Talk:Telegony (inheritance)

Wow!
What kind of crackhead would believe this nonsense? The only real support I've seen for this viewpoint in popular opinion is from halturnershow.com, a viciously racist and jingoistically ignorant site run by the worst kind of agitator. 71.116.217.242 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've only run into this belief among racists and white supremacists. It's mentioned in the films "Blood in the Face" (by Michael Moore) and "California Reich". Afabbro 21:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Don`t be so naive. There we have so much new-era mysticists who talk about telegony very seriously and young people who are very stupid now all over the World are eat that theory very easy becouse they got their knowledge from movies and cartoons (literaly)... 93.185.18.22 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like you're eating your words now lol 86.169.237.174 (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

White Supremacists and Animal Breeders
Actually, you will find that animal breeders also hold this "belief". For example, pigeon breeders will kill female pigeons that have mated with wild pigeons (or mated with pigeons that have unwanted characteristics), however good the qualities of that female pigeon, because the wild pigeons characteristics may be passed on to offspring, even if the female pigeon mates with true-bred male later. Dog breeders will not breed bitches that have bred with unwanted males.

This is because genetic inheritance is not the sole means of biological inheritance and, frankly, modern science is discovering that inheritance is a whole lot more complicated than taking two sets of chromosomes and mixing them up (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics).

I do not know how and whether telegony applies to humans. I assume it would, to some degree. I also think that it is completely irrelevant (well, except maybe to white supremacists).

What official resource of any animal breeders' club can confirm their belief in telegony?
In other words, does any website of pigeon breeders advise to “kill female pigeons that have mated with wild pigeons”? Being a native Russian speaker, like the User # 72.227.3.100 probaly is, I can't remember any source of such nonsense, except the numerous clones in Russian ultra-nationalist, xenophobic and/or religious fundamentalist press - those who know Russian can see the references, , ,. Curiously, Russian fundamentalist Christians are together in this topic with neo-pagans and even neo-Hinduists. That is why I reverted the article to the "academic" variant Nikola Borisov 11:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalist are fundamentalist whenever they are. 93.185.18.22 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that culling of this sort is practiced. My father had a pigeon coop for many years and he would cull true-bred female pigeons that bred with wild or unwanted pigeons, because she was "ruined". This doesn't confirm the phenomenon of telegony, but it does confirm animal breeders' belief in it. Yes, I am a Russian speaker and, yes, I have encountered the text that you have referenced -- however, I'd heard about this practice before.

