This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Basal (phylogenetics) on 4 December 2018. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was No consensus. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 4 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Israel.tharpe.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CallunaVulgaris, GermanShortHair, Burner112. Peer reviewers: CallunaVulgaris, GermanShortHair, Burner112.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I just noticed this article has been flagged for possible removal to Wiktionary. Since the quality of being primitive (basal) is a fairly important concept in biology, any help in expanding this bare stub into an encyclopedic article would be appreciated. Some ideas:
Ginkgo100 22:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The page you quote from Gould has nothing to do with the sentence you attached it to. - 68.107.137.178 ( talk) 06:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Please discuss article questions on the article's talk page, also please don't make it personal:
Hi. The citation you removed from Primitive (phylogenetics) discussed the concept in question usefully; please explain what you would rather see there. Furthermore, in reverting the entire edit you removed a few unrelated items; what was your reason for that? Even if you can justify your distaste for the first citation, that was disruptive and might be regarded as discourteous. JonRichfield (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The page does not support "primitive in the sense most relevant to phylogenetics means resembling the first living things and in particular resembling them in the simple nature of their anatomy and behaviour." You also added quotes to the article, and I could not find these quotes in the book. Maybe I missed something?
As you changed the sentence to support the citation and added a page about a completely different topic, I was lost about what you intended, and I could only revert the entire addition. - 68.107.137.178 ( talk) 15:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
A major rewrite was initiated by Michaplot, which was reverted by Materialscientist on the grounds of suspected vandalism. I think that the original version was not appropriate in style for a Wikipedia article; it read like an essay or a piece of teaching text. (I'm not saying that there was anything necessarily wrong with it viewed like this.) So I have restored Michaplot's changes and made some copy-edits. I think a cladogram could usefully be added to illustrate "basal" vs. "derived". Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
cladogram I threw this together. How about something like this? I stole the idea from the UC Museum of Paleontology. The text would explain that legs are primitive within the dinosaur clade but advanced the entire clade shown (basically vertebrates). Similarly, wings are advanced within the whole clade, but primitive within the birds. Michaplot ( talk) 16:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I expected a merge discussion heading to have been automatically added, since there's a merge proposal on the page, but it hadn't.
I weakly oppose a merge - primitive applies to traits, and basal applies to clades. I would support a merge into ancestral (phylogenetics) or an equivalent if it exists, or a redirect if it doesn't. Lavateraguy ( talk) 18:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I think this article can lead to an erronous interpretation of the actual meaning of both of those words.
The modern definitions of both is that a symplesiomorphy means a trait shared by two or more groups/taxa that doesn't imply relatedness, or in other words, that does not lead to a unique shared common ancestor. It could be either because of a reversion of a derived trait or sharing a "primitive" trait, and those similarities have very different evolutionary histories.
Similarly, a synapomorphy is a trait shared by two or more groups/taxa that implies a unique shared common ancestor. Two shared "advanced" traits, like fin-like appendages, could have risen recently but could still not be synapomorphic.
By the way,the term primitive has been largely abandoned by modern biology and phylogenetic studies. I feel that should be mentioned right at the start of the article. -- GuiSapito ( talk) 21:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Basal (phylogenetics) on 4 December 2018. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was No consensus. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 4 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Israel.tharpe.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CallunaVulgaris, GermanShortHair, Burner112. Peer reviewers: CallunaVulgaris, GermanShortHair, Burner112.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I just noticed this article has been flagged for possible removal to Wiktionary. Since the quality of being primitive (basal) is a fairly important concept in biology, any help in expanding this bare stub into an encyclopedic article would be appreciated. Some ideas:
Ginkgo100 22:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The page you quote from Gould has nothing to do with the sentence you attached it to. - 68.107.137.178 ( talk) 06:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Please discuss article questions on the article's talk page, also please don't make it personal:
Hi. The citation you removed from Primitive (phylogenetics) discussed the concept in question usefully; please explain what you would rather see there. Furthermore, in reverting the entire edit you removed a few unrelated items; what was your reason for that? Even if you can justify your distaste for the first citation, that was disruptive and might be regarded as discourteous. JonRichfield (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The page does not support "primitive in the sense most relevant to phylogenetics means resembling the first living things and in particular resembling them in the simple nature of their anatomy and behaviour." You also added quotes to the article, and I could not find these quotes in the book. Maybe I missed something?
As you changed the sentence to support the citation and added a page about a completely different topic, I was lost about what you intended, and I could only revert the entire addition. - 68.107.137.178 ( talk) 15:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
A major rewrite was initiated by Michaplot, which was reverted by Materialscientist on the grounds of suspected vandalism. I think that the original version was not appropriate in style for a Wikipedia article; it read like an essay or a piece of teaching text. (I'm not saying that there was anything necessarily wrong with it viewed like this.) So I have restored Michaplot's changes and made some copy-edits. I think a cladogram could usefully be added to illustrate "basal" vs. "derived". Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
cladogram I threw this together. How about something like this? I stole the idea from the UC Museum of Paleontology. The text would explain that legs are primitive within the dinosaur clade but advanced the entire clade shown (basically vertebrates). Similarly, wings are advanced within the whole clade, but primitive within the birds. Michaplot ( talk) 16:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I expected a merge discussion heading to have been automatically added, since there's a merge proposal on the page, but it hadn't.
I weakly oppose a merge - primitive applies to traits, and basal applies to clades. I would support a merge into ancestral (phylogenetics) or an equivalent if it exists, or a redirect if it doesn't. Lavateraguy ( talk) 18:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I think this article can lead to an erronous interpretation of the actual meaning of both of those words.
The modern definitions of both is that a symplesiomorphy means a trait shared by two or more groups/taxa that doesn't imply relatedness, or in other words, that does not lead to a unique shared common ancestor. It could be either because of a reversion of a derived trait or sharing a "primitive" trait, and those similarities have very different evolutionary histories.
Similarly, a synapomorphy is a trait shared by two or more groups/taxa that implies a unique shared common ancestor. Two shared "advanced" traits, like fin-like appendages, could have risen recently but could still not be synapomorphic.
By the way,the term primitive has been largely abandoned by modern biology and phylogenetic studies. I feel that should be mentioned right at the start of the article. -- GuiSapito ( talk) 21:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)