![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Knove001.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
See Also - Digital reproduction. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.138.249 ( talk) 08:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I know it's a good way of explaining it, but maybe the facts in it could be incorporated INTO the article? It just seems to be abit sudden when I was reading the article. Chessmanlau ( talk) 06:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The grammar on this page is not standard. My guess would be that it has been translated from German or Latin.
We could really do with this, unless it is already here under a different name... Anyone got any ideas? Mark Richards 21:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
May 2005 (UTC)
Marxism uses reproduction as a term to describe the social process of creating the material and social aspects of society Fifelfoo 05:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article lacked just ONE vote of support necessary to get it to survive as one of the Collaberations of the Week, but it looks like it's dead, now. I revived the Science Collaboration of the Week and nominated it there, so the notice has been added to this talk page. Toothpaste 6 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)
The term reproductive success links to this page. RS is a technical term with a precise definition, not touched upon in this entry. -- Pete.Hurd 9 July 2005.
I disagree with the recent edit to remove the statement that sexual reproduction has the advantage of being able to mask "bad" genes. While not all dominant genes are good and not all recessive ones are bad, it is certainly the case that species survive better because they can mask those bad genes that are recessive. Perhaps I worded it poorly, but I think it is a sentiment that needs to be included. Jamesmusik 17:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
A pair of homologous chromosomes in each daughter nuclei II (haploid!) is especially fabulous. TG nb4est(at)yahoo.com
Parentheses are a legitimate punctuation. I do not understand why you think they should be removed from writing. Also, some of your other changes completely destroy the flow of the sentences. It is possible to simply use shorter sentences, although that may or may not improveme understanding. Nonetheless, certain words (such as "that") are helpful to establish relationships between different parts of a sentence. While I agree, there are many ways to say the same thing, on the whole your changes have not been an improvement on the English. - Marshman 17:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The category is "Biological reproduction". The page name should be also. There is a redirect in the way, but I will signal for an admin to do the rename if there are no objections. -- Fplay 01:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for the poor phrasing of my edit, but I do have some concerns with the accuracy of the current sexual reproduction section. It says that all species "have two different adult sexes". But earthworms, for example, are all hermaphroditic. Plant species also commonly produce both male (pollen) and female gametes in the same plant. These organisms do not have two different adult sexes. Also, from "Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation" by evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson, there are a few rare species (including slime moulds) that have many sexes, not just two. Again, these species do not have two different adult sexes. Lyrl 19:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm short on sleep, so I could be having a brain-fart, but this sentence makes no sense to me:
Don't you mean "sperm" and "egg" here, rather than "male" and "female"? Pete.Hurd 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is Biological reproduction it seems appropriate to me to move all the stuff about self-replicating robots to Self-replication or some other page geared towards non-biological reproduction. Then sentence about mass-production in the industrial age seems particularly out of place. Pete.Hurd 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Cannabis is a big plant topic. Right now there is a discussion at [1]. If anyone would care to participate, please do. Thanks. ( Simonapro 07:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
Organisms that reproduce through asexual reproduction tend to grow in number exponentially.
Isn't that true of everything that reproduces, no matter what the exact mechanism? See Malthusian catastrophe. -- 70.189.77.59 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think merging to sexual reproduction is better than merging here. -- Der yck C. 07:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I just updated the merge tag to reflect the date the merge was originally proposed on allogamy. It was originally posted here in the month of September 2006, but it was posted there in the month of January 2006. -- Iamunknown 09:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Semelparity is a characteristic of r-strategists. K-selection is more closely associated with iteroparity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.77.44 ( talk) 06:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Link articles on semelparity and iteroparity to types of reproduction section - elaborate on K and r selection or link to population biology section —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mimesknight (
talk •
contribs)
08:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The article contains the following quote:
"The lottery principle is less accepted these days because of evidence that asexual reproduction is more prevalent in unstable environments, the opposite of what it predicts."
However, this contradicts what I've read elsewhere, especially the related articles on Wikipedia, where it is asserted that sexual reproduction excels in unstable environments. Am I confused?