I've tried finding sources online to confirm that pigeon breeders do, in fact, do this, however all online pigeon breeding sources are very tight-lipped regarding culling in general, since this practice is widely condemned by animal rights' organizations. I might try contacting some commercial coops for information. 72.227.3.100 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And the fact of all active "telegonists" are from Russia is very intesting! I think that this is fenomen of V. Zhdanov video-lectures which dedicated to youth in maner like "I will open your eyes and say truth"... But in real life he is MLM trader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.20.0.1 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I confirm. I am Russian medical doctor, and from the moment I opened this article I could say it is written by my compatriot. This ridiculous myth somehow persists in Russia (perhaps due to rapidly deteriorating level of education), and no scientist in their right mind will spare time to even discuss that. Plus, English of this article also leaves a lot to be desired. I would be very grateful if some native English speaker (or simply a good one :) ) with SOME scientific background fixed this mess. What one can read now is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.26.186 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You'd be surprised what nonsense people from supposedly first world countries believe. This is not a Russian-specific idea. 94.25.233.104 (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Research of Disproof
I'm looking for a link for the un-cited argument stating that telegony has been discredit by English, German and Brazilian researches. Does anyone have more information on these papers? Jonathan Dum (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Help request with Chinese version
The Chinese version of this article proclaims that telegony is completely compatible with established genetics. The only active author compiled long list of references that he claims to be supporting telegony. Can someone help verify if those references support telegony and are reliable at all themselves? Kxx (talk &#124; contribs) 17:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of what those pages say, that material should be removed. СЛУЖБА (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Status of theory
I always assumed that this theory (if one may call it such) is discarded long ago. But the first paragraph of the article does not clearly states whether it's really considered by modern science as a valid theory or not. I'm sure there are people with strong biological background here that could make the first sentence more obvious about that, aren't there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tema Yozh (talk • contribs) 13:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In 2019 the description of this theory was reverted from the past tense back to present tense, which misrepresents the repute in which the theory is held and the reasons that it is of encyclopedic interest. As it is of encyclopedic interest only due to its historic role, it should be referred to in the past tense. 0x69494411 22:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You guys should check this source
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/11133203/Could-previous-lovers-influence-appearance-of-future-children.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.135.178 (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * According to WP:EXCEPTIONAL and Why MEDRS%3F one peer-reviewed study does not trump long-standing scientific consensus, at least not for Wikipedia purposes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is true that laymen are generally not in position to validate proto-scientific claims. But long-standing knowledge that some hypothetical possibility was never scientifically confirmed is refutable by a single confirmation. In this particular case the theory was discredited politically but never scientifically disproven. Hiding new findings would disinform public. Therefore, statement "Nongenetic paternal effects reinvigorate the POSSIBILITY of telegony" perfectly reflects current status of theory for Wikipedia purposes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.40.113 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Mendelian inheritance is not speculation, it is hard science. Of course, this leaves open some non-Mendelian mechanisms, but those do not seem too important for human reproduction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Telegony, as initially formulated, is simply incompatible with genetics. This is not to deny that events have outcomes, it has been shown e.g. that starvation has an epigenetic effect on human offspring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So, the question isn't "do events have outcomes?" but "should it be called inheritance?". E.g. an excess of vitamin A during pregnancy has outcomes, but we do not call it inheritance. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It has no basis in sound science. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * True, we simply know that the initial theory contradicts genetics. This is not a political claim nor a conspiracy to silence the politically incorrect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * homoepathy applied to a vagina. it "remembers" prior sperm that were there and somewhat transmits that onward?  ffs. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Fringeness
I deleted a section that was not suitable. The material removed was:


 * Earlier, a team of scientists from Oxford, Uppsala and UCL had conducted a similar research and obtained a similar result.


 * In 1979, Professor Leonard Herzenberg of Stanford University proved that fetal DNA can pass into the mother during pregnancies. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in 2012 has shown that it is not uncommon for fetal DNA to get through the blood–brain barrier and into the brain of the mother. Leiden University Medical Center in the same year published a result which indicates fetal DNA from previous pregnancies can enter the bodies of younger siblings. In 2013, scientists around the globe demonstrated in animals, the significant effect of incorporating foreign DNA.

The first section is about a male changing gene expression in his mate, not in his mate's future offspring. The paper linked contains no mention of inheritance, and the other source is the Daily Mail LOL.

The second change is synthesis - that fragments of foetal DNA (in the form of Microchimeric cells) can end up in future foetuses (or at least in the cord blood, which is what is actually studied here) does not mean that their genes will be expressed or that the microchimeric cells have any inherited effect - the only "citation" is about glow-in-the-dark pigs, which is totally irrelevant to the topic of telegony unless the sow's previous mate was a jellyfish.

All that remains is a single study and one scientist's analysis of it. Smurrayinchester 15:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Russia
I knew nothing about this, but intrigued by various recent changes, I looked for (English-language) source material, and rewrote the section. I note in passing that the recent Russian (mis)use of telegony is also mentioned in They Got It Wrong: All the Facts that Turned out to be Science Fiction (Simon and Schuster, 2013). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit war
Karl Pearson's opinion is notable opinion, it is mentioned in the historical background of telegony and he was at that time widely recognized as an expert on such matters. Also WP:PARITY applies. Therefore the deletion of his opinion is wanton. As for the deletion rationale (discrediting the theory), believe me, this theory is pretty much discredited, except for one recent study to the contrary, see Why MEDRS?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Problems with the lead paragraph
I added a cn to the last sentence of the lead paragraph, that currently says: " A similar phenomenon, whereby environmental (non-genetic) traits were passed, was later discovered in a species of fly."

As someone else noted, above, exceptional claims require exceptional substantiation. Anyone who took grade nine biology should recognize this as a highly exceptional claim.

If no one adds any citation, i a reasonable period of time, this claim should be removed.

