Talk:Precociality

Untitled

semiprecocial needs to be included and definedAnlace 05:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a citation the paragraph that states percocial animals having smaller clutches. I just came from the Mallard page and they have 5 or six hatchlings, owls are altricial and you don't get six owlets do you?

List of Examples

What do others think about including a section that lists examples of precocial animals? GrassHopHer (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Precocial or Altricial there seems to be a spectrum between these.

Excellent question, I think it may deserve answers in taxoboxes or something. I was wondering tonight, and adding to the talk:Polar Bear page a question as to whether their newborn were altricial or precocial. I wonder the same thing about all the newborn I see at the San Diego Zoo these days -- giraffe (p?), orangutang (p?), clouded leopards (a?), polar bear (??), etc. Wikipedia doesn't answer this question very well yet.

Better than just a list of examples here, each precocial animal's page should mention that fact. This page mentions that cats are altricial, but the cat page does not contain the word altricial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge Precociality and Altriciality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to merge. Keep in mind that consensus may change, especially if the merged article proves too long or too difficult to understand. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

---

We should merge the articles Precociality and Altriciality into one combined article Precociality and Altriciality. Let's use this talk page section for discussion about merging. Quarl ^(talk) 10:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: These are very different concepts; I don't see the advantage of discussing them together in one article. MeegsC (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree: These subjects are two ends of a spectrum that blend into each other, and neither topic can be discussed without referring to the other for comparison. It seems fairly ludicrous to keep them as separate separate articles for some reason; it would be like insisting on maintaining separate articles for "Even Numbers" and "Odd Numbers" rather than having a single article for Parity.

Agree per nom. I originally disagreed, but after thinking it through, I did. Think of the Parity thing, odd and even numbers are different, yet they have to be compared and referenced to each other. Both the Altriciality and Precociality articles do that, so it's more practical to merge them to keep them as they are. (I prefer the title "Altriciality and precociality") 72.141.185.39 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support merge. I mean, they aren't different concepts, but the flip sides of the same concept, the end points of a spectrum of level of development at birth. Can't really discuss one without comparing it to the other against which it is contrasted. It would serve readers better to have a single article covering the entire concept of newborn development level and introducing the terms used to describe it. oknazevad (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: The concepts are comparable, but the comparison made to parity is a little inadequate, methinks, as whilst precociality is contrasting with altriciality, it's possible that there be no extant precocial but only altricial organisms, whereas it's not so easily feasible to suggest there be only odd, or only even numbers. The one concept does not necessarily invoke thought or comparison to the other. To merge the articles would be more so like merging 'good' and 'bad' or 'intelligence' and 'stupidity'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jms6000 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was not aware of this discussion, and I see that the case is closed. Just for the record, I'd like to point out that I would have opposed the merger. If I search for a subject, I do not want to have to browse through a long text about its opposite. Mlewan (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I made comment against the merger and stand by it. I believe the consensus is clearly not for the merger, seeing as though we clearly do not have unanimous or even majority agreement here. This merger was thus, I think, incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jms6000 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)