Talk:Fertilisation

Untitled

Regarding the use of fertilisation on this page, this is copied from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English:

• Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
• If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
• If there's no strong tie, try to find synonyms that can be used in any dialect.
• If no such words can be agreed upon, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.

In this case the first significant contribution used fertilisation and so that is what is used throughout this article.

New Research should be Incorporated

When discussing the fertilization in mammals, ZP1 should also be mentioned as a glycoprotein in the zona pellucida. It should also be noted that there is current research supporting that sperm undergo the acrosomal reaction before binding to the zona. Contrary to previous understandings, it seems that the sperm go through the acrosomal reaction in the cumulus and that they most likely bind to ZP2 instead of ZP3.Rraju2 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

References for the above information come from the textbook:Developmental Biology by Scott Gilbert, 10th edition. Gilbert cites the following studies as support: Huang et al. 1981, Yanagamachi and Phillips 1984, Gahlay and colleagues 2010, Jin and colleagues 2011, and Baibakov et al. 2012 Rraju2 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Term controversy

It should be noted that conception only ever meant embryonic implantation after the drug companies developed the first birth control pill. The pill blocks ovulation 80% of the time, but it also thins and hardens the endometrial lining of the womb, making it impossible for the embryo to implant. To deal with this situation, the FDA, several drug companies, and Dr. Alan Guttmacher held a meeting and changed the definitions of both conception and pregnancy so that they could legally market the pill as a contraceptive, rather than early abortifactent. This is the only reason behind the term controversy.

Still, [[conception shouldn't redirect here. Beginning of Pregnancy Controvercy seems better. (BTW, my encyclopedias from the '70s frequently use the term "baby" in reference to prenates, and state that pregnancy starts at implantation, but human life starts at fertilization. I think it says "mother" too.) ☺ (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't give an Ameriflag 23:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-mammals

Pregnancy occurs only in mammals. Does not Fertilisation apply to, say, birds?<bris changed to "fertilisation in flowering plants". Perhaps that is the best idea as the body of the text as of now only concerns flowering plants and does not make mention of many non-flowering plants that do not have double fertilisation (or many of the structures currently described).

Vandalism

<replacing text that was cut>
Wikipedia has a clear policy that the first use of either British or American spelling determines the edits thereafter. The first use on this page was in the title, which was British style (with an "s" not a "z"). Therefore the edit warriers who seek to convert it to the other convention are in violation of Wikipedia policy, ie., it is an act of vandalism. Continued warring in violation of Wikipedia policy, will result in the the perpetrators paying the consequences, including possible page protection and blocks of editors. Pollinator 04:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the spelling should be left in accordance with the orignial author's version. But I'm sure this is not vandalism but rather good faith correcting of what they think are spelling errors, unless they've been gently warned and the policy you've mentioned explained to them. Peace, delldot | talk 15:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, but my point is that hereinafter it will be regarded as vandalism. Thanks. Pollinator 17:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I've misunderstood your position, I'm understanding you to be saying that it should be considered vandalism the first time someone does it. If that's not what you're saying, then you can ignore this. If you're saying it will be considered vandalism the first time someone does it, here are my thoughts: I hate to be pushy, but I really do feel that we should only consider edits vandalism if it's obvious (see WP:VAND: "Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."). I don't think we can assume that every newbie is going to read this talk page before making what they may think is a spelling correction. And it could keep potentially good new editors from the project if we treat their edits as though they are in bad faith. So what I'm asking is that people who change the spelling be asked nicely once to stop and shown the relevant policy. After that of course, it will no longer be necessary to assume good faith. This will be more work, yes, but I'm willing to keep this page on my watchlist and do the necessary reverting and discussing when I see this happen. Does this idea sound acceptable to you? Thanks much, delldot | talk 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This should not be fertilisation. Fertilization is the Oxford English Spelling (British) and "fertilisation" is wholly unacceptable in American and Canadian English, which are spoken by the majority of English speakers. The term "fertilisation" is a colloquialism developed by French influence and shouldn't be used in an academic article like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.118.61 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are always free to file a requested move to change the page name. Before you do, review WP:ENGVAR, you will need it to marshal your argument. In the meantime, discussion of the variant spellings should be kept in the footnotes. Almost all readers will be able to understand either spelling; as noted above, most changes are good-faith and easily reverted; the ideological repeat-changers can be easily dealt with; and it's basically fine the way it stands. (And I reverted your addition to the lead describing the "Oxford" spelling - we're making articles here, not war, right? :) Franamax (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Plant

The paragraph on plant fertilization is incomplete, and should be merged with the one on double fertilization.

