Talk:Sexual reproduction

message: What the hell is "Abuse of reproductive processes"? I'm deleting this header unless someone can explain it. Kaldari 23:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: So now there's no such thing as a creature known as "fish"???? Why are they left out of this article? I know they do reproduce sexually, all vertrebrates do... I know they do not fertilize each other male into female, they just leave the substances drift into each other with appropiate proximity at fecundation-time... I ignore the name of the process, that's what I was searching for... And to my surprise fishes are not mentioned at all!!!!!!!!!
:The absolute majority of animals reproduce sexually. The very composition of this article seems pretty strange to me. 46.242.74.199 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual reproduction in fishes?

message: The part of the article that you've mark "disputed" was originally split from the reproduction article from the section "human reproduction". However, merging and splitting hasn't been complete yet, therefore the heading "human reproduction" is not added till now. Deryck C. 07:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replying 2004-12-29T22:45Z 

message: I do not understand how this division has helped at all. Now both the humans section and the mammal section are full of information about humans and most of it overlaps. I suggest we begin with a complete discussion of human reproduction and then dicuss differences and exceptions to the general rule that mammals reproduce the same way in a separate section. Please let me know what you think. Jamesmusik 13:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 sections: human, other mammals, flowering plants, other sexual reps. For the first 3 sections each leading to its relevant articles (ie. the first 3 are intros to other articles) Deryck C. 15:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deryck Chan's edits 

message: First of all, when an "expansion template" is put on an article, the custom is to put the template on the "discussion page" or "talk page", or whatever it's called. That's why the template says something like "elsewhere on this discussion page". At least, that's the custom.
Specifically, it says "See the request on the listing or elsewhere on this discussion page.". Or at least, put it on the article, since template talk:expansion says, "Add the template  to the article or its discussion page. (Consensus is not yet reached on which is preferred. See discussion here and Wikipedia:Template locations.)", becuase I don't think this article is expanded.
What I think is that this article should talk more about the biological evolution of sexual reproduction. For example, it should state how sexual reproduction started. It should say, for example, that sexual reproduction started with small eucaryotes about 1.2 billion yeras ago in the Precambrian. Then it should say how sexually reproducing organisms evolved through time, how anthophytes (flowering plants) came to existence, and so on, until we reach the time period of Homo sapiens (humans). 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want an article to be expanded, you should put the expansion tag on the article itself. I agree it should be expanded, but your last edit on the article was to remove the expansion tag. The talk page doesn't need expanding, the article does, so leave the tag there. As for your suggestions, I would say they would make the current page overly long and instead a separate page, perhaps Evolution of Sexual Reproduction would be more appropriate. Jamesmusik 23:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: If you want to talk about "how sexually reproducing organisms evolved through time" try expanding on Evolution of Genders this stub needs some help. (UKPhoenix79 21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that such a sequence would give the article a "natural" sequence. It is more natural and considerably simpler to begin with what one is familiar with. Jamesmusik 00:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the [[sexual reproduction]] article 

message: Currently the marsupial section of the article begins 
:Marsupials reproduce in essentially the same manner, though their young are born at a far earlier stage of development than other mammals
Could someone knowledgeable please clarify this?
# This section is immediately after the one for the Monotremes, which would suggest that "essentially the same manner" refers to monotremes, not placental mammals, except the "are born at a far earlier stage of development" doesn't make sense in that context. 
# Shouldn't Marsupials be indented one level to make it another subsection of Mammals?
Thanks, Bruce Kiore (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've replaced the section with the relevant part of Evolution of mammals#Metatheria as it answered my question and more while covering everything that was in the marsupials section. Kiore (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Marsupials

message: This wasn't in the article, nor in any of the other articles that I could see.  I have been curious to know if two females could successfully reproduce by fusing two eggs together?  In a world where animals are cloned, I'm sure this could be done.  The resulting embryo would have two X chromosomes, just like a normal female.  I started thinking about this after reading about lesbian couples who go through lengthy adoption processes and wondered if this was the future for same sex females. (Obviously this wouldn't work for two men since one X is needed) Does anyone know if there has been any research on this and if there is a wikipedia article about it?  Thanks. Dukemeiser 03:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that has been done (once) in the lab, but that does not happen in nature, at all, ever.  This article is currently covering natural sexual reproduction.  Commentary on the female-female and male-male (half of men's sperm have X-chromosomes, just insert two sperm into an egg that's been stripped of it's own nucleus) reproduction would be better put in assisted reproductive technology. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   12:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female+female reproduction 