Meanwhile, the sentence above it contains an unnecessary (IMO) citation needed. The corollary to exceptional claims is that we don' need to provide references for things like "the sky is blue". Of course no scientific studies could substantiate telegony, as it is patent nonsense, without regard to what some superstitious pigeon breeders might believe.

For what it is worth, how would our readers even know what "environmental (non-genetic) traits" are? Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, the #Recent developments section does cite an Australian study. It quotes it too.  I have a problem with the citations and the quote.  I am not a geneticist, and I doubt the contributor whocited and quoted the study is either.  The quote's meaning depends on the definition of several terms it uses.  Really, shouldn't that quote, and that study, be interpreted by a reliable, authoritative uninvolved third party?  I suggest that, even if tontributor(s) who added this material wroked in genetics, in relal life, they shouldn't be adding that interpretation here.  We are all semi-anonymous here, even those of us who are genuine experts -- in our working life.  Even those of us who are genuine experts, in real life, have to keep our contributions here compliant with the prohibition onthe publication of original research. The papers cited are instance of WP:PRIMARY, which can be used to fill in details, but do not make a topic notable.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to Maternal effect
I've added Maternal effect to the See also list, as there's plainly some connection. One option is simply to merge the articles, but it may be worth keeping Telegony as a more detailed subsidiary article on the history of science side of that topic. At the very least, the relationship of the topics should be spelt out with wikilinks and citations. What do other editors think would be best? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Cultural influence - See also "Scientific racism"?
There's only a single line relating to racism in that section, most of it talking about Telegony in russian orthodoxy. As it is right now, linking to "Scientific racism" doesn't properly reflect the section's (somewhat scarce) contents. If telegony plays such an important role in scientific racism, it should be elaborated upon (common sense dictates this shouldn't be too hard); otherwise, such a link is just somewhat misleading. 95.22.117.215 (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

npov
The comments at least on the discussion site feel ideological. The intro text in the article talks only about research in the early 20th century and one gets the feeling that it is taboo/off-limits to even conceive the possibility. Under "recent developments" in the article one can come to the conclusion that the categorical denial might not be accurate.

Animal research besides flies with mammals (ex. with horses and zebras) would make more sense - I'm sure it exists. If the theory holds some truth it would be responsible to talk about it in sex-ed. Like the psychological effect of the more understood issue of emotional trauma that is caused by multiple previous partners that interfere with a current relationship and at least in part cause high rates of divorce and despair or at least show a strong statistical correlation.

--Nedmira (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The WP:RS/AC is that telegony in mammals is WP:CB. This is a mainstream scientific POV, not an "ideological" one. Anyone understanding the basics of genetics should know that much. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * the thing is intercourse introduces genetic material into a foreign body .. similar to the mrna vaccination .. which is capable of altering the genetic makeup - mrna vaccinations were originally marketed as gene-therapy .. besides the direct gene stuff you also have epigenetics - the issue of gene expression promotion .. from my understanding it is just too simplistic to say it is impossible due to the "basics of genetics" .. my question/comment was more about the existence of practical research not theory --Nedmira (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

"Disproven" or "pseudoscientific"
I think the opening paragraph could do with a rework. I would suggest that Telegony should be presented primarily as a disproven historic scientific theory. As it says later in the article, "both Schopenhauer and Herbert Spencer found telegony to be a credible theory." The fact that Telegony also persists as a modern pseudoscientific theory could be mentioned later, but seperately. CAWyatt (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bigger problem: The lede should summarize the article. The article does not say it is pseudoscientific but the lede does. We should either add it to the body, with sources, or delete it from the lede.
 * So, echoing this, what are the sources for the word? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Revisions required
In recent decades, the idea "transgenerational epigenetic inheritance" is included in the new paradigm of genetics, where the probable mechanisms of telegony are suggested. I revised the article not to conflict the paradigm.

