Talk:Sexual reproduction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Top | This article is on a subject of top-importance within molecular and cellular biology. |
||
 |
This article has been marked as requiring immediate attention. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit ยท refresh) Rated "top" as topic of general interest. The article needs a more general intro figure. The picture only applies to diplontic organisms (aka animals) and excludes plants, fungi, most protists etc. Clear definitions and explanations of different forms of sexual reproduction are needed, e.g. sporic meiosis and alternation of phases, gametic meiosis and zygotic meiosis. Mechanisms of fertilization need to be explained as well, e.g. isogamy, anisogamy (egg and sperm cells), syngamy and karyogamy in fungi etc. - tameeria 04:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
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)
Contents |
[edit] Sexual reproduction in fishes?
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!!!!!!!!!
[edit] Expand this thing pronto
The article doesn't even mention an iota about sexual reproduction of bacteria or other microorganisms. Someone who knows about the topic should help expand this article.
The article, as usual with Wikipedia, focuses way too much on human beings and related animals, as if humans were the only organisms that reproduce sexually. The article is way too anthropocentric.
The article should also mention the biological history of sexual reproduction. For example, it should mention the fossilized evidence that paleontologists have of sexual reproduction in earlier geological periods or even eras or eons.
Shame on the article.
Also, bacteria and plants and mammals should be mentioned before humans, because, taxonomically, they are considered "inferior".
Now look at this: "Mammal reproduction involves the insertion of the male sex organ into the female sex organ and the deposit of the male's sperm into the female through ejaculation." That sentence's so reductionistic. It treats the topic as if copulation were the only process that is part of reproduction. That's like saying that sexual reproductiion equals copulation. The sentence is not the same as the paragraph.
- It doesn't mention gestation.
- It doesn't mention more about meiosis.
Note the construction of the sentence. It starts with "Mammal reproduction involves [...]". And then it just mentions copulation. Nothing else.
Then, I don't see why it uses the word "pregnancy" instead of "gestation" for mammals in general. The word "gestation" is used for mammals. Non-human mammals are not the same as humans.
Nice. It uses the term "gestation period". But why does it then use the word "pregnacy" intead of "gestation"? Then, why does the article use the term "childbirth"? Offspring are offspring. Children are children. Children are human. Offspring, not necessarily. So your pets have "children" instead of "offspring"? Why aren't cloacas mentioned under "Female reproductive system" under mammals? Monotremes are mammals too, for heaven's sake! 2004-12-29T22:45Z 05:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'll deal with each of your objections as you bring them
- First, bacteria do NOT reproduce sexually. From bacteria: "Bacteria reproduce only asexually, not sexually." Second, the section that has already been created, but empty merely because I do not have any knowledge of it, titled "Other forms of sexual reproduction" is obviously meant to house information about microorganisms that do reproduce sexually.
- Second, you accuse the article for being anthropocentric, which is way off. There is a section of the article titled "Reproduction in mammals", which uses humans as a reference, because all readers of Wikipedia are human and have experience with human reproduction, which is an excellent model for all mammals. This section SHOULD focus on humans and related animals. There are, obviously other sections, which are regretfully empty, but nonetheless, it is clear that this article is supposed to contain non-anthropocentric information. Further, the introduction puts forth a definition of sexual reproduction which embraces all methods, regardless of species. This is the general presentation of sexual reproduction, which should be followed by as many specific examples as possible.
- You're right about the archaeological evidence about the history of sexual reproduction, but the article merely needs to be expanded; it does not need clean up and is neutral.
- I'm not sure how taxonomical "inferiority," whatever that is, is any reason to decide how to organize this article. As humans, most people reading about sexual reproduction would best understand by beginning with what they are familiar - humans. From there, it is more easy to draw analogies and describe the reproductive processes of other organisms.
- If you would read the whole paragraph, it would become clear that the article actually does refer to gestation and meiosis; you may feel that more needs to be said, which is fair enough. The sentence itself, "Mammal reproduction involves..." does not mean that the sentence encapsulates the entirety of mammal reproduction, merely that sexual intercourse is a part of it, which it obviously is. The following sentences clearly elaborate on what else mammal reproduction involves.
- I agree on your issue with using pergnancy and childbirth. I stuck with childbirth for the sake of having something more detailed to link to; there is no one article about birth in general, only one on childbirth. Perhaps one should be written.
