![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Etoecology page were merged into Behavioral ecology on October 27, 2009. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Mate choice was copied or moved into Behavioural ecology with this edit on 9 July 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Added two sentences on another example of brood parasitism Phengaris rebeli NK2015 ( talk) 12:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Page rewritten 5 July 2005 by Craig Barnett. Only the first sentance remains from the first post.
Behavioral ecology and ethoecology are really just the same thing but with different names. So, we should move everything from ethoecology into behavioral ecology (even though ethoecology is a more interesting name). It wouldn't make a huge difference since there isn't much in ethoecology anyway. -- Skyler :^| 21:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea then. As stated in my original post I would agree with the general title being "Behavioural Ecology" and maybe including a short paragraph documenting ethoecology. I was just making sure we were not proposing having a combined title of "Behavioural Ecology/Ethoecology" FatPumpkin ( talk) 09:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not even ethnoecology, it's etoecology. As far as I can tell it is a term that has been made up by some group in Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.241.131 ( talk) 20:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Merged. Though in fact there was nothing of any value at Etoecology, so there was nothing to merge. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What a shame that the merge happened! As the article currently states: "Behavioral ecology is the study of the evolutionary basis for animal behavior". What about the more general study of other living beings' behavior? Where does it remain? If you answer this, you might start to understand what ethoecology is trying to do. Draw conclusions and you can only give the unmerge a try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.61.227 ( talk) 15:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Phylogenetic constraints are generally factors that might stop certain lineages developing certain behavioral or morphological traits. Hence, it is no coincidence that generally birds are able to fly and mammals cannot. The evolutionary history of these lineages have made it profitable for birds to fly and for mammalian feet to remain planted on the ground.
Please explain what you mean by this, so I can rewrite it. What "factors" are you talking about?
72.8.108.76 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The current article on optimization is maths based and shows little mention of biological optimality. Some one should either add it to the existing article or create Optimization (biology) or Optimality modeling. Jack ( talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The relationship with Convergent evolution seems obvious, but is not discussed. Also, " Helpers at the nest" is an obvious example not mentioned. (Btw, you would think there should be a better term for "helpers at the nest".) ~E 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 00:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The lead [Brit: lede] -imo- seems to rely too heavily on anecdotal interpolation to simply explain "What is this?"; rather, it should briefly define the topic and hopefully include a mention relating to each section of the article. The "for example..." and "for instance.." [stuff] should be relegated to the sections of the main article. Btw, the foundation of 'Behavioral ecology' seems to be almost entirely based on anecdotal synthesis/interpolation. I suspect that somebody came up with a cool-sounding buzzword for an NSF grant; and worked backward from there. "Behavioral ecology" should be something similar to: the study of behavioral inter-relational dependency networks, - not intra- ... But I digress; my point is simply that the lead could be more clear and concise, with anecdotal examples reserved primarily for the article. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 01:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I think an Disambiguation pages is needed here, as there is now an wiki page for Behavioral Ecology An example content for such page could be:
"Behavioral Ecology is the subject of:
![]() | This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page. |
I am a Teaching Assistant for a Behavioral Ecology class which is intending on greatly extending this article. We will be basing these revisions on Davies, Krebs, West, An Introduction to Behavioral Ecology. We will be using one class session to add the majority of these changes so they likely appear as a barrage of additions and edits. We have been expanding many articles throughout the semester and are very familiar with proper formatting and citation usage. We hope this will spur more interest into this subject as we will be linking many of the evolutionary concepts and animal examples to this page as is appropriate.Gsibbel 21:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"
There has been a sudden increase in the additions to this article (see above?). One problem is that there has been inconsistency of referencing and citations. This is mainly with references to the Davies et al. books with editors using references to multiple pages - references should be as detailed as possible so that information can be verified. I have tried to fix some of these references bu tin the process became confused as to which group of pages were being referred to. It may therefore be simplest to revert my changes and editors agree on a standardised style of citations and references and edit their own sections accordingly. My favoured method would be the approach used in the last section of the article which gives the pagination in the text , e.g. . [1]: 371–375 __ DrChrissy ( talk) 19:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The recent numerous additions to this article are welcome and are generally of a very high quality. However, I suspect that some of the sections might be simply 'cut and paste' of primary sources. If so, this would be against copyright and WP policy unless appropriate attribution is given. Many new editors are not aware of copyright issues and information can be found at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Can I politely suggest that recent edits are checked by the original editors for these potential concerns. All the best__ DrChrissy ( talk) 19:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I am the professor of this class. I know these students well. I had them fix this page in a blitz during class a couple of weeks ago. I looked at the outlines they wrote before they began writing actual text. I am now editing this text. It is good, but not that good. I pretty much know the students and all the authors they are citing and do not see plagiarism. I'm working through the material myself also. This page needed a lot of help and is now much better. I'm proud of my students. Agelaia ( talk) 03:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm just curious since I have never seen a Wikipedia page with the side bar being green colored. TheFirstVicar4 ( talk) 23:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Etoecology page were merged into Behavioral ecology on October 27, 2009. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Mate choice was copied or moved into Behavioural ecology with this edit on 9 July 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Added two sentences on another example of brood parasitism Phengaris rebeli NK2015 ( talk) 12:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Page rewritten 5 July 2005 by Craig Barnett. Only the first sentance remains from the first post.