message: I just corrected the paragraph on plant reproduction as it was plain incorrect. Pollen grains are not gametes - they are multicellular gametophytes consisting of a pollen tube cell and two sperm cells (in angiosperms - gymnosperm pollen grains even have eight cells). Ovules in plants are not gametes either - they contain multicellular female gametophytes. In angiosperms, one cell out of eight is an egg cell. In gymnosperms, the female gametophyte can have thousands of cells and develops archegonia which produce the egg cell(s). Flowering plants do double fertilization after successful pollination. "Lower" plants like ferns and mosses do it differently again altogether and depend on water for fertilization via motile sperm cells. - tameeria 04:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant reproduction screwy

message: So... does it actually say anywhere within the first paragraph or two what sexual reproduction actually is?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.9.132 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It does now. The first paragraph was removed by vandalism, nearly four months ago. I've put it back. Graham87 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a sentence adding!!! 

message: Amphibians, reptiles, and birds should be mentioned in the article.  From what I recall, amphibians reproduce in a manner very similar to fish,
whereas most reptiles are much like monotremes.  Some reptiles give live birth, but since this trait evolved independently of live birth in mammals, it may differ in substantial aspects.  An improved version of the article should include all of these.  --Speight (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds 

message: :If, in this transit, it meets with sperm, the egg selects sperm with which to merge; this is termed fertilization.
This seems to give an egg a lot of agency. Is the ovum really selecting the sperm with which to merge? Does it really have discretion over the matter? Should we not use a more specific term than "selects"? --Mr.98 (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the egg is really selecting, and it only merges with one sperm. That section needs citations, but I'm not the person to find them. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agency 

message: Is there some way to remove the hash-marks (#) from these links?  I've attempted a few clever tricks, without success.  Perhaps, instead of "Main article" links, these should be changed to "For further information..." 'Hatnotes', e.g.: 
Presumably, this is the proper way to do this when referring to a sub-section, rather than a page title. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template:Main, which documents parameters to the template that can do this. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reviewed the documentation again, and there still doesn't seem to be a means of formatting 'See also' template for multiple links with user-defined names. - I manually formatted a 'Hatnote' instead.  Looks as it should; whatever... Done. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article links 

message: It can be decided the meaning of sex in this article. Sex (in the meaning of sexual reproduction - the process of combining and mixing genetic traits, associated with the generation of new individuals) don't occurs in prokaryotes. Sex (in the meaning of mixing genetic traits solely) occurs between them. Bacteria exchange DNA, but it is not a means of reproduction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.56.5.101 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations given in the lead paragraph are authoritative. Sex is often defined in eukaryotes as fertilization, a subtly different definition from combining and mixing genetic material. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The line "It occurs both in eukaryotes and prokaryotes" is false and misleading. A process that is similar to sex occurs in prokaryotes but this does not lead to sexual reproduction which is the subject of this article. The misleading line cites footnote 3 which links to the science article "Adaptive value of sex in microbial pathogens"  The science article states: "Although sex is usually thought of as a means of reproduction, this is not always the case. Indeed, in many groups—including viruses, bacteria and most of lower eukaryotes, sex is un-coupled from reproduction;"  Again, I must point out that sex in prokaryotes does not lead to reproduction so the article is wrong to claim that it does. I'm changing the article. RonCram (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: RonCram, what you added is not sourced, while was was there does seem to have been sourced (I'll read that source later to see). We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, per WP:Verifiability. And like WP:Verifiability states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Sminthopsis84, what say you on RonCram's above comment and changes to the article? Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Okay, RonCram, looking above at the quote you cited from the source, it is definitely wrong for that source to have been used to support something it does not support. Again, I'll read the source later. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't remember a source ever describing bacteria as truly sexually reproducing either; it's considered inaccurate to classify archaea (which also reproduce asexually) as bacteria, though, in modern times. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick search through the source before making my subsequent edit; the linked PDF file is difficult to read with my screen reader. As far as I could tel, it hardly mentions Prokaryotes at all. Graham87 06:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

text: <Strike>The Sex article also covers asexual reproduction, as it should.</Strike> If asexual reproduction is considered underdeveloped there, the solution is to further expand material on it there. I don't think that creating a Sex (genetic mechanisms) article is a solution, and this is because I think it would only lead to more confusion and I'm generally not a fan of WP:Spin out articles; I think they should only be created when needed, and I don't see one as needed in this case. Besides, unless WP:Reliable sources discuss sex in such a way, as "sex (genetic mechanisms)," I don't think it's wise for Wikipedia to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I struck out the line above because I was confusing that article with the Reproduction article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

text: But, yeah, we already have the Asexual reproduction and Reproduction articles to cover reproduction among prokaryotes. And what I see when Googling sex genetic mechanisms is mostly information about sex determination and differentiation, and Wikipedia apparently has enough articles about that. Flyer22 (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't think wikipedia currently has adequate coverage of the material that used to be here, what sex actually is in eukaryotes and bacteria and archaea. Genetic exchangeability goes to gene flow, … it's a mess. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It occurs both in eukaryotes and in prokaryotes." 