- Cloacas are not mentioned because they are the exception to the rule; I feel it would not be beneficial to list every way mammals reproduce. Instead, a caveat that most mammals reproduce this way, but not all, should be inserted, and other methods be included in an appropriate section. Jamesmusik 07:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Replying 2004-12-29T22:45Z
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)
[edit] Deryck Chan's edits
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)
- 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)
[edit] Sexual reproduction in bacteria?
- Are you pretty sure that some bacteria do not reproduce sexually? Are you sure the article about bacteria is not generalizing unnecessarily?
- Clarification about natural history: I said paleontology, not archeology. Paleontology is the study of ancient organisms, while archeology is the study of what humans leave behind. Again, if you mentioned archeology instead of paleontology, that would be anthropocentric, in my own personal opinion. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- The only thing approaching sexual reproduction in bacteria is what's called Bacterial conjugation, which is not reproduction at all, because you begin with 2 organisms and end with 2.
- Sorry I changed the wording. It's irrelevant though, since I have no experience with either. Hopefully someone will come along to add that information. Jamesmusik 18:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
In 1958, there were a group of people awarded the Nobel Prize for finding "sexual recombination" in bacteria. Isn't "sexual recombination" a form of sexual reproduction, or is it just a misnomer? See also genetic recombination. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, this is not sexual reproduction. As the name suggests, it involves a recombination of genetic material passed between two organisms. The end result is still only 2 organisms. Reproduction, by definition, involves the creation of a new organism. Jamesmusik 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
You say that reproduction involves "the creation of a new organism". If, in the beginning, you have two organisms, and they create two different organisms, then those two resulting organisms are "new organisms", or not? They are not more in number, but they're "new". Two "old" organims create two "new" organisms. So isn't that considered "sexual reporduction"?2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, first of all the exchange is one direction only, so only one bacterium would be "new," but it is not really new at all; it is made entirely of the same material and at its core the same organism, only with some DNA added. Jamesmusik 19:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Is the following part of a MedicineNet.com article about Joshua Lederberg wrong?
"Lederberg's work, which formed the basis for his Ph.D. dissertation, demonstrated that bacteria can in fact reproduce through sexual recombination, and opened up the genetics of microorganisms to the traditional methods of the field."
Note that it says that "bacteria can in fact reproduce through sexual recombination". It says, "reproduce". Is that wrong? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- They are using 'reproduce' in an overly broad sense. Reproduction, in the sense I believe this article is intending, is the creation of new organisms, leading to an increase in the population of those organisms. "Reproduction" through sexual recombination, no matter how quickly achieved, would always result in the extermination of a species if it were the sole method of "reproduction," because it is not true reproduction, merely transfer. For instance, you have two bacteria, doomed to die within 24 hours; they exchange DNA, but are still doomed to die within 24 hours. Reproduction, at least in the sense we're after here is the process of creating new organisms which begin anew the life cycle. Jamesmusik 19:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Expanding the sexual reproduction article
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 {{Expansion}} 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)
- 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)
- 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))
I don't think mentioning evolution would make the article longer, since mentioning evolution gives the article a more "natural" sequence. You start with the "lower" organisms (organisms that are less "related" to humans) and then you go through evolution until you reach the "higher" organisms and humans. Making a separate article right now is not economical, since this very article is not expanded. I think that this article should be expanded first, and if it grows, then you make a separate article. The topic of evolution gives the article a sequence for the sections. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I just changed the template. Now it says, "the corresponding discussion page" instead of "this discussion page". 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] Mammalian reproduction
I suggest splitting the mammalian reproduction section into another article. Deryck C. 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think the section or article is currently long enough to warrant that. James 17:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The following line is troubling:
- In primates, the sexual partner for each primate is monogamously specific. For most other mammals, males and females occasionally exchange sexual partners.
I am not a primatologist, but my understanding is that many primate species are not, as a rule, monogamous. Many humans certainly have non-monogamous partners. The wording of the sentence about other mammals implies that monogamy is the default, although some trading of partners does occur. These looks to me like the kind of "facts" that support a moral agenda. Someone with a biology background needs to add the correct, objective information. Craigbutz 17:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree, it flies in the face of most facts about sexuality in mammals. - Marshman 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Female+female reproduction
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)
- 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)
[edit] Plant reproduction screwy
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)