Scientific terminology must be defined in the way scientists use in scientific literatures. Although I had edited the article based on the evidences and references, it was reverted without any explanation. I think careful explanation is required before the contribution is discarded. Trusci (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The explanation is: your edits are WP:PROFRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would really appreciate if you could explain why my edits are PROFRINGE based on evidences, not just refering the wikipedia pages. Trusci (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't a research university/research institute. The only evidence admissible to us are WP:Vverifiable statements from WP:RS. WP:FRINGE is a generally accepted content guideline, if you breach it you land in hot water. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My edits are based on WP:Vverifiable statements from WP:RS such as
 * I think it's your turn to show evidences that refute mine. Trusci (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY studies are not enough to pass WP:REDFLAG. We need at least a couple of systematic reviews, see WP:SCIRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * These are not primary sources, but reliable secondary sources. I cannot find that at least a couple of systematic reviews is necessary. Would you copy and paste the sentence meaning so? Trusci (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a specific definition of what WP:SECONDARY means to us.
 * "Cite reviews, don't write them"
 * Besides, WP:REDFLAG is website policy, WP:FRINGE is website guideline. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * These are secondary sources as defined in the Wikipedia.
 * The book series "Advances in Genetics" are published by respected publishing houses. The article "Uterosomes: The lost ring of telegony?" is a literature review article in a peer-reviewed journal.
 * You need to point out the related sentences of the policy WP:REDFLAG and the guideline WP:FRING. Trusci (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu, don’t you agree to the argument “Scientific terminology must be defined in the way scientists use in scientific literatures”? Trusci (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You asked for a quotation, I obliged. Further arguing would be WP:Wikilawyering. Anyhow, the unabated mainstream scientific view of the past 100 years is that telegony is pseudoscience. We need WP:EXTRAORDINARY evidence for such extraordinary claim that it is no longer pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I cannot get what you are saying "You asked for a quotation, I obliged. Further arguing would be WP:Wikilawyering.". Would you explain more?
 * And I cannot find the evidence for "the unabated mainstream scientific view of the past 100 years is that telegony is pseudoscience". Can you present the references? To the best of my knowledge, the significant denial of telegony's existence is only based on the early modern synthesys, not extended to epigenetic inheritance. Trusci (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Epigenetic inheritance triggered in a woman by a man's sperm is an absolutely huge claim, gigantic. It is one of the claims that either wins one the Nobel Prize or eternal ridicule. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds sarcastic. It is Tgeorgescu's original research unless supporting references are presented. Trusci (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's like in that joke wherein an economist is taking an exam:
 * Question: How has French revolution affected world economic growth?
 * Answer: Too early to say.
 * It will leave it at "too early to say" if it is either a Nobel or ridicule. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds sarcastic. It is Tgeorgescu's original research unless supporting references are presented. Trusci (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's like in that joke wherein an economist is taking an exam:
 * Question: How has French revolution affected world economic growth?
 * Answer: Too early to say.
 * It will leave it at "too early to say" if it is either a Nobel or ridicule. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

About Karl Pearson’s article
According to the article, he clearly stated that his conclusion is only restricted to the case of the “steady telegonic influence”. Trusci (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the comment is off the point. I pointed that the previous edition conflicts with the Pearson's article. Trusci (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY studies in biology are notoriously unreliable. If you want to posit that telegony is a real phenomenon, you need at least a couple of systematic reviews, according to WP:SCIRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * off topic again.. this section is talking about the Pearson's article because it was mentioned already in the main article. Anyway, I cannot find that at least a couple of systematic reviews is necessary. Would you copy and paste the sentence meaning so? Trusci (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu, let me check it first. Have you ever read the Pearson’s article cited? Trusci (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

What would be the alternative to “steady telegonic influence” which would retain “telegonic influence”? Sporadic telegonic influence? Has anybody ever suggested that? It would be pretty unfalsifiable. I would say "steady" or not is a distinction without a difference. The article text is OK as it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Please read the quote. The author mentioned "(а) There may be in rare and isolated cases some remarkable change produced in the female by mating with a particular male, or some remarkable retention of the male element.".
 * Telegony is not a theory. Before the discussion, we need to define it first. The term is used to call an observed phenomenon by scientists. The phenomenon has been observed in “controlled experiments” by independent groups . Falsifiability is only a criterion to discriminate whether a “theory” is scientific or not.
 * Recently, distinguished from the old explanations in early 1900 or older, widely accepted theories such as epigenetic theories offer the basis for reasonable mechanisms of the phenomenon. And the theories and suggested mechanisms are falsifiable for sure.
 * == Notes ==
 * The definition of telegony written in the latest scientific research papers.
 * Trusci (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Trusci (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Trusci (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Trusci (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Trusci (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The name of the article
No objections are raised to the fact that telegony is not a theory. Therefore, in order to avoid misleading readers, I had renamed the page to Telegony (inheritance), but Kid990  reverted it without any explanations.

