Talk:List of organisms by chromosome count

Untitled
Someone please add cuttlefish to this list! Thanks Bigfun 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)bigfun

According to this site http://www.gla.ac.uk/faculties/vet/teaching/CAL/biomolecular/module3.swf. cows have 60 chromosomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp4rts (talk • contribs) 08:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Hedgehog Genus Sonic 69[2][3] " removed as vandalism.--Vojav (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaotic
This list is worse than useless. It's a mix of English and Latin and it isn't in any kind of logical order. It could do with being divided into some kind of taxonomic divisions, even if at a broad level e.g. mammals, plants etc. Just looking at the first four entries: Finally, for something like this each item needs its own citation. Otherwise it's useless.--Graminophile (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * African Wild Dog 78 - OK, could do with Latin name.
 * Alfalfa_alfalfa 16 - not even a species. Presumably means Medicago sativa, but if the name's wrong what hope for the chromosome count?
 * Algae 148 ??? - all of them?
 * Amoeba 13 - again, which one?

Does a mosquito have 6 or 519 chromosomes? Hard to tell based on this page. John Bergan (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, someone fixed it. Yay! John Bergan (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Working on it. Whoever made it into a sortable table, good work.  And I'm digging up citations gradually.  Some of these are pretty mysterious, like the above-mentioned "algae". Agathman (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. John Hammond, who "graciously donated" the t rex tissue, is a character from jurassic park, not an entirely uncommon name but a little skeptical of that bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.171.130 (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Tyrannosaurus Rex" row that was most likely a sort of (not funny at all) joke. I suggest also to remove every line with no source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.186.130 (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Even the name of this thing is wrong. They aren't listed by chromosome count, they're listed in alphabetical order!! There should be a list that starts with the most chromosomes and goes down to the least or the other way around.
 * Seconded. Particularly when the top chromosome counts begin with the number "1". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.48.250 (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅, finally.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 16:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ordered list
If the ordered list function is to work, all references should be in the notes column and only one value should be selected for the main column. Any thoughts on how to choose? I'd suggest that the female be the standard where there is variation between sexes as a start.Novangelis (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, for the chromosome column, we need to have enough leading zeros to not make 8, and 80 be sequential. Elbyte (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This page is kind of important
Please do not delete this page, it can be useful.--190.60.93.218 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'm pretty sure the hyrax doesn't have a billion chromosomes; This is obvious vandalism, though I can't find a good reference on the actual number. Perhaps we should just delete it from the list? 24.143.45.221 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly deleting it would be appropriate if we can't find an answer. In the meantime, I've reverted the vandalism. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences Volume 25, Number 8, 870, DOI: 10.1007/BF01897928 Chromosomes of the rock hyrax,Procavia capensis (Pallas), 1767 and Atlas of mammalian chromosomes By Stephen J. O'Brien, Joan C. Menninger, William G. Nash page 79 both have 2n of 54. Fromthehill (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikispecies
Should we link scientific names to the Wikispecies page? And should this happen, generally, so the common names link to the article of an organism notable enough to have a common name, on Wikipedia, and the articles of more obscure organisms, having only a scientific name, should have a wikilink via the scientific name, to the relevant article on Wikispecies?-- Gilderien Talk|Contribs 14:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Separate sex chromosomes and autosomes?
I think it would be very helpful to separate out the autosomes and the sex chromosomes. Not all of the species listed are sexual. Of those that are sexual, only some have a note as to how many sex chromosomes there are (dog and human, for example), leaving the reader to guess at the number of autosomes in many of these species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.179.222 (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Raccoon Dog listed twice
One is listed as a subspecies- how can a higher mammal have a subspecies with such a radically different chromosome numbers ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.126.250 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Raccoon dog is on this list twice, with two different Latin names, two different chromosome numbers, and yet both are linked to the same Wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.126.250 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thought dogs and wolves had different # of chromosomes- cames to this page to get those number, since today the oldest dog ancestor has been found
Thought dogs and wolves had different # of chromosomes- cames to this page to get those number, since today the oldest dog ancestor has been found — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.126.250 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dogs and wolves interbreed freely, producing fertile hybrids - along with coyotes. It would be unlikely for them to have different chromosome counts. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Red Fox
According to this article, the Red Fox has:

http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Fox_Genome.htm

34 metacentric chromosomes and from 0 to 8 small B chromosomes. Apparnetly the actual number of chromosomes can vary somewhat with the inclusion of different numbers of small chromosomes. Keelec (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion on changes
I would like to know the opinion of other users about some changes I made, which were reverted. I have added two columns to the table, one for the classification of the organisms and other for the ususal ploidy level of the organism. And I think it should be better to show the haploid number of the organisms, instead of the diploid number. Zorahia (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a list of organisms by chromosome count. There's no direct correlation between count and organism classification, so I don't see where it would apply here. If the consensus is to add a column, please add the entire column for all rows in one edit - it makes a mess if it's added piecemeal.
 * As for showing the haploid number, I'd disagree - most references I run into show the 2n number, so showing the haploid number would provide a disconnect. Not to mention several examples in the table where the number is odd, either from being a hybrid or from different genders having different counts. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But many protists and other organisms, such as Dictyostelium discoideum, more frequently exist in the haploid stage/form and reproduce by undergoing asexual reproduction. I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about the diploid number, if it's something that doesn't frequently occur in nature (for that organism). 12.235.2.190 (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Illustrating with images
IMO this article would be better off with pícs to illustrate the organisms, these pics are available and would transform this article. I want to put them all in the 2nd column, and my plan is to create the column in a single go and then add the images little by little. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

adders tongue
Just made an edit not sure if it should be 240 based upon the column (diploid). 120 looks haploid based upon the source. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 15:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The desired number is diploid, not haploid. The number of chromosomes in an functional organism, not a reproductive cell. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Crocodile
Crocodile ploidy is missing in the list, I think. 2A02:8388:1641:8D00:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Crocodile simply isn't listed. If you have the information, either add it (trying to keep the order by chromosome count), or give us the information here and we'll add it. Tarl N. (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of organisms by chromosome count. 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/20130125072215/http://research.jax.org/grs/type/chromosomal_abberati.html to http://research.jax.org/grs/type/chromosomal_abberati.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505143212/http://wildlife1.wildlifeinformation.org/S/00Ref/BooksContents/b605.htm to http://wildlife1.wildlifeinformation.org/s/00Ref/BooksContents/b605.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) 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorting by chromosome count broken
It looks like it's doing a text sort - 15,600 is sorted between 14 and 16, and 1260 is sorted between 102 and 174. I don't know much about how any of this works but it should be fixed if that's possible or marked non-sortable otherwise, because as it stands the "highest" entries are not actually the highest. mmj (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll try to fix. Missing "sort" templates. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 01:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Better? Take a glance, see if I missed anything. Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss ) 01:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. mmj (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, a two-year review! :-) Tarl N. ( discuss ) 03:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Closely Related Animals Being Labeled Individually
While there is nothing wrong with this, it would be helpful for an entire genus to be listed as opposed to every species in it, especially with members of the genus Canis and Panthera. It would also be helpful to list the specific species of hyena used for its chromosome count, as it is highly unlikely for every member of Hyaenidae to possess the same chromosome number, considering the great evolutionary divergence each species underwent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.110.233 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Five organisms and the numbers of chromosomes in the deployed stage
Monday 22nd November,2021 Lagos Nigeria Pls can you help me with the organisms and the numbers of their chromosomes in deployed stage. Thanks 😊😊😊 102.89.3.99 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

❌ Unclear what is being asked for. Remember, this page is for discussion of problems or improvements to the article page. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 22:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hedgehogs
I'm finding no sources on hedgehogs having 88 or 90 chromosomes. All the studies I can find shows them as having 46 or 48, respectively. Can anyone clear this up? Ronjoe (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, 48, such as here. Where did you see 46? Tarl N. ( discuss ) 03:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking back, the count of 88 was added by this edit in 2006. Haven't yet looked up african hedgehog, which is currently listed at 90 chromosomes, but presumably it's closer to the 48 for the woodland hedgehog. Duh. The same reference above gives them both 48 chromosomes. Will fix. The only references I can find to 88 or 90 chromosomes come from places like chegg.com, which are presumably sourced from Wikipedia. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 03:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for spotting that. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 03:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was mistaken on 46... I had misread the labels in a karyotype. You've got it right. Ronjoe (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

"List of number of chrmosomes of various organisms" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_number_of_chrmosomes_of_various_organisms&redirect=no List of number of chrmosomes of various organisms] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. BD2412 T 19:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)