Talk:Symmetry in biology/Archive 1

Biradial symmetry
What about biradial symmetry, where an organism exhibits both radial and bilateral symmetry? i.e. ctenophores Shikan 00:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done now. --Artman40 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now a section for symmetry present in numerous Radiolarians--Artman40 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge into symmetry
Merge some of this into symmetry, I think. Charles Matthews 16:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup
I nominated this article for cleanup. Right now it is more in the style of a personal essay (for instance "...behavior, which further proves my hypothesis"). It definitely needs citations for any opinions or speculations. I will try to work on the some of the biological ones but am not sure I can help with the physics and such. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 21:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done what I can but I don't know enough about the subject to fix this properly. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean up Completed (but the work is never done) TheLimbicOne 03:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Humans are the best example of an organism that exhibits radial symmetry." I agree, just a tad bit of a cleanup needed...... (Has since been changed)

"Bilateral symmetry is not easily broken. In experiments using the fruit fly, Drosophila, in contrast of other traits (where laboratory selection experiments always yield a change), right or left-sidedness in eye size, or eye facet number, wing-folding behavior (left over right) show a lack of response." Someone want to take a crack at that one? I can't tell what the second sentence is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.231.60 (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Merges
I'd like to merge all the suggested articles into one article. In addition, I'd like to rename (move) the article to "Symetry (biology)"
 * 1) They all deal with symmetry in biology.
 * 2) Almost all the references to them come from articles in biology
 * 3) All of these articles are stubs; combining them creates a full fledged article.
 * 4) The collection of this information would make it more useful to someone wanting information on symmetry in nature.
 * 5) My merge would also include a cleanup of the article "Symmetry in nature"

I invite commets or feedback before I elect to be bold.

TheLimbicOne 03:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan, if you're ambitious. Don't forget the two m's. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This article may add a bit. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "...two m's." D'oh! I've been doing that on and off all night long. I'll spell check before I post a final article. :-)


 * Agree. Make the bilateral symmetry page redirect to reflection symmetry rather than here (the first line of that article gives it away) and radial symmetry to rotational symmetry, but move the contents here. And beware of inviting commets. Zeimusu | Talk page 14:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Completed TheLimbicOne 03:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright image
As beautiful as the images demonstrating radial and bilaterial symmetry are, they are clearly copyright images and not fair use. 69.168.240.157 04:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced it's copyrighted. In the back of the book, Thomson Brooks/Cole publishing printed a 6 page section that lists the credit for each and every picture in the book. Most of them are marked with the "c" copyright mark after the name credit, but many are not. I think the ommission was deliberate to show that the unmarked pictures are not copyrighted. All of the information given by the publisher is posted with the picture. I was unable to find or contact the Leonard Morgan who created the picture. --TheLimbicOne (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no, no! The onus is on the uploader to show that the image is free, not that it isn't mentioned as copyrighted. Almost all images in textbooks are copyrighted - in fact I've never even seen a textbook yet that uses free images, let alone makes the reader aware that they are free for them to use themselves. It appears to have been deleted, so I'm removing the link. Richard001 05:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an essay
It sounds more like a essay to me. It never actually gives a good definition of symmetry, bilateral symmetry, and others. Almost too personal. But whatever. I'll just go to the dictionary... Superscript text
 * Please create a new section for comments and sign them. Richard001 05:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC) --~Insert non-formatted text here

Mr. Richards?
Donica's H.W. to Mr. Richards...WTF, I think that can go.
 * Got rid of the text can't figure out how to get rid of that box though, oh well FAIL for me. Axelarater (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hypothesis about why facial symmetry is physically attractive
There is consensus that facial symmetry correlates positively with physical attractiveness and beauty. But why? I was working on these articles and kept wondering about this, and recently came up with a tentative guess about this. Here is a brief write-up of my hypothesis. I'm looking for people who know more fully about this subject to tell me if my hypothesis is right or wrong, and if it is (1) old knowledge that has been proven false (2) assumed knowledge (experts know it, but it's so obvious that they don't say it in these articles) or (3) new knowledge. Problem is, I'm not a biologist or research scientist, but I bet there are people reading this who are, and I'm wondering what they think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's good news and bad news. The bad news is that it's not new, just that most of the work is in animals, thus probably outside what you looked into.  The good news is that your ideas are, essentially, right on the money, particularly #3.  The general concept is called Fluctuating_asymmetry, and there's a LOT more research out there than the short WP article indicates.  Basically, the idea is that bilateral symmetry is the default, and deviations are the result of either undesirable mutations or environmental effects, so organisms look for it when selecting mates.  Most of the literature concerns animals (often arthropods), which may be how it slipped you by.  Still, good reasoning. Mokele (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! So you're saying it's not new, but right. That is, I can add this thinking to articles on say facial symmetry, physical attractiveness and elsewhere and it will be correct, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong image
First image box mentions the bilateral symmetry in moths, yet the photograph sports a butterfly. Either a change of text or picture is required, perhaps replacing the latter for one of a common saturniid such as the Small Emperor Moth (Saturnia pavonia). Atreyiu (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Viruses?
Nothing on viruses here! Tom Ruen (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Have added a few. Scope for many more if we can find some decent images (photos of models would be nice, there used to be splendid ones in the Wellcome Institute.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Vernanimalcula
The Vernanimalcula article on wikipedia and this paper http://research-information.bris.ac.uk/explore/en/publications/a-merciful-death-for-the-earliest-bilaterian-vernanimalcula%2842b071f4-be56-452d-92be-df898658357d%29.html seem to show some doubt that Vernanimalcula was an animal or a bilatarian. Either the Vernanimalcula should be changed to match this one or this article should have the mention of the fossil removed.

I don't have the time (and perhaps not the skill) to determine what the current scientific consensus on the matter is. DrazharLn (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)