The paragraphs on plant fertilization seem to indacate that all plants have flowers when this is not the case.

I would like to propose that either double fertilization or plant fertilization in general be given its own page. Double fertilization in extremely important in the field of botany; even general introductory biology courses teach it. As such, the material should be expanded and given its own page. Anyone who knows how to do this or has the authorization, please do so. I would be willing to write the content GreenGorgon (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the process of the fertilisation of flowering plants is poorly explained, i tried to clarify the issue but seemed to make the repetitions between fertilisation and double fertilisation. The process of pollenation of flowering plants should be written in one section, combining both the fertilsation of the egg cell to form a zygote WITH the explanation on how an angiosperm is made since these processes do occur simultanously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.42.58 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Random text

Why does the article have the words "Lachlan stop hitting on nick!" in the middle of the "Double fertilisation" section? It has been in the article for a while. i'm not a regular Wikipedia person, so i don't want to remove it if it means something ... Sbmehta 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's removed now. I think it was probably a vandalism. Keith Galveston (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was funny (: why did you take it off? its much more entertaining reading random pharses in the middle of doing science homewrok :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.93.190 (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

vandalism II

Is there anyway to lock this article so only registered users can edit it, seeing as how it is obviously prone to vandalism by unregistered 14-year-olds? Plynch22 21:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

FERTILIZATION

its WHEN AN EGG AND A SPERM JOIN TOGETHER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.152.174 (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

name change proposal

I propose the page be moved to the most common spelling, fertilization. The initial comment on the talk page talks about this and quotes some rules, but it is clear that the reasoning is not in synch with the rules or reasonable. Google gives 7.2 million hits for 'fertilization' yet only 1.8 million for 'fertilisation.' Fertilization is the most commonly used spelling, on the internet, in other encyclopedias in dictionaries, unless CLEAR wikipedia rules can be cited as to why the less popular spelling variation is to be used over the most common then I'll be moving this article to the new spelling. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This article started out with the -ise spelling. On Wikipedia -ize is not better or more correct than -ise; Wikipedia does not have a preference on national dialects of English - unless the article has a clear connection with a particular English-speaking country. This subject does not fall into that category. All that really matters is that there is consistency throughout the article. Indochinetn (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

While this is true in general, I find the following somewhat unpleasant: "For fertilisation in humans specifically, see Human fertilization." Yes, this article is consistent, but could not all articles that reference each other be consistent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.48.47 (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Not only does the different spelling confuse and annoy people. It should be spelled the way it's always been spelled. Just because it's spelled differently, people might get confused. Just saying that it's always been spelled with a "z" in the past, so why change it now? ...And yes I saw that British Dialect side note, but still...this isn't Britain. Most users are coming from America. Wikiuser92612 (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Could someone check something in the main article for accuracy?

The article says that neither the X nor Y sex chromosomes undergo crossover events. Is that completely true? If not, it needs to be gone into in more detail or linked to another article on mammalian reproduction.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.197.177 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Could someone check something in the main article for accuracy?

The article says that neither the X nor Y sex chromosomes undergo crossover events. Is that completely true? If not, it needs to be gone into in more detail or linked to another article on mammalian reproduction.

Thanks 216.77.198.111 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fertilization

Human reproduction begins with the union of the reproductive cells. The female produces cells called egg cells in her body. A male produces cells called sperm cells in his body. The egg and sperm cells are called reproductive cells. When a sperm cell unites with an egg cell< fertilization takes place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conjaresc (talk • contribs) 09:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Double Fertilization

How about a separate article on double fertilization, which will be linked to this page within the 'fertilization in plants' section? A group of us is planning to work on this as a class project from July 8-18th, 2009. -- EricaVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricaVE (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Separating the current section on double fertilization into a new article seems doable, provided it's large enough to warrant. If you or anyone in your group would like help navigating through Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, citation style and templates, or anything else, just leave a message on my talk page. Cheers, Emw2012 (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Headline text

So did you know that plants fertilise. So plants did the help of insects,wind,and animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.113.173 (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference dropped

This reference has been dropped from the page. Evans, J. P. & H. M. Florman (2002). "The state of the union: the cell biology of fertilisation". Nature Medicine. 8 (Suppl): S57–63. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help) Perhaps someone with access to it can reconstruct what it had to offer. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

