Talk:Morphogenesis

message: The first sentence in the article states that morphogenesis, differentiation and growth are the 3 essential aspects of development. Cell death and cell fate specification are not mentioned. Fate is not synonymous with differentiation. I am surprised to see the Bicoid gradient and A-P Drosophila polarity in this article. It is not an example of morphogenesis at all - this is an example of how different cell fates are specified based on position. All of the sections on the A-P/gradient/segmentation belong in an article on cell fate specification in a syncytium. Part of the confusion probably comes from the similarity of the words Morphogenesis (forming structure) and Morphogen (cell fate specifying molecule). The morphogenesis article should concentrate on cell migration, cell shape changes, structure formation, tube formation, cell aggregation, programmed cell death, tissue dispersion, cell adhesion, extracellular matrix... Dr d12 23:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs some help

message: The developmental biology page gives a standard description of the parts of developmental biology, "...developmental biology studies the genetic control of cell growth, differentiation and morphogenesis."
It may be confusing for the reader to follow the link to "morphogenesis" and find this:
"Morphogenesis.....describes the process of cellular differentiation, distribution and growth....which gives rise to tissues, organs and anatomy."
This is how the Gilbert text describes morphogenesis:
"The question of morphogenesis. Our differentiated cells are not randomly distributed. Rather, they are organized into intricate tissues and organs. These organs are arranged in a given way: the fingers are always at the tips of our hands, never in the middle; the eyes are always in our heads, not in our toes or gut. This creation of ordered form is called morphogenesis. How can the cells form such ordered structures?" JWSchmidt 01:21, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: relation of morphogenesis to other parts of developmental biology

message: would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  embryology 

message: Why is there a link to Projective geometry in the article? Tbc2 12:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: at one time this was in the article: "More recently, Lawrence Edwards succeeded in applying the path curves of projective geometry to provide a rigorous mathematical description of biological forms such as eggs, buds and cones." --JWSchmidt 04:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projective geometry 

message: Three news reports saying that Alan Turing's  theory of morphogenesis has been proven.
Anyone able to expand on that ? EdwardLane (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Turing's is certainly only one mechanism among many. What is striking is that it was predicted correctly so long before experimental evidence became available, and by a non-biologist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alan Turing 

message: After posting this comment, I will correct the citation for D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson's "On Growth and Form". The book cited is the abridged version, printed 2004, and first published 1961, and comprising some 349 pages, with an editor responsible for the abridgement. It is NOT the 1917 version. It is also not the unabridged version published by Dover in 1992, comprising 1116 pages. 
The gold standard in referencing is that one cites sufficient information to be able track down the SPECIFIC publication being cited. One most certainly DOES NOT cite a given publication then reference a completely different version. For out of print, or reprinted publications of early books, this can get cumbersome, but this is in fact where the gold standard is most critical, and where dumbing things down is most unhelpful. Wotnow (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Chiswick Chap, for your effort on the Thompson reference. You are right. The original publication date is a key point. I couldn't find the date in the publication details page of the preview, which is why I didn't mention it. I think it worth finding something to cite that gives us that date. I'll have a bit of a look and see what I can find, unless you or someone else finds something meantime. Cheers Wotnow (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Accurate referencing

message: There are several articles which appear to form a cluster but with a) unclear relationships, and b) various states of undress - missing citations, over-technical explanations without decent introduction, and above all c) no proper co-ordination to give readers an overview either of the individual articles or of how to navigate among them.
I came to all this from Patterns in nature which touches on morphogenesis via its results. However the mechanisms are complicated and as yet poorly explained here in Wikipedia. We need a specialist to sort out the articles in this area. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Morphogenesis]], [[Morphogen]], [[Morphogenetic field]], [[Pattern formation]]: Expert needed

message: I removed the sentence about the "alternative hypotheses" of Albert Harris because it made no sense and had no citations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.19.49 (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit that I made 

message: More about morphogenesis in plants should be included. They provide more simple examples because, unlike animal cells, plant cells are restricted in movement about the organism by cellulose cell walls. Jonhorridge (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  And morphogenesis in plants?