Talk:Asexual reproduction/Archive 1

Untitled
FYI: I've removed the stub notice as the article has gone beyond wikipedia's "stub" definition. De ryc k C.  12:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think additional information is required for asexual reproduction. There is no mention of other methods of asexual reproduction other than binary fission. I think that budding, regeneration, fragmentation, and Parthenogenesis should also be mentioned. User:Seatown, 28 September 2005

Merge request
Presently I think there should be two articles (only): asexual reproduction and vegetative reproduction. Asexual reproduction of plants is the same subject as vegetative reproduction. I do see enough beyond vegetative reproduction to justify keeping asexual reproduction as a separate article (or possibly merged with biological reproduction. - Marshman 04:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge in of Parthenogenesis
Parthenogenesis is a specific case of asexual reproduction but the Parthenogenesis article is confused; starting with a specific form (Parthenogenesis) and then moving to the general (Asexual reproduction) and then to other forms of Asexual reproduction. We need one article to overview Asexual reproduction and then deal in turn with each form. TerriersFan 01:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article on parthenogenesis is sufficiently long (longer than this article) and detailed that I think is should remain as a separate article, though just a bit more focused. The overview article should be here, with "  templates used in each article to refer to the other article.  I no one else wants to take a shot at it, I will, though I'll probably botch it a bit (that what other editors are for, per WP:BB); I'd prefer that someone who knows more biology work this instead.  (The goal is to minimize duplication/overlap, while having enough information in each article that is duplicate to provide a bit of context, and to point the reader to the other article if he/she wants more details.)   John Broughton  |  Talk 17:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Parthenogenesis article only looks long because of things that shouldn't be there :-) Asexual reproduction versus sexual reproduction for example should be here. Also Gynogenesis and Hybridogenesis should not be a sub-section of Parthenogenisis. I suggest:


 * Option 1 - merge the articles
 * Option 2 - move Asexual reproduction versus sexual reproduction here and retitle Parthenogenesis to Forms of asexual reproduction and cleaning up. TerriersFan 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, upon re-reviewing the two articles, I support option 1 (merging). John Broughton  |  Talk 02:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No not merge. Parthenogenesis is asexual reproduction, in organisms that normally reproduce sexually (in the majority of animals) It's not as simple as other forms of asexual reproduction, such as binary fission. So no, do not merge these articles. Clean them up yes, do not merge.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 07:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose (= don't merge). I agree with Honeymane.Pro bug catcher 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge, these are not the same thing.67.188.59.33 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Chris

The logical thing to do would be to have an article named "Asexual Reproduction" and then list the different types of asexual reproduction under that article. Only if a type of asexual reproduction (in this case, Parthenogenesis) requires more detail or explanation, with possible different types in itself, should that type receive it's own article. In this case, a separate article for Parthenogenesis should not describe any other form of Asexual Reproduction unless used to distinguish a similar process from that of Parthenogenesis. A link to the Parthenogenesis article should be in the Asexual Reproduction article as well as the Parthenogenesis article linking to the other types of asexual reproduction (or an asexual reproduction article). 24.182.131.171 04:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge. I agree with honeymane that parthenogenesis is a distinctive enough for its own article for the reasons given. Descriptions of other forms of asexual reproduction in the parthenogenesis article in excess of what is needed to diferentiate them from parthenogenesis could be moved to the main asexual reproduction article. The two are more articles should link to each other as suggested by 24.182.131.171. Ferritecore 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with 24.182.131.171. There should be different articles for "Asexual production" and "Parthenogenesis". The "Asexual production" page should provide just a brief description of asexual productions and a list of them, with links to the distinct articles if more detailed information is available. The same applies to other articles relating to asexual production. The "Parthenogenesis" page should consist of parthenogenesis only, not other kinds of asexual production. The merge should not take place; rather, a full revise of both articles should be done. I doubt my ability to perform such a big task; however, I will be very content to provide helps in any ways. 石川 09:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think moving Asexual reproduction versus sexual reproduction from the parthenogenesis article here is a good idea. I don't think the two articles should be merged though. Parthenogenesis is hardly the only form of asexual reproduction. I found that most asexual reproduction mechanisms have their own pages already anyway, they just need to be filled in with more detailed content. This article should be an overview for all of them with links leading to individual mechanisms such as parthenogenesis. - tameeria 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the general discussion of asexual versus sexual reproduction to this article and added other mechanisms of asexual reproduction and links to the main articles for each section. The parthenogenesis article is now more specific for parthenogenesis. That made the most sense to me and seemed to be along what has been suggested. I'm not sure about moving gynogenesis and hybridogenesis out of the parthenogenesis article. At least gynogenesis seems to be a related mechanism, only requiring an additional activation step. - tameeria 02:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge. I strongly agree with 24.182.131.171 and also with Honeymane. RPTB1 13:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sporogenesis without meiosis?
The article states that ferns do sporogenesis without meiosis. That's new to me - I've learned that they produce spores via meiosis which then grow into gametophytes producing egg and sperm cells which undergo fertilization and give rise to the new sporopyte generation. Can someone provide a reference for mitotic sporogenesis in ferns?