message: Why can bacterial transformation be considered as a form of sex, while conjugation is not? The transforming bacteria do not need a partner, they can take up and integrate any DNA from their environment, regardless of it's origin. It doesn't even need to be of the same species. On the other hand, conjugation is a process, where two bacteria from the same species change genetic material directly. It sounds more like a sexual process to me.
Also, the article at present form is totally incoherent with the articles bacterial conjugation and transformation. Kenadra (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transformation is sex, conjugation is not? 

message: Scientific citations needed for this.  One has to look at this in the cellular level... for instance if binary fission is similar to mitosis how about transformation , conjugation, transduction  - is there a meiotic similarity to be called sexual reproduction ? Deeply contrasting and comparing the two and by sticking to the fact that a cell is one individual organism the more comprehensive is the answer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.12.104 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See #"It occurs both in eukaryotes and in prokaryotes." discussion above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

text: This is just to show the validity of the use of sexual reproduction in bacteria. In meiosis (higher org) it is more complicated but as a whole there is comparative mechanism with the bacteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.8.70 (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Reproduction in Bacteria 

message: Per this edit summary, the logical quotation guideline applies to all quotation marks, not just quotes. Graham87 02:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where that's clear in the guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's under the subheading "Quotation marks". Graham87 14:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're talking about MOS:QUOTEMARKS; I see where it states, "The term quotation in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as those for titles of songs, chapters, episodes, unattributable aphorisms, literal strings, 'scare-quoted' passages, and constructed examples. Quotation marks existing in other sources should be changed to match the format described below when being brought into Wikipedia." And I see that WP:Logical quotation is a subsection of it, but WP:Logical quotation focuses on sentences; it does not address quotation marks by themselves. Anyway, I should ask about this at the guideline's talk page. Maybe they'll make the guideline clearer on this matter. I have seen others do what you did. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical quotation 

message: At a minimum, this page should reflect the content of the parent page Reproduction that refers to it. That positions it in the hierarchy of biological pages. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positioning 

message: There should be a small focus on the different types of sexual reproduction.  Some examples could be autogamy and allogamy.  There could also be a discussion about internal and external reproduction.  
Another addition could talk about how population size determines if sexual reproduction actually is beneficial in the ways that are suggested within this article.  Certain articles suggest that population size determines how quickly an adaptation within a trait will be fixed in a population.  
Finally, a section at the beginning of the article should be included about the start of life and explaining the use of asexual reproduction.  This would give a perspective as to what occurred before the evolution of sexual reproduction and help to support the fact that sexual reproduction appears to be more widely beneficial than asexual reproduction for many organisms.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strange.33 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New Suggestions

message: The section for birds has a link to avian reproduction, but that just redirects you the article about Birds in general. Not only that, but the part about breeding in that  also only has a number of links that redirects you back the top of the page.
So basically, their is nothing about how birds reproduce. That should be fixed.FamAD123 (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The breeding section in the bird article has several subsections with more information. Graham87 10:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birds 

message: Substituted at 05:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Please check out this new article, Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex 

message: The last two sentences of the first paragraph awkwardly attempt to describe species as it connects to sexual reproduction. However, it lacks a citation and seems factually wrong. 
" A species is defined as a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction, although the species problem encompasses a series of difficult related questions that often come up when biologists define the word species."
First off, these sentences do not follow the subject of the preceding paragraph, which describes the mechanics of sexual reproduction. Secondly, it uses hybrid in the definition, but reading off of the hybrid definition on its page already describes a hybrid as the offspring of members of different species. If this idea is to be included in this article it needs to have a more researched definition of species and be separate from the opening paragraph. The idea presented could fit under the evolution subheader, or in its own section about the role sexual reproduction has in the definition of species.
WenCOB (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the sentences. WenCOB (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species? 