I typed in "fertilisation" into the Oxford online dictionary (a British dictionary) and it redirected me to "fertilization", with "fertilisation" being an alternative form sometimes used in BrE. Given that fertilization is the primary form used everywhere, even in the UK, shouldn't this page be moved to "fertilization"? 38.111.32.82 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the OED about -ise being used "sometimes". Anyway, the OED is not an ultimate arbiter of the spelling of any dialect or its frequency. The article must use the dialect of the first most significant contributor. --78.144.166.248 (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And, like I stated it here, it should also mention the alternative spelling in the article's text (where everyone can easily see it) instead of in a hidden note or footnote; the WP:Alternative title policy (it is a policy) is clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: As seen with this and this edit, the alternative (American) spelling had somehow slipped into the lead; I went ahead and added both spellings, per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/351731. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Detecting the beginnings of an edit war underway

Particularly with regard to "Aggressive/energetic egg". This has been repeatedly removed, then added again in the last few hours. Perhaps some discussion should occur here regarding the disputed content before more edit/revert cycles spam the history page.

Though the information cites sources, are those sources reliable? Is the information from them being related correctly? If the answer to these questions is yes, then the next thing we need to look into is whether or not the content is of sufficient significance to the subject at hand.

Just to start things off, I'm not under the impression that the information presented in the disputed section genuinely reflects the views of credible scientific/medical experts regarding the role of the ovum during the process of fertilization. Rather, it appears to be a synthesis of pseudo-scientific ideas presented within the framework of a sociopolitical philosophy; thus I would be inclined to reject it largely because of that and the intensely POV nature of the sources. Ironlion45 (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I say trash it due to WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTABILITY. The tone can be fixed, but the things it describes are just not of science. Ging287 (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a science writer with a focus on the evolution of sexual reproduction... and I agree completely. This section is fueled by a political agenda and not based on real science at all. 50.153.114.135 (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

All these IPs and new registered accounts removing the same material... Obvious WP:Sockpuppetry going on here. I'm off to seek WP:Page protection. Flyer22 (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This page was linked on Reddit because of that section being unscientific. There's no WP:Sockpuppetry going on. Just lots of people with the same idea. 84.107.42.115 (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether WP:Sockpuppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry (which is an aspect of WP:Sockpuppetry), or just people editing on their own belief, I will see to it that this WP:Edit war stops; WP:Page protection (semi or full) will take care of that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I take it you are planning to get page protection put on this article after removing the section in question? The section is clear politically driven garbage and has no place whatsoever in a scientific article about fertilisation. I mean, just look at some of the language:

"However, Feminist scholars, such as Emily Martin and Londa Schiebinger, tell a different story of the textbook accounts of conception and the role of the egg. They “decode linguistics” and examine how gender has modeled aspects of cell biology".

As if the term "Feminist scholars" in a scientific article wasn't a big enough flag, what about this "decode linguistics" crap? Decode these linguistics: This section is anti science, and does not belong here at all Aaarrrggh (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There should also be a sentence that describes how the egg is raped by the sperm as she did not consent to being fertilized. #Fertilisationisrape 80.110.26.244 (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well sperm don't consent to be left to wriggle a bit and then die, either. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The material has been removed so many times that it becomes impossible to fix it, scientists need to be permitted to work on this material, without other people angrily deleting sourced material [strong hint!]. The point that different points of view can improve science is a very legitimate one, but the citations need to be accurate, and the interpretation of those citations needs to be accurate and not overblown. The citation for the article mentioned with an incorrect author name is Schatten, G.; Schatten, H. (1983). "The Energetic Egg". The Sciences. 23 (5): 28–35. doi:10.1002/j.2326-1951.1983.tb02646.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Redditors should probably go and read Pseudoskepticism. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Citations are one thing, but when there is no actual scientific evidence put forward to support a position, and when it can be easily demonstrated the person putting forward the argument has a very strong political bias (hint: "Feminist scholars"), such claims should be treated with caution. If you can provide actual scientific evidence - not “decoded linguistics”, but actual biological evidence, then perhaps we can consider these points. Until this time, this information should be treated as a politically driven anti-scientific argument that is not supported by evidence, and therefore it is right to remove it. Aaarrrggh (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That's backwards. First the citations should be gathered, then what they say assessed. Please read WP:CENSOR. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. I was just saying the citation in and of itself is not a good enough reason to keep this in the article. If you wish to provide some actual biological evidence to support this claim, go ahead. Aaarrrggh (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Protection