Behavioral ecology and ethoecology are really just the same thing but with different names. So, we should move everything from ethoecology into behavioral ecology (even though ethoecology is a more interesting name). It wouldn't make a huge difference since there isn't much in ethoecology anyway. -- Skyler :^| 21:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea then. As stated in my original post I would agree with the general title being "Behavioural Ecology" and maybe including a short paragraph documenting ethoecology. I was just making sure we were not proposing having a combined title of "Behavioural Ecology/Ethoecology" FatPumpkin ( talk) 09:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not even ethnoecology, it's etoecology. As far as I can tell it is a term that has been made up by some group in Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.241.131 ( talk) 20:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Merged. Though in fact there was nothing of any value at Etoecology, so there was nothing to merge. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What a shame that the merge happened! As the article currently states: "Behavioral ecology is the study of the evolutionary basis for animal behavior". What about the more general study of other living beings' behavior? Where does it remain? If you answer this, you might start to understand what ethoecology is trying to do. Draw conclusions and you can only give the unmerge a try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.61.227 ( talk) 15:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Phylogenetic constraints are generally factors that might stop certain lineages developing certain behavioral or morphological traits. Hence, it is no coincidence that generally birds are able to fly and mammals cannot. The evolutionary history of these lineages have made it profitable for birds to fly and for mammalian feet to remain planted on the ground.
Please explain what you mean by this, so I can rewrite it. What "factors" are you talking about?
72.8.108.76 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The current article on optimization is maths based and shows little mention of biological optimality. Some one should either add it to the existing article or create Optimization (biology) or Optimality modeling. Jack ( talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The relationship with Convergent evolution seems obvious, but is not discussed. Also, " Helpers at the nest" is an obvious example not mentioned. (Btw, you would think there should be a better term for "helpers at the nest".) ~E 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 00:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The lead [Brit: lede] -imo- seems to rely too heavily on anecdotal interpolation to simply explain "What is this?"; rather, it should briefly define the topic and hopefully include a mention relating to each section of the article. The "for example..." and "for instance.." [stuff] should be relegated to the sections of the main article. Btw, the foundation of 'Behavioral ecology' seems to be almost entirely based on anecdotal synthesis/interpolation. I suspect that somebody came up with a cool-sounding buzzword for an NSF grant; and worked backward from there. "Behavioral ecology" should be something similar to: the study of behavioral inter-relational dependency networks, - not intra- ... But I digress; my point is simply that the lead could be more clear and concise, with anecdotal examples reserved primarily for the article. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 01:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I think an Disambiguation pages is needed here, as there is now an wiki page for Behavioral Ecology An example content for such page could be:
"Behavioral Ecology is the subject of:
![]() | This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page. |
I am a Teaching Assistant for a Behavioral Ecology class which is intending on greatly extending this article. We will be basing these revisions on Davies, Krebs, West, An Introduction to Behavioral Ecology. We will be using one class session to add the majority of these changes so they likely appear as a barrage of additions and edits. We have been expanding many articles throughout the semester and are very familiar with proper formatting and citation usage. We hope this will spur more interest into this subject as we will be linking many of the evolutionary concepts and animal examples to this page as is appropriate.Gsibbel 21:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"
There has been a sudden increase in the additions to this article (see above?). One problem is that there has been inconsistency of referencing and citations. This is mainly with references to the Davies et al. books with editors using references to multiple pages - references should be as detailed as possible so that information can be verified. I have tried to fix some of these references bu tin the process became confused as to which group of pages were being referred to. It may therefore be simplest to revert my changes and editors agree on a standardised style of citations and references and edit their own sections accordingly. My favoured method would be the approach used in the last section of the article which gives the pagination in the text , e.g. . [1]: 371–375 __ DrChrissy ( talk) 19:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The recent numerous additions to this article are welcome and are generally of a very high quality. However, I suspect that some of the sections might be simply 'cut and paste' of primary sources. If so, this would be against copyright and WP policy unless appropriate attribution is given. Many new editors are not aware of copyright issues and information can be found at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Can I politely suggest that recent edits are checked by the original editors for these potential concerns. All the best__ DrChrissy ( talk) 19:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I am the professor of this class. I know these students well. I had them fix this page in a blitz during class a couple of weeks ago. I looked at the outlines they wrote before they began writing actual text. I am now editing this text. It is good, but not that good. I pretty much know the students and all the authors they are citing and do not see plagiarism. I'm working through the material myself also. This page needed a lot of help and is now much better. I'm proud of my students. Agelaia ( talk) 03:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm just curious since I have never seen a Wikipedia page with the side bar being green colored. TheFirstVicar4 ( talk) 23:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)