicate that some animals also reproduce asexually.  A simple change to the last sentence would suffice: "Most plants and some animals have the ability to reproduce asexually."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Asexual Reproduction not limited to unicellular organisms and plants

message: In the section SEXUAL REPRODUCTION, the following is found:
Sexually reproducing organisms have two sets of genes for every trait (called alleles).
This is false. Many animals and a great many plants are polyploids. An explicit mention of DIPLOID needs to be made here, at the beginning.
Later the following is said:
Having two copies of every gene, only one of which is expressed, allows deleterious alleles to be masked, ... 
That applies only to traits that display completel dominance.  It does not apply to traits that show incomplete dominance or codominance, for example.  This needs to be made clear: otherwise, it is grossly misleading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual reproduction: not always diploid and 1 allele is not always masked

message: "These two main strategies are known as K-selection (few offspring) and r-selection (many offspring)."
"In general, semelparity is characteristic of r strategists, while iteroparity is characteristic of K strategists."
These statements seem to logically contradict eachother. I would have tried to fix this but this article is locked. The subarticles need fixing as well. I'm pretty sure it's the second statement above that's false and not the first. 
162.24.9.213 (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy Contradiction 

message: This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.  
Please update the page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.th
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI as an unregistered user I am still blocked from editing this page (though I can edit the other trial pages). 67.187.92.105 (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I failed at protecting it correctly (I put on the new version and did not remove the old version) You should now be able to edit it. James (T C) 03:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes

message: "Procreation" redirects here, but the article doesn't talk about that word. It should probably be in the article somewhere, right? If only to say it is a synonym. - JefiKnight (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it as an alternate name to the lead, per it being a common name for the term...and a redirect. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procreation 

message: Reproduction: Reproduction is a biological process by which the organisms produces their off-springs of their own species. The organisms must have the ability of producing organisms (off-springs). By the process of reproduction living organisms produces their own kinds which ensures the continuity of their kinds. Reproduction is the one of fundamental characteristics of living things but not essential process for an individual, because a individual can live with out reproduction, although a specie can not survive with out reproduction. There are two types of reproduction i.e. Asexual & Sexual.
Asexual Reproduction: Asexual reproduction is the type of reproduction in which off-springs produced containing single parent. In asexual reproduction the produced off-springs are completely similar to that of the parent & does not create any genetic variation. In asexual reproduction binary fusion, budding, spore formation, vegetative propagation, artificial propagation, apomixes & cloning are involved.
Sexual Reproduction: Sexual reproduction is the type of reproduction in which off-springs produced as a result of the involving both male & female (parents). In sexual reproduction the produced off-springs are not completely similar to that of parents & create genetic variation in off-springs. Sexual reproduction is better than asexual reproduction. In sexual reproduction external & internal fertilization, seed germination etc are include.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.246.36 (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction & Its Types: 

message: Why is parents and offspring in quotation?  So, the real answer, not something like an example where a flower reproduces by pollen or some dumb crap like that if that's even accurate or a good example. Seriously our personalities are the offspring and our true selves are the parents. So, this is just a complex way and more proper fancy way of explaining something. A scientific explanation Lol. Please respond!!!  Cinderella7321 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  parents and offspring  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Reproduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115201713/http://oregonstate.edu/dept/animal-sciences/poultry/index.html to http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/animal-sciences/poultry/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article could use significantly more links for students to use for projects on this topic. Any ideas? Bearian (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: More external links needed

message: 37.239.113.25 (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Empty request. Sam Sailor 07:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2019 

message: The line that says.
“ female sperm closer to being a reality for humans, given that Japanese scientists have already created female sperm for chickens. "However, the ratio of produced W chromosome-bearing (W-bearing) spermatozoa fell substantially below expectations.”
Excuse me female sperm. Um a male by definition is literally an organism that produces sperm and female is an organism that produces ovum. The whole thing about female sperm sounds like a hermaphrodite to me. I’m also speculating original research center.
Because I don’t see any sources in that section mention anything about female sperm in humans. CycoMa (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think a certain section needs some looking into 

message: Change
to
or something along those lines. At the very least fix the egregious typos. Maybe consider an RFP request to experiment with a reduction to pc for bit, to make it less likely stuff like this will sit for a week without being fixed. I'd make the request myself, but it's late and I've already committed to the wikibreak so I wouldn't be able to follow up on it. And yes this article needs a complete rewrite, but no harm in patching things piecemeal for now. Regards, 85.172.31.16 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2021 

message: Forgive my ignorance, but can the word "beget" be included in the description of this article? 2601:902:4301:DF50:58B4:FA17:E7CF:35FA (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beget 

message: some are created from nonliving materials RobertoLion1 (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not every organism is a result of reproduction 

message: I think in this article or in the article human reproduction there should be a reference to reproduction and religion and different opinions on reproduction. Such as what is in the article be fruitful and multiply and ideologies opposed to that doctrine Rashba (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That actually sounds like a different article, say Religious and Ethical Views on Human Reproduction. (Redlink is deliberate in this case.) IAmNitpicking (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction and religion