I answered a request at WP:RFPP and protected the current version - if there is any confusion here is a diff showing (I think) the addition be discussed. AlexiusHoratius 16:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a further improvement to the material under attack, here, but whatever, I'm outa here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I would not like to object to the protection, but could I simply ask why it was a full protection rather than just IP users? I see a ton of semi-protected pages only allowing autoconfirmed users, and I'm not exactly sure why this warranted a full protection. Again, I'm not objecting to the protection, merely wanting to know why it was a full vs semi. (I'm also a semi-new Wikipedian, so I may not know everything yet.) Ging287 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like anons and autoconfirmed users were on both sides of the reverting, so semiprotection (protecting against only the anons) wouldn't have done much. AlexiusHoratius 16:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The page was linked to on reddit here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/20ig7a/remember_when_feminists_pledged_to_fix_wikipedia/, which I think explains the sudden influx of people. It's also where I first saw the offending passage, and is why I chose to login to my account on here for the first time in 6 years Aaarrrggh (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Any reason why you're canvassing off-site for edits to the article in question? I was under the impression that sort of thing is highly frowned upon. Ongepotchket (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ongepotchket, all of this "feminist theory" edit warring started after this edit by Ging287, which is suspicious in my eyes...unless Ging287 saw the Reddit post instead of being the one who started it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, my apologies, I did forget to provide a link. I was referring to this post made by the editor above, requesting help from reddit users in order to circumvent the rules here. Ongepotchket (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ongepotchket, oh, I see. Thanks for the link. Yes, that was inappropriate WP:Canvassing on the part of that editor (though, technically, WP:Canvassing refers to contacting other Wikipedia editors), and it was WP:Meatpuppetry (which is always inappropriate and prohibited). Flyer22 (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

AlexiusHoratius, the edit dispute has started right back up after protection. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Protection ended March 20th, so 'just after' is a bit misleading in that taste. I've omitted the section due to a lack of peer viewed citations. See section below. Consensus is the first step towards resolution, which I am attempting to work towards.Ging287 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Aggressive/energetic egg" section

I propose that we leave it as omitted unless covered in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Ging287 (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I restored the section after a recent deletion whose edit comment was clearly basing things on OR. I think that the section as it currently stands is not yet there, but is approaching something that would belong in the article. I am sorry to be part of the edit warring, but the edit I reverted was beyond the pale. Still, I don't plan to get in any holy war about whether the section belongs here or not, so if the consensus here is that it doesn't, I'd probably disagree, but I would not stand in the way. Ging287 is definitely doing the right thing by starting a discussion here. Homunq (࿓) 13:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made sufficient changes to this section according to WP:TONE. Ging287 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Complete removal

Here we can discuss the complete removal of this section. Tutelary (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The claim that mainstream science ignored the active role of egg in fertilization has been debunked for so long, yet it is still perpetuated. It is an example of "Postmodern Myths about Science" (refer to this essay from this book), and therefore complete removal is warranted. 24.17.219.51 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Delayed fertilisation in dragonflies (Odonata) and ants, bees, wasps (Hymenoptera)

The Odonata have a complex fertilisation scheme with multiple matings, sperm competition, and fertilisation delayed until egg-laying. Seems worth a paragraph and a photo of the "heart" or "wheel" mating posture.

