Talk:Evolutionary radiation

No title

 * Evolutionary radiation. Seems some attributions are missing, the logical flow of the article is strangely convoluted, some facts need references and/or checking.


 * example
 * ... several recent molecular analyses claim to show that ....
 * ...These claims confuse basal splits with "radiations," ....


 * 1) analyses don't claim, the researchers do, so: ...Paleontologists claim that recent analyses show that...
 * 2) counterclaims should be attributed as well: Creationists argue the [aforementioned] analyses confuses splits...

The language is pretty NPOV IMHO. Even too NPOV, since the opening reads: Paleontologists long have argued. The fact (basic definition) should be seperated from peoples opinions about it. Added both Expert & Cleanup marker. -- Zanaq 09:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The text is a slightly modified version of part of the abstract of a paper by J. Alroy of the Smithsonian institute (title 'Evidence for a Paleocene Evolutionary Radiation'). At best, the article is a reasonable account of one particular evolutionary radiation. No general definition of the process is given, and there is no mention of other important examples.

Minimum required work for a reasonable article:
 * 1) Introduction including definition and links to other relavent pages on evolutionary theory.
 * 2) Additional examples (including the Cambrian Radiation).
 * 3) Rewording to avoid NPOV issues.

In addition, the example of the Cenozoic mammalian radiation should be rewritten to fit the subject of the article and avoid direct citation without acnowledgement. -- Savage25

Total rewrite
What existed before has been critiqued above. I rewrote the entry to cover a wider range of organisms that just Tertiary mammals. Added various references. The radiation of mammals is dramatic but far from the most well studied or best understood radiation. The most detail comes from marine, shelly organisms (= the ones with the best fossil record) such as things like brachiopods and ammonites. Not as sexy as mammoths and sabre tooths, perhaps, but palaeontologists have a good deal more data to work with.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Adaptive radiation
Hi, how is this different from adaptive radiation? Should the articles be merged? --Kjoonlee 07:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They are related concepts, but in general scientific usage one is "large scale" and the other "small scale". Evolutionary radiation is typically how a big taxon (a phylum, say) goes from having a few species to having hundreds or thousands. Adaptive radiation is smaller, how a taxon (perhaps even a single species settling on an island) diversifies to occupy a group of niches. So there has been an evolutionary radiation of birds since the Mesozoic, but an adaptive radiation of finches on the Galapagos islands.

If you do a [|scientific literature search in Google], you will see that the two phrases are used by scientists within a single paper to mean these subtly different things. This is something these two Wikipedia articles need to clear up.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 13:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Subtle indeed, but different. Radiation is the general process of rapid cladogenesis in a lineage. May be adaptive, may be geographical... Adaptive radiation is a term applied under specific circumstances, when the lineaged originating from a common ancestor in such an evolutionary radiation are driven to diversify by adaptation in a quite short (evolutionary) time, and produce significantly different (as regards ecology, which of course is very visible to future natural selection) results. For example, there was a massive radiation of dabbling ducks since the mid-Miocene or so, but it was hardly adaptive at all.
 * I have changed the redirect from "radiation" to point here instead of "adaptive radiation"... if the term is used without any qualifier, it should refer to the general, less specific term. Also changed disambiguation page, where this article isn't even mentioned (I was looking for it like crazy and just found it by accident, being misled by the redir/dab...) Dysmorodrepanis 08:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The usage of "adaptive radiation" and "evolutionary radiation" in the scientific literature is somewhat inconsistent, but I think it would be useful to follow Simões et al. 2016 (already cited in the article) as considering "adaptive" radiations" a subset of "evolutionary" radiations. The previous points about differing temporal (or phylogenetic scale) don't really hold up. Most of the examples in the current wikipedia page can also be found as examples of "adaptive" radiations in the literature Jesseseeem (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary
The summary for this article does not meet with wikipedia guidelines on being easy to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.171.122 (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A merge that wasn't
Someone changed this page into a redirect to Adaptive radiation in a rather clumsy attempt at a merge. I noticed that last time such a merger was proposed, there was no consensus to merge (see above). If you want to do a merger, please discuss it first and follow the procedure in Help:Merge. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolutionary radiation. 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/20081106000812/http://www.palaeos.com/Cenozoic/Cenozoic.htm to http://www.palaeos.com/Cenozoic/Cenozoic.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)