In any case, the article is locked and I can't edit personally... 65.183.135.231 ( talk) 02:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC) a sexual you only need one parent and sexual you need to parents
The statement at the beginning that claims sexual reproduction requires 2 individuals is flat out wrong and needs to be eliminated. The garden pea plants that Mendel experimented with, as well many other plants, can self-fertilize: there is a SINGLE parent that gives rise to offspring through sexual reproduction. And this ability for a single parent to produce offspring sexually is not limited to just plants: some species of hermaphroditic animals can self-fertilize too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 ( talk) 03:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A statement at the beginning says, "Asexual reproduction is not, however, limited to single-celled organisms. Most plants have the ability to reproduce asexually." That needs to be edited to indicate that some animals also reproduce asexually. A simple change to the last sentence would suffice: "Most plants and some animals have the ability to reproduce asexually." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 ( talk) 03:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
In the section ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION, conjugation is implied to be a form of asexual reproduction: it is not. Conjugation in bacteria is SEX WITHOUT REPRODUCTION. No offspring are produced. When 2 bacteria undergo conjugation, at the end, there are still only 2 bacteria ... no more. And neither is any way, shape, or form made 'pregnant' by conjugation. It is the transfer of genetic information between individuals, without reproduction.
In the section SEXUAL REPRODUCTION, the following is found: Sexually reproducing organisms have two sets of genes for every trait (called alleles). This is false. Many animals and a great many plants are polyploids. An explicit mention of DIPLOID needs to be made here, at the beginning. Later the following is said: Having two copies of every gene, only one of which is expressed, allows deleterious alleles to be masked, ... That applies only to traits that display completel dominance. It does not apply to traits that show incomplete dominance or codominance, for example. This needs to be made clear: otherwise, it is grossly misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 ( talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That part in the opening pargraph that states what thing do reproduction should be edited. It says that viruses reproduce by taking over the host cell, but it should be noted that viruses are not living things because they lack a metabolism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.212.145 ( talk) 00:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"These two main strategies are known as K-selection (few offspring) and r-selection (many offspring)."
"In general, semelparity is characteristic of r strategists, while iteroparity is characteristic of K strategists."
These statements seem to logically contradict eachother. I would have tried to fix this but this article is locked. The subarticles need fixing as well. I'm pretty sure it's the second statement above that's false and not the first.
162.24.9.213 ( talk) 01:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.
Please update the page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.th
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
"Procreation" redirects here, but the article doesn't talk about that word. It should probably be in the article somewhere, right? If only to say it is a synonym. - JefiKnight ( talk) 21:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Reproduction: Reproduction is a biological process by which the organisms produces their off-springs of their own species. The organisms must have the ability of producing organisms (off-springs). By the process of reproduction living organisms produces their own kinds which ensures the continuity of their kinds. Reproduction is the one of fundamental characteristics of living things but not essential process for an individual, because a individual can live with out reproduction, although a specie can not survive with out reproduction. There are two types of reproduction i.e. Asexual & Sexual.
Asexual Reproduction: Asexual reproduction is the type of reproduction in which off-springs produced containing single parent. In asexual reproduction the produced off-springs are completely similar to that of the parent & does not create any genetic variation. In asexual reproduction binary fusion, budding, spore formation, vegetative propagation, artificial propagation, apomixes & cloning are involved.
Sexual Reproduction: Sexual reproduction is the type of reproduction in which off-springs produced as a result of the involving both male & female (parents). In sexual reproduction the produced off-springs are not completely similar to that of parents & create genetic variation in off-springs. Sexual reproduction is better than asexual reproduction. In sexual reproduction external & internal fertilization, seed germination etc are include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.246.36 ( talk) 10:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is parents and offspring in quotation? So, the real answer, not something like an example where a flower reproduces by pollen or some dumb crap like that if that's even accurate or a good example. Seriously our personalities are the offspring and our true selves are the parents. So, this is just a complex way and more proper fancy way of explaining something. A scientific explanation Lol. Please respond!!! Cinderella7321 ( talk) 16:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
ya mum trolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllhbqsavyigjhscoudvgsoivgbwiryybubbbeeeepppgsvgdbohjsbvugsfukdjnvjidh
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This article could use significantly more links for students to use for projects on this topic. Any ideas? Bearian ( talk) 23:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
37.239.113.25 ( talk) 06:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The line that says.
“ female sperm closer to being a reality for humans, given that Japanese scientists have already created female sperm for chickens. "However, the ratio of produced W chromosome-bearing (W-bearing) spermatozoa fell substantially below expectations.”
