Talk:Coevolution/Archive 1

Co-evolution as term in Astronomy

Co-evolution is also used in Astronomy to describe the relationship between black holes and the birth of galaxies. I don't have the expertise to write it up, but here's an article on it:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_history_030128-1.html mennonot 10:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I just added this (including the link) without having read your comment. Seems we both got it from /.--84.188.147.160 15:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Translate into spanish

Can anybody translate this article into Spanish? --Hectorpal (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article in Spanish: Coevolución. [1]

Rationale for move from "Co-evolution" to "Coevolution"

"Coevolution" is the more popular version of the term in scientific literature. In a search of instances of "coevolution" and "co-evolution" in the titles of articles in scientific journals and their publishers, I found a breakdown of 1098 to 497 in Wiley Interscience, 467 to 70 in Science, and 356 to 383 in Nature. While the slightly higher number of results from searching "co-evolution" may indicate a slight preference for that version in British English, the significantly greater split for "coevolution" in American English publications (added to the fact that the article seems to be written in American English), tilt the weights in favor of "coevolution". Emw2012 (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Images, anyone?

"CALLING OUT TO THE WORLD!" If anyone could upload photos of the following coevolutionary relationships to the article or to Wikicommons that would be awesome.

1: Garter snake and Rough-skinned newt

2: Acacia ant and swollen thorn Acacia tree

3: Hummingbirds and Ornithophilous flowers (There are several different species, any of them are fine).

4: Angracoid orchids and African moths

5: California Buckeye and its pollinators

Improving the visual aspect of this article will definitely help to persuade more people to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12tsheaffer (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, please provide any useful input on the discussion page regarding any of my edits.

The first two examples are bad

Hummingbirds and ornithophilous flowers

It talks about the evolution of flowers, but not the hummingbirds.

Angraecoid orchids and African moths

Doesn't explain how evolution helped either species, just that they're mutualistic species and have evolved. What encouraged the evolution?

Free Bullets (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Improvements to the Article

Some of the syntax found within the article could use some improvements. For example, when discussing climate change not falling under coevolution, that sentence could be improved. It sounds choppy and out of place.

Reduce the number of examples and increase the number of topics in the article. Coevolution is a massive concept in evolutionary biology.

In conjunction with my point above, there are many specific theories that fall under coevolution such as escape and radiate coevolution. These specifics could really improve the content and professionalism of the article. In the primary paragraph, remove diffuse coevolution, and insert it into a new section for specific types of coevolution.

Coevolution applications outside of biology is great, but also apply it the biology! For instance, human epidemiology, improved agriculture, and conservation could all be benefited from the study of coevolution in natural populations.

The introduction/opener was very good!

--Chooseychunk (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

human coevolution

Can't religions, nationalities, cultures be viewed as coevolution? What about coevolution of Wikipedia Talk Page editors? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.123.12 (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

memes

I've reverted two edits by a brand new editor. The first was an unsupported statement about politics, the second a dubious reference to a book on memes. I don't really see any of this belonging in this article. However happy to discuss it ----Snowded ^TALK 12:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hummingbird example

The example referencing ornithophilous flowers and hummingbirds is informative but can be improved: 1: More detail can be added about the phenotypic and functional differences between bee and bird pollinated flowers. Ex: nectar is more dilute in bird pollinated flowers, no landing pad on insect pollinated plants. 2: No mention of evolutionary history of ornithophilous plants, should state that this phenomena evolved independently in many different species. 3: The exclusivity of the flower structure should be emphasized. It is usually very difficult if not impossible for bees to pollinate a flower that has specialized to attract aviary pollinators. Ramsey.398 (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)