Talk:Coevolution/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 12:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I propose to take on this review of an interesting topic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

First reading

 * Not having read the lead yet, the body of the text ploughs straight into the subject without establishing what coevolution is.
 * Added lead-in sentence.


 * "Coevolution is evident in the development of mutualistic relationships between many pairs of organisms, and serving a wide variety of types of mutual benefit." - I don't think this sentence is grammatically correct.
 * Rewritten.


 * "'cheaters', 'exploiters', 'robbers' and 'freeloaders'" - in nature, members of the animal kingdom are always exploiting the resources around them, Why are these ants different?
 * These are evolutionary strategies (as commonly used in game theory) which ants and other organisms can exploit.
 * Having looked at the source, I can see where the second half of this paragraph is coming from. However, there is not enough context in your article to understand it (damage to the reproductive organs of trees?, host fitness?) and in any event, it is more relevant to discussions on mutualism than it is on coevolution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, removed most of it, and rewrote the rest to show the contrast.


 * If you are going to put a lot of information into the captions of images, as in the Pseudomyrmex ant, you should probably provide a citation.
 * Done.


 * You might consider putting the "Flowering plants" section at the beginning before you start on the fig wasps and Acacia ants.
 * Done.


 * "It is generally agreed upon that plants formed coevolutionary relationships" - I think we can lose the "upon".
 * Gone.


 * "... in cases in which bees and other insects are inactive." - You could express "cases" in a different way.
 * Done.


 * "These flowers have converged to a common morphology and color." - Hmm. It would not be in the interests of the plant for its pollinator to visit flowers of other species, it needs the pollinator to stay faithful to its own kind.
 * Because these forms successfully attract the pollinators.
 * Well, I cannot access more than the first page of the source, but I think your article is missing out a sentence or two on how each tree ensures that only a single species of humming bird visits its flowers even if different trees have similarly coloured flowers with similar morphologies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But in many cases more or less any hummingbird will do, i.e. they are far from being as specific as you suggest. Tube (corolla) length selects for different birds to some extent, as the article already states. I've added a bit on non-specificity between birds and Trigona bees.


 * "Flowering plants are pollinated by insects from different families including bees, flies, and beetles, all of which respond to the nectar or pollen produced by flowers." - True, but is it relevant here?
 * It's a guild.


 * Refs 30 and 33 could do with reformatting.
 * Done.


 * I jotted down a few topics that you could consider as I read the article. - Orchids * Bee tongue length * Bat pollination * Secondary metabolites * Ticks * Risks of coevolutionary over-specialization. Don't worry if you don't know what I am talking about!
 * Yes, we could cite dozens of examples, there's no end to the possibilities. I think we have enough here to illustrate the topic but that's very much a matter of taste.
 * I do think you should have a paragraph on the disadvantages of co-evolution, how by adopting a specialised pollinator for example, a plant puts itself at risk. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Evolution is blind, and cannot look ahead to whether it is navigating into a blind alley or not. If there's a selective pressure now, species will go that way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, this article meets the GA criteria with regard to prose, citations, neutrality, stability and imagery. However, I wonder whether the "In cosmology and astronomy" section is outside the required scope of the article, and I question whether the omission of mention of the disadvantages of over-specialization in coevolution makes the article sufficiently comprehensive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, on the cosmology section, it's a matter of whether the analogy is being taken too far; obviously all the "Outside biology" sections illustrate coevolution in non-living systems; I've removed it for the sake of harmony. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Cwmhiraeth: On the 'disadvantages of over-specialization', I'm not aware that any biologists actually consider them to exist. The Oxford Dictionary of Zoology does discuss the question (not specifically in the context of coevolution), calling it "an old [i.e. obsolete] theory", Orthogenesis (which as it happens I'm working on now). It says "Overspecialization was therefore considered as one of the causes of extinction. There is no reason to believe, however, that natural selection would permit evolution to proceed beyond maximum adaptation." So basically, in the context of modern evolutionary biology, there's nothing to discuss here. I suppose we could mention it in a footnote to the effect that people once thought, etc, but I'm not convinced it's a good move. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In talking of over-specialisation, I was thinking of something rather different. Certain specialised orchids for example, rely on certain species of insect to pollinate them. If something wipes out the pollinators, such as a tropical storm or wildfire, the orchid might continue in existence for a while because its underground tubers had survived, but would become extinct because of its complete reliance on its coevolved pollinator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That was the meaning I replied to in my "Evolution is blind" statement above (19 April). There isn't really anything a biologist could say about that, other than yes, it could happen. It doesn't affect the theory in any way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I consider this article meets the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. If I manage to think of a way of putting in something on the over-spec bit, I'll give it a go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)