Excuse me female sperm. Um a male by definition is literally an organism that produces sperm and female is an organism that produces ovum. The whole thing about female sperm sounds like a hermaphrodite to me. I’m also speculating original research center.
Because I don’t see any sources in that section mention anything about female sperm in humans. CycoMa ( talk) 19:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
Allogamy is the fertalization of flowers through pollination, this occurs when a flowers ovum is fertalized by a spermatozoa of another flower. Male gametes are found in pollen of plants, the pollen is then carried by a vector which allows the pollen to be transfered to another flower. These vectors that help transfer the pollen can be birds, bees, or bats. Fertalizing begins when the pollen is brought to a female gamete through the pollen tube. This is also known as cross fertalizationtion, in contrast to autogamy wich is self fertalization.
to
Allogamy is the fertilization of flowers through cross-pollination, this occurs when a flower's ovum is fertilized by spermatozoa from the pollen of a different plant's flower. Pollen may be transferred through pollen vectors or abiotic carriers such as wind. Fertilization begins when the pollen is brought to a female gamete through the pollen tube. Allogamy is also known as cross fertilization, in contrast to autogamy or geitonogamy which are methods of self fertilization.
or something along those lines. At the very least fix the egregious typos. Maybe consider an RFP request to experiment with a reduction to pc for bit, to make it less likely stuff like this will sit for a week without being fixed. I'd make the request myself, but it's late and I've already committed to the wikibreak so I wouldn't be able to follow up on it. And yes this article needs a complete rewrite, but no harm in patching things piecemeal for now. Regards, 85.172.31.16 ( talk) 21:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Done
PianoDan (
talk)
22:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but can the word "beget" be included in the description of this article? 2601:902:4301:DF50:58B4:FA17:E7CF:35FA ( talk) 05:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
some are created from nonliving materials RobertoLion1 ( talk) 12:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I think in this article or in the article human reproduction there should be a reference to reproduction and religion and different opinions on reproduction. Such as what is in the article be fruitful and multiply and ideologies opposed to that doctrine Rashba ( talk) 18:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Knove001.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
See Also - Digital reproduction. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.138.249 ( talk) 08:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I know it's a good way of explaining it, but maybe the facts in it could be incorporated INTO the article? It just seems to be abit sudden when I was reading the article. Chessmanlau ( talk) 06:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The grammar on this page is not standard. My guess would be that it has been translated from German or Latin.
We could really do with this, unless it is already here under a different name... Anyone got any ideas? Mark Richards 21:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
May 2005 (UTC)
Marxism uses reproduction as a term to describe the social process of creating the material and social aspects of society Fifelfoo 05:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article lacked just ONE vote of support necessary to get it to survive as one of the Collaberations of the Week, but it looks like it's dead, now. I revived the Science Collaboration of the Week and nominated it there, so the notice has been added to this talk page. Toothpaste 6 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)
The term reproductive success links to this page. RS is a technical term with a precise definition, not touched upon in this entry. -- Pete.Hurd 9 July 2005.
I disagree with the recent edit to remove the statement that sexual reproduction has the advantage of being able to mask "bad" genes. While not all dominant genes are good and not all recessive ones are bad, it is certainly the case that species survive better because they can mask those bad genes that are recessive. Perhaps I worded it poorly, but I think it is a sentiment that needs to be included. Jamesmusik 17:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
A pair of homologous chromosomes in each daughter nuclei II (haploid!) is especially fabulous. TG nb4est(at)yahoo.com
Parentheses are a legitimate punctuation. I do not understand why you think they should be removed from writing. Also, some of your other changes completely destroy the flow of the sentences. It is possible to simply use shorter sentences, although that may or may not improveme understanding. Nonetheless, certain words (such as "that") are helpful to establish relationships between different parts of a sentence. While I agree, there are many ways to say the same thing, on the whole your changes have not been an improvement on the English. - Marshman 17:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The category is "Biological reproduction". The page name should be also. There is a redirect in the way, but I will signal for an admin to do the rename if there are no objections. -- Fplay 01:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for the poor phrasing of my edit, but I do have some concerns with the accuracy of the current sexual reproduction section. It says that all species "have two different adult sexes". But earthworms, for example, are all hermaphroditic. Plant species also commonly produce both male (pollen) and female gametes in the same plant. These organisms do not have two different adult sexes. Also, from "Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation" by evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson, there are a few rare species (including slime moulds) that have many sexes, not just two. Again, these species do not have two different adult sexes. Lyrl 19:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm short on sleep, so I could be having a brain-fart, but this sentence makes no sense to me:
Don't you mean "sperm" and "egg" here, rather than "male" and "female"? Pete.Hurd 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is Biological reproduction it seems appropriate to me to move all the stuff about self-replicating robots to Self-replication or some other page geared towards non-biological reproduction. Then sentence about mass-production in the industrial age seems particularly out of place. Pete.Hurd 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Cannabis is a big plant topic. Right now there is a discussion at [1]. If anyone would care to participate, please do. Thanks. ( Simonapro 07:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
Organisms that reproduce through asexual reproduction tend to grow in number exponentially.
