Talk:Anisogamy

Proposed merge

I don't think merging heterogamy here makes much sense. That page is a disambiguation page and only one out of the three meanings is synonymous with anisogamy. The other two are different topics. I think it would make sense though to merge heterogamous into the heterogamy article. That page describes only one out of three possible meanings for heterogamous anyway. - tameeria 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

fertilization risk

The phrase fertilization risk occurs five times but its meaning is not obvious nor given. —Tamfang (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The fertilization risk section needs rewritten. I deleted part that was redundant. It doesn't mention the benefits to motility of a smaller size, and only indirectly references the value of redundancy. It implies that having smaller size enables more sperm to prolilferate, but doesn't mention storage or crowding or why it would be easier for smaller cells to divide more.

173.25.54.191 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Examples

This article could use a list of examples of species that exhibit a particular form of anisogamy (the diagram shows three different variants). MarqFJA87 (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

MarqFJA87 that could be a good idea.CycoMa (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No, please, not a list, unless you feel like making a separate list article. If you want to add an example of a species that does variant A to the place where anisogamy variant A is discussed, that is another matter, and a far better idea: that strengthens the article, reinforcing its structure, logic, and readability. A list section does the opposite. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The articles on oogamy and isogamy have sections on occurrence. Maybe a list isn’t a good idea but maybe a section on occurrence is more ideal.CycoMa (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Why was the lead changed?

The lead wasn’t like this before but for some reason it was merged to this.CycoMa (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead had two major problems: 1) it introduced "new" material not explained or cited in the body; 2) it introduced three citations not found in the text either.

The function of the lead is to summarize the body text briefly, evenly, and neutrally. I moved the "new" materials into the body with an edit comment explaining the issue, and marked the lead as needing attention. I believe that all these actions are proper, according to policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about sexual selection and anisogamy

I’m probably gonna need to research further on anisogamy and sexual selection.CycoMa (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Major Error in 'Sexual Dimorphism'

The second sentence in the section 'Sexual Dimorphism' begins, 'Most species do not sexually reproduce...' This claim is massively inaccurate. In fact, the vast majority of multi-celled animals, over 99.9%, reproduce sexually. Such a claim calls for a close examination of the entire article. RobotBoy66 (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)