However, in some fungi sporogenesis does happen without meiosis, e.g. conidiospore formation in Aspergillus for example. That needs to be added to the article. - tameeria 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've searched high and low and couldn't find any references other than those saying that all plant spores are the result of meiosis. So until someone comes up with a valid reference for mitosporogenesis in ferns, that information should be removed as possibly wrong. I've corrected/changed the paragraph to address mitospore formation in fungi and some algae instead. - tameeria 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Parthenogenisis is a form of asexual reproduction so surely it should be part of this article.

Merge in of Parthenogenesis - part 2
Be bold. "Asexual Reproduction" is identical to Parthenogenesis. We are not limiting organisms to one kind of reproduction here. It's a lot of work, and if it's done right, then it will persist.

This is how: 1. Pick the better article based on the title. 2. Include the worse article in the better article. You might want to open two windows for this. This means that it should mention that some parthenogenic organisms also reproduce with sex. It should snip the merjer sujestion. Note that parthenogenically is bigger than asexually, so it  should occur once, if at all. 3. Paste the superior article under the best title. 4. Copy all of the comments from the inferior article to the superior one. 5. Replace the entire inferior article with #REDIRECT to the superior title. In this case, I think "asexual reproduction" should show Parthenogenesis as the technical term that people don't typically know. Both terms should be occur in the document, but remember George Orwell's rule.

I would do it myself, but I hav a similar job to do with HTML, first. Brewhaha@edmc.net 11:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with a complete merge/redirect. This has been also discussed before and the consensus seemed to be that they should not be merged (see above). Asexual reproduction is not identical with parthenogenesis. Instead, parthenogenesis is one subtopic of many in the broader context of asexual reproduction.


 * There was some overlap, but I already merged some general text from the parthenogenesis article here earlier to reduce overlap. Should the merge tag be taken off the page? Or is more discussion needed? - tameeria 17:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis is a subtype of asexual reproduction. The two terms are by no means identical. As such, and in agreement with past objections to a merge, I am removing the merge tag. Ultiam 02:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not Asexual
This article needs some work by real biologists, Parthenogenesis is not asexual reproduction, it is self sexual reproduction.


 * No, it isn't. "Self sexual reproduction" is known as self-fertilization. The current definition of parthenogenesis on this page is correct. Ultiam 03:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That depends on the definition of "asexual reproduction" that is used. Some definitions says it is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. In this sense, parthenogenesis is asexual reproduction. Other definitions say it is reproduction without the use of gametes, resulting in an exact clone of the parent. In this sense, parthenogenesis is not asexual reproduction because it involves gametes (an unfertilized egg cell) and might not necessarily lead to the formation of an exact clone as only half of the genetic material of the parent is used. Maybe there needs to be a section on the definition of the term to explain this in more detail and state which definition is the most commonly used. - tameeria 15:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Diversity in asexual reproduction
There is a paragraph – the 4th one -- where the advantages of sexual vs. asexual reproduction are discussed briefly. Perhaps mention could be made there about the following latest finding. A more appropriate place would be “genetic diversity”, but there is no mention of asexual reproduction separately there.

Some asexual species have survived for a very long time. One of them is the bdelloid rotifers, which have around 400 “species”. A mechanism has been described by Pouchkina-Stantcheva et al. by which by which genetic and functional diversity can arise in asexuals, and only in asexuals, by divergence of former alleles.