Here, let me officially build a consensus on the name of the article. Please reply if there are objections to Telegony (inheritance) or suggestions more appropriate. Trusci (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether telegony is a theory or not, 'Telegony (inheritance)' is a better title, since it makes it clearer what the article is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup. -Roxy the dog 17:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If telegony isn't a theory, what is it? Kid990 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what it is, since 'Telegony (inheritance)' is a better title, since it makes it clear to readers they have the right article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Reference mess
This article appears to use three (!) different styles of referencing. Would anybody object if I tidy this up to use one? Bon courage (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent developments and Consensus
I looked through the edit history and discussions, WP:FTN. I also saw contributors classifying a recent study reporting the phenomenon of Telegony as an unreliable source. As far as this goes, I agree with them. However, from what I have seen, there's not just one report on Telegony. And these seem to be accepted unopposed in scientific community.

First of all, here are a few articles reviewing flies and beetles presented in the reverted | edit.

As you can see, the experience cited is not just a primary source, it is heavily cited in many places in the scientific community. Here we must make one more thing clear. What is called the Telegony phenomenon(or theory), and to put it more narrowly, the effect of male semen on the female reproductive system, is studied today mainly under the name of the Paternal effect, not Telegony. While scientists don't usually use the name Telegony (this is my personal opinion, it probably has something to do with Influence in culture in this article), it's clear that they're essentially studying the same phenomenon. If you think that studying this phenomenon itself can be a big objection in the mainstream of science, please refer to related studies. 

If someone were to include Telegony heavily in Central dogma of molecular biology, I would be absolutely against it. However, this article, the Telegony (inheritance) article, does not deal with genetics in general, but only what scientists define as Telegony. It is clear that most of the peer-reviewed articles found under the keyword Telegony today deal with Telegony's modern approach – the epignetic approach. It is clear that for Telegony, the consensus of the relevant scientific community is that epigenetic approaches are worth exploring. So, why not include these in the article? The fringe view, at least as far as the telegony phenomenon is concerned, seems to be the "nothing happened" view.

In this context, this article should contain recent research results, according to which lede should be completely reworked. I think this | edit reflects this point of view well. What do you all think? --Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Zagoskin is discussion without evidence of translation from bug to human. The protein stuff is plausible and supported enough. Artoria2e5 🌉 06:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Changes on 13 August 2023
I removed any description of the theory as "scientific" or "pseudoscientific", as the historical beliefs were pre-scientific, experiments in the 19th century failed to support the theory, and revival of the theory in the 21st century is based on limited studies. I moved the report about observation of telegony in Telostylinus angusticollis to the end of the article, because it is one primary article, and I did not find evidence of other studies confirming telegony, nor of general acceptance of telegony as a mechanism of inheritance. At this point, I do not think mention of telegony in Telostylinus angusticollis belongs in the lead. If anyone can find secondary reliable sources discussing experimental evidence for telegony, we can incorporate them into the article. Donald Albury 21:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It doesn’t appear to be an established phenomenon. This author here provides some scientific speculations here but overall his wording is very tentative. I added Veterinary medicine as a Wikiproject.  Wafflefrites (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories
User:Wafflefrites removed the categories Category:Obsolete biology theories and Category:Pseudoscience from the article yesterday, leaving it uncategorized. I have restored the categories, and request that they not be removed without discussion here about which categories are appropriate for this article. Donald Albury 19:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * User:Donald Albury, That's fine with me. After doing more reading on the modern literature, there needs to be more concrete conclusions. The academic/scientific consensus seems to be that this is an obsolete theory, although I am not sure about pseudoscience since a handful of researchers are still publishing papers on it, and at least in flies and beetles. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Call-me-Ishmae1's post up there, and his suggestion to support this edit which makes this article more based recent academic/scientific sources, and less about humans. After all Parthenogenesis is a real biological phenomenon in animals, that does not happen in humans. That edit also adds the explanation of epigenetics to the lead. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)