Isn't that true of everything that reproduces, no matter what the exact mechanism? See Malthusian catastrophe. -- 70.189.77.59 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think merging to sexual reproduction is better than merging here. -- Der yck C. 07:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I just updated the merge tag to reflect the date the merge was originally proposed on allogamy. It was originally posted here in the month of September 2006, but it was posted there in the month of January 2006. -- Iamunknown 09:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Semelparity is a characteristic of r-strategists. K-selection is more closely associated with iteroparity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.77.44 ( talk) 06:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Link articles on semelparity and iteroparity to types of reproduction section - elaborate on K and r selection or link to population biology section —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mimesknight (
talk •
contribs)
08:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The article contains the following quote:
"The lottery principle is less accepted these days because of evidence that asexual reproduction is more prevalent in unstable environments, the opposite of what it predicts."
However, this contradicts what I've read elsewhere, especially the related articles on Wikipedia, where it is asserted that sexual reproduction excels in unstable environments. Am I confused?
In any case, the article is locked and I can't edit personally... 65.183.135.231 ( talk) 02:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC) a sexual you only need one parent and sexual you need to parents
The statement at the beginning that claims sexual reproduction requires 2 individuals is flat out wrong and needs to be eliminated. The garden pea plants that Mendel experimented with, as well many other plants, can self-fertilize: there is a SINGLE parent that gives rise to offspring through sexual reproduction. And this ability for a single parent to produce offspring sexually is not limited to just plants: some species of hermaphroditic animals can self-fertilize too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 ( talk) 03:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A statement at the beginning says, "Asexual reproduction is not, however, limited to single-celled organisms. Most plants have the ability to reproduce asexually." That needs to be edited to indicate that some animals also reproduce asexually. A simple change to the last sentence would suffice: "Most plants and some animals have the ability to reproduce asexually." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 ( talk) 03:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
In the section ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION, conjugation is implied to be a form of asexual reproduction: it is not. Conjugation in bacteria is SEX WITHOUT REPRODUCTION. No offspring are produced. When 2 bacteria undergo conjugation, at the end, there are still only 2 bacteria ... no more. And neither is any way, shape, or form made 'pregnant' by conjugation. It is the transfer of genetic information between individuals, without reproduction.
In the section SEXUAL REPRODUCTION, the following is found: Sexually reproducing organisms have two sets of genes for every trait (called alleles). This is false. Many animals and a great many plants are polyploids. An explicit mention of DIPLOID needs to be made here, at the beginning. Later the following is said: Having two copies of every gene, only one of which is expressed, allows deleterious alleles to be masked, ... That applies only to traits that display completel dominance. It does not apply to traits that show incomplete dominance or codominance, for example. This needs to be made clear: otherwise, it is grossly misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 ( talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That part in the opening pargraph that states what thing do reproduction should be edited. It says that viruses reproduce by taking over the host cell, but it should be noted that viruses are not living things because they lack a metabolism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.212.145 ( talk) 00:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"These two main strategies are known as K-selection (few offspring) and r-selection (many offspring)."
"In general, semelparity is characteristic of r strategists, while iteroparity is characteristic of K strategists."
These statements seem to logically contradict eachother. I would have tried to fix this but this article is locked. The subarticles need fixing as well. I'm pretty sure it's the second statement above that's false and not the first.
162.24.9.213 ( talk) 01:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.