Other insects e.g. Hymenoptera similarly have sperm storage, fertilisation being delayed often many months as the queens lay eggs continually but are fertilised only once in a mating flight with the drones. Seems worth a paragraph also. And a photo. Perhaps we're suffering from mammal-ism here (compare the male-ism of the rest of WP). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, you should add the material; not an empty section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, all of the empty sections should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly correct to indicate missing sections so the team of editors can get to work on them. I will have a go at the insects in due course, if nobody else has done that by then: we can't do everything at once. Far better to indicate incompleteness honestly than to provide readers with a misleading or unbalanced picture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not perfectly correct to add empty sections. Adding tags to indicate that the sections should have material in them is a different matter. Adding empty sections is lazy, and is putting the WP:Burden on other editors; I will never agree with that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We have article talk pages for valid reasons, and one of those reasons is to indicate things that should be in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your holding strong opinions doesn't, unfortunately, make them correct; I have already given you three good reasons why empty sections are useful. I'm busy on other things but will add a stub on insects today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That is an editor-centric point of view. Put yourself in the mind of a reader: you see an article that appears to be complete. Do you go and read the talk page to see if there are any outstanding issues? Not one reader in a thousand, probably. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion that empty sections are useful is just an opinion. And an outlook that empty sections are a good thing hardly ever holds up, per WP:Burden. Imagine creating a whole Wikipedia article like that. Empty sections are pure laziness, and is not reader-centric; it is editor-centric. And as many at this site know, I mainly edit with thoughts as to what is best for our readers, not what is best for our editors. Readers do not come to Wikipedia for empty sections, which often stay in Wikipedia articles for months or years before they are finally removed as the empty things that they are. As for what you stated above, I won't be agreeing, per my several of experience with this site. Stating that we should add empty sections to let readers know that material is missing in the article is counter to the way that I edit Wikipedia. There is very likely always something that is going to be missing from a Wikipedia article, as it is almost always a work in progress. We do not add visible notes in Wikipedia articles telling readers that material is missing; the same should apply to empty sections. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It was not "just an opinion", it was justified above with clearly stated reasons. I've added a brief summary, which could certainly benefit from expansion. I've done this despite other work because I prefer to spend my time doing something useful on articles than arguing. I won't be back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If my comments on the empty section matter are just opinions, then so are yours. We have Template:Empty section to identify the problem with empty sections, not to encourage their additions. As for editor work, my article work across Wikipedia speaks for itself. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Fertilize or impregnate?

The word "impregnate" is more commonly used, especially in Google Books. I did this search on 2015-11-06 with option "verbatim".

• "woman can be impregnated" Google: 9,440    books: 190
• "woman can be fertilized" Google: 23,000    books: 5
• "impregnated by her" Google: 315,000    books: 6,100
• "fertilized by her" Google: 74,800    books: 1,770
  

I prefer the word "fertilize" because "impregnate" is ambiguous: Longman, Cambridge, Oxford 85.193.214.212 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Human "Interspecies Hybrid", Say What?

In section 3.4 (Human) of this article on Fertilisation, it states: "Additionally, interspecies hybrids survive only until gastrulation and cannot further develop." As this is the section about human fertilization, that then implies the existence of fertilization between humans and another species. 50.107.177.141 (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fertilisation/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated "top" as topic of general interest. This article needs expansion, clarification of plant fertilization (e.g. flowering plants, non-flowering plants, algae etc.), addition of fungi (fertilization via plasmogamy, growth as dikaryon, and karyogamy) etc. - tameeria 04:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Permission to use a copyrighted source

http://imgur.com/a/o8pip -- Permission by the assumed original copyright holder to use text from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2012.02105.x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.203.127 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That permission is not sufficient. As previously explained:

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

FERTILIZING THE EGG WITH AS MANY CHOICES OF SPERM AS PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE

IF THERE IS AN EVOLUTIONARY CHOICE BETWEEN THE IDEAL SPERM TO FERTILIZE THE EGG THEN UNDER IDEAL CONDITIONS THE EJACULATED SPERM SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FLOW OUTSIDE OF THE WOMAN

WOULD A FEMALE MENSTRUATION CAP OR A MODIFIED DESIGN SERVE THIS PURPOSE?

WITH MILLIONS OF SPERM EJACULATED THE LOSS OF POSSIBLE IDEAL COMBINATIONS NEEDS ADDRESSING

I.V.F TREATMENT DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE THIS IDEA

FERTILIZED EMBROYOS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE WOMB UNTIL THE BIND

I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT SELECTIVE ABORTIONS

LAND IS EVERYWHERE

86.141.205.9 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Is fertilisation incorrectly defined as "sexual reproduction"?

According to the lead paragraph:

Fertilisation ... is the fusion of gametes to initiate the development of a new individual organism or offspring. This cycle of fertilisation and development of new individuals is called sexual reproduction.