Ref: Science 12 October 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5848 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/318/5848/268 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/318/5848/202

Shooting Star 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Are asexually reproduced organisms cloned?
Which varieties of asexual reproduction produce genetically identical organisms? Are those organisms considered clones of the original organism? Razor Rozar7 (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A better question is which varieties don't produce genetically identical organisms. I can't think of any. "Clonal reproduction" is an alternative term for asexual reproduction.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Like Curtis says, clonal reproduction=asexual reproduction. I can not recall any studies that cover this question specifically; but will note that in tissue culturing new clones, not all clones are genetically the same. During the production of new cells every once and a while changes occur in the genetic code, if one of these genetically different cells is used to produce new clones, the clone line is no longer geneticly identical. Does this happen in the natural world? I am sure that it does once in a while, but I can't support my conclusion with any concreat evidence. Hardyplants (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Automixis is a problem here. The two divisions of meiosis are called the reduction and equation divisions because of the effect they have on the four products, which are two sets of identical pairs, A, A, B, B. When two of these products merge the result can be AA, AB, or BB. A recent addition to the talk page of Parthenogenesis shows how confusing this is -- is parthenogenesis sexual reproduction or asexual. The usual definition of asexual reproduction is reproduction without fertilisation. The parthenogenesis page has "without fertilisation by a male", which must have arisen because of the problem of including automixis. Most authors that I've read do not consider automixis to be fertilisation because there are no mature gametes involved. This is extremely difficult to explain clearly throughout Wikipedia. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Then it seems that the issue is the definition here:

''Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. The offspring will be exact genetic copies of the parent.''

It may be better to reword it in this way:

''Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which usually does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. The offspring will be exact genetic copies of the parent, except for the specific case of automixis.''

The diversity of reproduction is too high to not qualify the definition with "usually". Thinking about reproduction as strictly cloning vs. sexual recombination is not really accurate.Harrypancakes (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Asexual reproduction in larger species
Are there any examples of non-unicellular organisms that reproduce strictly asexually? (And how on earth do you put in your signature on the new Wikipedia UI?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Munch (talk • contribs) 13:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Type four tildes to insert signature. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a number of plants that only propagate themselves asexually, some of them are triploids or polyploids which do not produce functional gametes. Hardyplants (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * But "strictly" meaning 100% asexual might not exist among apomictic flowering plants (the triploids and polyploids that Hardyplants refers to). 95% or 98% is common. The references that I know for this are unfortunately difficult to obtain.
 * Berthaud, J. 2001. Apomixis and the management of genetic diversity. In The flowering of apomixis: From mechanisms to genetic engineering. Edited by Y. Savidan, J.G. Carman, and T. Dresselhaus. CIMMYT Publications, Houston, TX. pp. 8–23.
 * Savidan, Y.H. 2000. Apomixis: genetics and breeding. Plant Breeding Reviews 18: 13–86.
 * Nadiatalent (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not have agamospermy specifically in mind, Hemerocallis fulva 'Kwanzo' is an old garden escapee that reproduces strictly by stolons and large colonies can be found 100 or more years after they were introduced into an area. There are a number of other triploids that form colonies by vegetative means without being able the sexually reproduce. Hardyplants (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. It is sometimes stated erroneously that triploid dandelions (Taraxacum officinale) cannot reproduce sexually. Occasional gametes work perfectly. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A bit of weirdness to note, under Examples in Animals is the following: "Polyembryony is a widespread form of asexual reproduction in yjygghnfhbfghbgbglololol, whereby the fertilized egg or a later stage of embryonic development splits to form genetically identical clones." Any guesses what a "yjygghnfhbfghbgbglololol" is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyal (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Earthworms
The following text was added, but it is unclear what exactly happens in this case (or what taxa are involved), so I have removed it: "Earthworms are also another type of eurokaryotic species that is capable of reproducing asexually. One earthworm contains both male and female reproductive organs. The eggs develop in cocoon and crawl out when ready to be fertilzed. However, they are not completely asexual, such that only one reproductive organ works during one month that still requires the mating of other earthworms in the process of reproduction. Ideal conditions of mating include: 1.) Ample nitrogen rich environment, and 2)ideal weather conditions. But in order for reproduction to occur, confined and restricted conditions help to provide the best necessary conditionf for reproduction and mating to occur." Nadiatalent (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stercorarius Parasiticus. Peer reviewers: Ark2511, DeltaOmegaTen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandal-damaged "Spore" section?
In the "spore" section, two paragraphs (first and third) end with what appears to be a half sentence. "Then in the plant life cycle." and "Even if the plants are healthy the outcome of the seed will always be high" (the last one missing punctuation.) I don't see this anywhere but the "spore" section, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.106.186 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Recovered the missing text from 2014 for the first problem. Have not found the edit that created the second problem yet. Meters (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The second edit is the remnants of an IP edit from 2013 that was never properly tied in. I've removed the entire paragraph since I'm not sure that it was accurate. Meters (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Asexual 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050708073801/http://www.tiscali.co.uk:80/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0030820.html to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0030820.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Asexual doesn’t mean you can’t produce gametes
There are species of females that reproduce asexually and produce ovum. There are also hermaphrodites that are asexual and produce both sperm and eggs.CycoMa (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)