Talk:Ovoviviparity

Untitled
Wiki seems to be in conflict with itself on this word. Is the proper term OVOVIVIPARITY or OVOVIVIPARY? I do not know whether it is an alternate spelling or an incorrect one. The latter seems more consistant with related terms.

PJLareau (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Both spellings are in use, based on a quick Google search. I got about 1,000 hits for "ovovivipary" and 14,000 for "ovoviviparity", so the latter seems to be much more widely used. Similarly, "viviparity" is more common than "vivipary". It would seem to me best to use the "-parity" forms. I have certainly heard that version more frequently, too. Tim Ross ·talk 10:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Linguistically, the "parity" form makes more sense. It is much easier to pronounce. PJLareau (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Linguistically, neither form makes more sense, nor is one easier to pronounce than the other (if anything, -pary is shorter than -parity and thus arguably easier to pronounce). Perhaps you mean that -parity makes more sense morphologically to a native speaker of English (-parous → -parity, with -ity more common or at least more recognisable as Latinate morpheme for deriving nouns from adjectives, not necessary but frequently with an ending -ous, which is then replaced with -ity), but speakers of other languages may have different intuitions. To me, -pary appears more "natural" or "correct", but that is probably because of my education in Latin. Moreover, parity is already a quite different concept. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I grew up with "-parity", but I have seen "-pary", sometimes in the same document. There is nothing wrong with it and it is a simpler (more natural?) form. Generally I agree with Florian. This said, I don't see why any of us should get excited about it. There is no substantial reason to exclude either just because the other sometimes is more comfortable. JonRichfield (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It says that the young come out of the mother after hatching or just before hatching. If it's just before hatching, technically there'd be no distinction between that and oviparity, right? Whether the egg remains inside the mother for a subjectively "long" or "short" period, it obviously spends -some- time in there, so unless the egg spends the ENTIRE time in the mother's body there's technically not a distinction is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Technically" in this connection simply means that one is ignoring some practical considerations and being, in a word, simplistic. Consider Bradypodion for example. The young are "laid" in an afterbirth-like packet that the baby breaks out of immediately. That "packet" happens to be the eggshell. To insist on calling it "egg laying" as opposed to "giving birth" is unrealistic. Ovovivipary is quite the appropriate term, as opposed to ovipary. JonRichfield (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

nonsense lead
Italic text"Ovoviviparity, ovovivipary, ovivipary, or aplacental viviparity is an outmoded term used as a "bridging" form of reproduction between egg-laying oviparous and live-bearing viviparous reproduction."

The lead sentence says these are "an outmoded term" and yet the article doesn't reveal what is regarded as the au courant term.

Saying the term itself is a form of reproduction is grammatical nonsense also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:0:0:0:6D6 (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Oviparity
This is the expulsion of under developed eggs rather than live young. The eggs may have been fertilized before release, as in birds and some reptiles, or are to be fertilized externally,as in amphibians and many lower forms. In general, the number of eggs produced by oviparous species greatly exceeds the number of offspring from species that bear live young, but the chances of survival are diminished because of the lack of maternal protection. 105.112.153.125 (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)