Heterochrony has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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): Kenneth.leep. Peer reviewers: Leahc 10.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Intent to update and flesh out the data in the lead, in paedomorphosis, and in human heterochrony. For example, in human heterochrony, there is mention of "30 neotenies" identified in humans compared to chimpanzees, without identifying specifics or how these were determined. Likewise, the paedomorphosis section does not provide adequate information or intra-wiki links to support the section's usefulness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth.leep ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I bring this up because I removed a sentence in the article and wanted to explain. There was an uncited claim that "Paedomorphic species are mainly aquatic, while peramorphic species are mainly terrestrial." which I see two problems with. First (and easiest), I doubt that this has ever been tested. If it has then it should have a citation; if not it should probably be removed. Even if an author has stated this, if it has not been evaluated, we shouldn't echo it here. Second, even if it has been tested in the sense of "things that look paedomorphic" are found in water, it is almost always confusing, or just incorrect, to refer to a species (or genus etc.) as being paedomorphic. Heterochrony acts on the different parts of the organism differently (as in the Irish Elk example). If what is being referred to here is something that covers the whole body such as the end of deterministic growth or sexual maturity, then that should be referred to. Changes in developmental timing are very rarely a total on/off switch, which is why the idea of Humans as big babies has been mostly abandoned (we are paedomorphic in some important ways but peramorphic in others). This may seem nuanced, but heterochrony is complicated and I think it's worth it to tinker with potentially misleading parts of the article. - Paleoaskari ( talk) 00:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Chiswick Chap: When you added the stuff about Walter Garstang's suggestion, you presented it in such a way that readers might believe the tunicata origin of vertebrates to be an established fact. However, neither the few articles and books I've seen treating this, and nor the source that you gave actually claims this. (McNamara actually writes that Garstang suggested this, but I found no claim of his that this suggestion is correct or even a majority opinion.) Moreover, e. g., the phylogeny given in Chordates (grouping vertebrates and tunicates within the clade Olfactores, with the lampreys as an 'outgroup') is hard to reconcile with Garstang's hypothesis. I rewrote this as precisely an hypthesis, still held by some biologists, but not by a consensus. Do you find this reasonable, or do you have other reliable sources in favour of Garstang's hypothesis? JoergenB ( talk) 20:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 19:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Reading now. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 19:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the photo of the three recent giraffes is inappropriate, because it reminds one of the giraffe example that is always used when the theories of Lamarck and Darwin are compared. However, in the comparison of these theories it shows a recent giraffe and its ancestors with shorter necks. Here, in this photo, you see three recent giraffes of completely the same build, which are probably of different ages, are of different sizes due to their sex, and appear to be of different sizes due to the perspective. This has nothing to do with heterochrony. We should find photos with examples in which animals look different due to different developmental processes of the same organs. Sciencia58 ( talk) 06:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Sciencia58 ( talk) 12:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Heterochrony has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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): Kenneth.leep. Peer reviewers: Leahc 10.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Intent to update and flesh out the data in the lead, in paedomorphosis, and in human heterochrony. For example, in human heterochrony, there is mention of "30 neotenies" identified in humans compared to chimpanzees, without identifying specifics or how these were determined. Likewise, the paedomorphosis section does not provide adequate information or intra-wiki links to support the section's usefulness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth.leep ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I bring this up because I removed a sentence in the article and wanted to explain. There was an uncited claim that "Paedomorphic species are mainly aquatic, while peramorphic species are mainly terrestrial." which I see two problems with. First (and easiest), I doubt that this has ever been tested. If it has then it should have a citation; if not it should probably be removed. Even if an author has stated this, if it has not been evaluated, we shouldn't echo it here. Second, even if it has been tested in the sense of "things that look paedomorphic" are found in water, it is almost always confusing, or just incorrect, to refer to a species (or genus etc.) as being paedomorphic. Heterochrony acts on the different parts of the organism differently (as in the Irish Elk example). If what is being referred to here is something that covers the whole body such as the end of deterministic growth or sexual maturity, then that should be referred to. Changes in developmental timing are very rarely a total on/off switch, which is why the idea of Humans as big babies has been mostly abandoned (we are paedomorphic in some important ways but peramorphic in others). This may seem nuanced, but heterochrony is complicated and I think it's worth it to tinker with potentially misleading parts of the article. - Paleoaskari ( talk) 00:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Chiswick Chap: When you added the stuff about Walter Garstang's suggestion, you presented it in such a way that readers might believe the tunicata origin of vertebrates to be an established fact. However, neither the few articles and books I've seen treating this, and nor the source that you gave actually claims this. (McNamara actually writes that Garstang suggested this, but I found no claim of his that this suggestion is correct or even a majority opinion.) Moreover, e. g., the phylogeny given in Chordates (grouping vertebrates and tunicates within the clade Olfactores, with the lampreys as an 'outgroup') is hard to reconcile with Garstang's hypothesis. I rewrote this as precisely an hypthesis, still held by some biologists, but not by a consensus. Do you find this reasonable, or do you have other reliable sources in favour of Garstang's hypothesis? JoergenB ( talk) 20:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 19:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Reading now. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 19:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the photo of the three recent giraffes is inappropriate, because it reminds one of the giraffe example that is always used when the theories of Lamarck and Darwin are compared. However, in the comparison of these theories it shows a recent giraffe and its ancestors with shorter necks. Here, in this photo, you see three recent giraffes of completely the same build, which are probably of different ages, are of different sizes due to their sex, and appear to be of different sizes due to the perspective. This has nothing to do with heterochrony. We should find photos with examples in which animals look different due to different developmental processes of the same organs. Sciencia58 ( talk) 06:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Sciencia58 ( talk) 12:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)