However according to this post on WP:RD/S by Snow Rise

"fertilization" is not synonymous with "sexual reproduction"; it is one process in the phenomena of sexual reproduction. It is absolutely a necessary part of that phenomena, but it is not exclusive to reproduction in sexual species; fertilization also takes place in asexual species

I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, but if Snow Rise is correct, the second sentence of the article ("... fertilisation and development of new individuals is called sexual reproduction") would appear to be incorrect (because fertilization may occur asexually). Should that sentence be updated to allow for asexual fertilization? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Mitch, I do think there is room for improvement here, but just so any other parties receive the full context of my original comments and don't misread the meaning of my observations, I'd like note that this is what was quoted to me on the reference desk:

"Fertilisation ... is the fusion of gametes ... This ... is called sexual reproduction"

And the relevant portion of my response:

"I don't really have time to go back and re-analyze the actual grammar involved from the original sentence you pulled into chunks here such as to qualify whether it became incorrect as a result of the manner in which you quote it or it was inaccurate to begin with, except to say that as you quote it here, it is not a correct statement [but] "fertilization" is not synonymous with "sexual reproduction"; it is one process in the phenomena of sexual reproduction. It is absolutely a necessary part of that phenomena, but it is not exclusive to reproduction in sexual species; fertilization also takes place in asexual species...and in that context the ovum is "self-fertilized" by some form of haploid cell other than a male gamete."

So I was responding to the statement as it was presented to me in your argument; looking at what the article states here, without the omitted clauses, it has (as I suspected might be the case) a somewhat different meaning that is at least somewhat better than the one presented at the RefDesks.

All of that said, since you've raised the question, I don't disagree that the sentence in question could nevertheless be improved for the sake of precision. Something along the lines of "Fertilization is a fundamental component in the process of sexual reproduction, by which which certain organisms propagate their species by combining the genetic material of two progenitors to generate offspring" After-all, as a clinical matter, the successful repetition of the process by an offspring is not really an essential element to defining reproduction; if one imagines that we have male and female specimens of a given species, and these two mate and produce a hundred offspring, and yet all one hundred of those offspring die before they can in turn mate themselves, the original male and female specimens still engaged in "sexual reproduction", even if there is no further "cycle" of that particular lineage. The alternative wording would still pay reference to the fact that the act of sexual reproduction takes place in a broader physiological/ecological context, but would frame the relationship between that context and the actual biological mechanisms a little more accurately. Of course, it would also be somewhat reduplicative of the sentence that presently comes immediately before this one, so perhaps it would make more sense to simply append a reference to sexual reproduction to that sentence in some fashion.

Anyway, notwithstanding my nitpick about the wording in the first paragraph above, Mitch, thank you for raising the issue here for the sake of improving the article. We should all make an effort to make certain that RD discussions result more regularly in improvement to our mainspace content. On a side note, this seems, like a lot of our articles on biological processes, to be a quiet article, so while there's no harm in waiting a day or two to see if someone else responds, probably one or the other of us will ultimately be the one to be WP:BOLD and change the wording ourselves. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The article on sexual reproduction illustrates the cycle. The fusion of gametes is one aspect of an alternation of generations and the meiosis is the other. Now meiosis and fertilization both seem like they are related to sex, but only meiosis is a part that is also reproduction, in the sense of creating multiple cells. But that doesn't tell the whole story, since in human females for example meiosis generates one ovum and three polar bodies that have no big part in the story; really, the "reproduction" part is in the vegetative cells leading up to the germ line! On the other hand, bacterial conjugation, even in something like Bacillus subtilis that can transfer its whole chromosome, isn't generally counted as fertilization or as "sexual reproduction" AFAIK, even though the subsequent mitoses will build up the population of those (not) "zygotes" the same way. Bottom line -- old biological terms don't seem to do very well with philosophy. Just follow the whatever the sources say... Wnt (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, going with the RS is exactly what we would be required to do regardless of whatever synthed-together alternative might have otherwise appealed. And no, to answer your implicit question, bacterial conjugation is not considered a form of sexual reproduction; both are examples of lateral gene transfer but both the mechanisms of transfer and the relationship between the contributing organisms and their successors is entirely different. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Some uncovered forms of Syngamy

Hello everyone!

I am a $10^{th}$ student, and was searching for Hologamy in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I didn't find it :(

I request any knowledgeable person to kindly add the topics Hologamy, Merogamy and Paedogamy to the correct page.

Thanks in advance!

Seeker220 (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Syngamy neither defined nor linked

Just pointing out that Syngamy is defined nowhere here, and it appears that wikipedia doesn't have a Syngamy article. Would be good for someone knowledgeable in the field to fix this.

Zeebo7 (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sic

Corp 2405:205:C925:3208:868E:1CCD:5DC3:F9CB (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)