message: Citation [18] (Reichard, U.H. (2002). "Monogamy—A variable relationship" (PDF). Max Planck Research. 3: 62–7. Retrieved 24 April 2013.) leads to a broken link. Will try to find appropriate and updated version.
WenCOB (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it using the Wayback Machine. Graham87 06:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Citations

message: Help required with Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex: the article of apparently fringe theory is based almost exclusively on primary sources and edited by a people with strong connection to the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sexual 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/20140105073839/http://brit.org/webfm_send/455 to http://brit.org/webfm_send/455
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) 04:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This referenced text was removed because it was claimed to not be NPOV:
The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle because asexual reproduction should be able to out-compete it because sexually reproduction involves finding and competing for a suitable mate and extra resources to produce sexual organs. This cost is a fitness disadvantage of sexual reproduction.Ridley M (2004) Evolution, 3rd edition. Blackwell Publishing, p. 314. Another disadvantage is that only 50% of genes are passed onto any offspring. The main advantage of sexual reproduction is the generation of progeny that are genetically diverse.
The current text uses a primary source and lists causes that are not generally listed in secondary sources as an advantage or disadvantage for sexual reproduction.
The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle because asexual reproduction should be able to outcompete it as every young organism created can bear its own young. This implies that an asexual population has an intrinsic capacity to grow more rapidly with each generation.John Maynard Smith The Evolution of Sex 1978. This 50% cost is a fitness disadvantage of sexual reproduction.Ridley M (2004) Evolution, 3rd edition. Blackwell Publishing, p. 314. The two-fold cost of sex includes this cost and the fact that any organism can only pass on 50% of its own genes to its offspring. One definite advantage of sexual reproduction is that it prevents the accumulation of genetic mutations.
97.92.91.74 (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: The article currently starts: 
Sexual reproduction is a form of reproduction where two gametes fuse together. Each gamete contains half the number of chromosomes of normal cells.
I see several problems with this: 
#It focuses on one subphenomenon, fertilisation. 
#It fails to provide an overview of the whole phenomenon, the changing between haploid and diploid generations. How did the gametes come about? 
#It is confusing because the title includes reproduction (amplification), but the action that is mentioned reduces the number of individuals. 
#It assumes that the diploid cell is normal. Diploid cells are not even the most numerous cells on Earth. Bacteria are. Even for eucaryootes, where diploid cells are far more common, it is problematic to call them normal. It is better to start with a neutral description of alternation of haploid and diploid generations, then description of the major alternatives, where they occur and how common they are. 
Here is an alternative definition from John Maynard Smith & Eörz Szathmáry, The Major Transitions in Evolution, 1995, p 149: By sex in eukaryotes, we understand a more-or-less regular succession of meiosis and syngamy. A natural consequence of this is the alternation of haploid and diploid phases in the life cycle. 
--Ettrig (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning 

message: The article has quite a large section about prokaryota, although the processes described are only "similar to eukaryotic sex". On the other hand, there is little information about sex (sexual reproduction) in protista. I would like to read more about that. Bever (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protista 

message: I have been seeing sources mention this claim a lot. The claims that 99% of multi cellular organisms reproduce sexually or 99% of vertebrates produce sexually.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160704-the-real-reasons-why-we-have-sex
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Reproduction_Part_A/Uuxo-6MkNJ8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=99%25+reproduce+sexually&pg=PA2&printsec=frontcover
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/sexual-reproduction-and-the-evolution-of-sex-824/
Not entirely sure where to put this but, I think this fact should at least be mentioned.CycoMa (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  99% of multicellular organisms produce sexually 

message: The sex ratio section seems out of place here. It would be more appropriate to put it in sex or sex ratio.CycoMa (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex ratio doesn’t belong here 

message: This article mentions that sexual reproduction is about the fusion of sperm and eggs.
However, not all forms of sexual reproduction involve sperm or eggs.
There are isogamous sperms that reproduce sexually. They don’t have sperm or eggs.CycoMa (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So just change it to gametes. Plantsurfer 15:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sperm and eggs? 

message: There's no section about their sexual reproduction.--178.249.169.67 (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protists? 

message: The above statement is rather contradictive to the Sexual selection subsection. Per Mate choice article the above statement is horribly wrong on who is securing mate. Receiptive organisms (i.e. "female" ones) most of the time determine who is going to be their mate simply because they are charged by bearing it and caring after offspring (there are rare exceptions to note, but intra species competition always remains).
I suggest we explicitly state this. This statement may be supported by both Charle's Darvin works and some limited studies:  AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Securing mates for sexual reproduction 

message: can anyone help me please to understand better the paragraph dealing with comparing the costs of  asexual/sexual reproduction. They're seem to be some parts of the explanation that are missing or unclear.? 51.155.222.72 (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation of the 50/50 costs of sexual reproduction