Please update the page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.th
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
"Procreation" redirects here, but the article doesn't talk about that word. It should probably be in the article somewhere, right? If only to say it is a synonym. - JefiKnight ( talk) 21:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Reproduction: Reproduction is a biological process by which the organisms produces their off-springs of their own species. The organisms must have the ability of producing organisms (off-springs). By the process of reproduction living organisms produces their own kinds which ensures the continuity of their kinds. Reproduction is the one of fundamental characteristics of living things but not essential process for an individual, because a individual can live with out reproduction, although a specie can not survive with out reproduction. There are two types of reproduction i.e. Asexual & Sexual.
Asexual Reproduction: Asexual reproduction is the type of reproduction in which off-springs produced containing single parent. In asexual reproduction the produced off-springs are completely similar to that of the parent & does not create any genetic variation. In asexual reproduction binary fusion, budding, spore formation, vegetative propagation, artificial propagation, apomixes & cloning are involved.
Sexual Reproduction: Sexual reproduction is the type of reproduction in which off-springs produced as a result of the involving both male & female (parents). In sexual reproduction the produced off-springs are not completely similar to that of parents & create genetic variation in off-springs. Sexual reproduction is better than asexual reproduction. In sexual reproduction external & internal fertilization, seed germination etc are include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.246.36 ( talk) 10:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is parents and offspring in quotation? So, the real answer, not something like an example where a flower reproduces by pollen or some dumb crap like that if that's even accurate or a good example. Seriously our personalities are the offspring and our true selves are the parents. So, this is just a complex way and more proper fancy way of explaining something. A scientific explanation Lol. Please respond!!! Cinderella7321 ( talk) 16:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
ya mum trolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllhbqsavyigjhscoudvgsoivgbwiryybubbbeeeepppgsvgdbohjsbvugsfukdjnvjidh
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This article could use significantly more links for students to use for projects on this topic. Any ideas? Bearian ( talk) 23:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
37.239.113.25 ( talk) 06:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The line that says.
“ female sperm closer to being a reality for humans, given that Japanese scientists have already created female sperm for chickens. "However, the ratio of produced W chromosome-bearing (W-bearing) spermatozoa fell substantially below expectations.”
Excuse me female sperm. Um a male by definition is literally an organism that produces sperm and female is an organism that produces ovum. The whole thing about female sperm sounds like a hermaphrodite to me. I’m also speculating original research center.
Because I don’t see any sources in that section mention anything about female sperm in humans. CycoMa ( talk) 19:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
Allogamy is the fertalization of flowers through pollination, this occurs when a flowers ovum is fertalized by a spermatozoa of another flower. Male gametes are found in pollen of plants, the pollen is then carried by a vector which allows the pollen to be transfered to another flower. These vectors that help transfer the pollen can be birds, bees, or bats. Fertalizing begins when the pollen is brought to a female gamete through the pollen tube. This is also known as cross fertalizationtion, in contrast to autogamy wich is self fertalization.
to
Allogamy is the fertilization of flowers through cross-pollination, this occurs when a flower's ovum is fertilized by spermatozoa from the pollen of a different plant's flower. Pollen may be transferred through pollen vectors or abiotic carriers such as wind. Fertilization begins when the pollen is brought to a female gamete through the pollen tube. Allogamy is also known as cross fertilization, in contrast to autogamy or geitonogamy which are methods of self fertilization.
or something along those lines. At the very least fix the egregious typos. Maybe consider an RFP request to experiment with a reduction to pc for bit, to make it less likely stuff like this will sit for a week without being fixed. I'd make the request myself, but it's late and I've already committed to the wikibreak so I wouldn't be able to follow up on it. And yes this article needs a complete rewrite, but no harm in patching things piecemeal for now. Regards, 85.172.31.16 ( talk) 21:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Done
PianoDan (
talk)
22:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but can the word "beget" be included in the description of this article? 2601:902:4301:DF50:58B4:FA17:E7CF:35FA ( talk) 05:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
some are created from nonliving materials RobertoLion1 ( talk) 12:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I think in this article or in the article human reproduction there should be a reference to reproduction and religion and different opinions on reproduction. Such as what is in the article be fruitful and multiply and ideologies opposed to that doctrine Rashba ( talk) 18:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)