Template talk:Genarch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Haldane

Hi all, very nice indeed! add Dominance_relationship or some of the other dominance articles to the Population genetics and evolution line? Other than that I can't think of anything else, maybe some more historical figures Haldane... Cheers, Pete.Hurd 05:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is shaping up into an excellent template box, with thanks to Samsara. Why specifically, Pete, do you feel J. B. S. Haldane should be listed. He seems more central to population genetics, which is a slightly different area... but perhaps I just don't know enough to understand the connection (but the article doesn't really clarify to me). Of course, I'll defer to the real biologist, but I'm curious. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've got this vague memory floating around that Haldane had a discussion about dividing pehenotypic variation into genetic, environmental and neither, as I recall he called the "neither" category factor X and had a unique envoronmental variance feel to it. It's one of those things I've been meaning to go back and re-read when I have some time (unlikely to happen in the next few weeks!) Pete.Hurd 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overlaps

I also wonder to what extent you guys think we should be avoiding overlap with Template:popgen and Template:evolution. - Samsara contrib talk 14:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think avoiding overlap is a good thing (but not quite a categorical absolute). Having the "up-link" to List of evolutionary biology topics makes sense to share among multiple boxes. But the particular collection of "down-links" to more specific articles should try to be distinct (which means choosing which box is closest for a given article; but that should be OK... having a box doesn't mean "you could never be interested in something not listed here"). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be an argument for not listing Haldane, since he's covered in the popgen template. - Samsara contrib talk 20:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of not lising Haldane as long as his bio (the article linked to) doesn't make explicit reference to the topic at hand. Which seems likely to be the case for the forseeable future. Pete.Hurd 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernst Mayr

Along the lines of background names, I wonder if we should list Mayr. He seems a bit more on-target than Haldane, from what I know (which doesn't mean we can't include both). Do either of you (or anyone who might stumble by), object to Mayr as being not sufficiently central to this template? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any work of his on aspects of genetic architecture. He's an ornithologist by training and was largely interested in speciation and species concepts. - Samsara contrib talk 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
My understanding was that Mayr's analysis of speciation was largely based on phenotypic differentiation that leads to population differentiation, and hence speciation. That was my thinking for listing Mayr (and Pete's idea of listing some of the earlier "great scientists". But I'll certainly defer to Samsara is s/he thinks Mayr is peripheral to this navbox. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
As with the Haldane bio, if Mayr's bio doesn't contain explicit reference to work that is obviously related to the template's purpose, then I'd leave him off. My thinking is that Mayr is further off than Haldane... Pete.Hurd 23:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about ontogeny

Do you think it's central enough to list as one of the key concepts in the template? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think having morphogenesis in the title might cover that. I was thinking about a link to developmental biology. I haven't looked at how much that would add, seeing we already have the morphogenesis one. - Samsara contrib talk 14:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Quite right. Will it be obvious to all readers that "development" links to morphogenesis? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Morphogenesis is the article given for the biological meaning on the disambiguation page for development. Development, however, is actually the more commonly used term. If you wanted to move morphogenesis to something like development (biology), I would support your proposal. - Samsara contrib talk 20:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Nah... I like the word "morphogenesis". But I'll put a redirect, just in case. I think it's fine for the title link. Readers who click on "development" will see where it leads. On reflection, "ontogeny", while still a really cool word, is a bit more old-fashioned. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Ohhhh! Maybe I'm just really old-farty, but the word "ontogeny" gets used plenty in my everyday world. I suppose I do use "development" more for the same purpose. I don't use "morphogenesis" much, but that might be because I'm usually thinking of behavioural traits rather than morphological ones... Pete.Hurd 23:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] just some ideas....

I think a link to the Quantative genetics page is logical. --KimvdLinde 23:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Plasticity, GxE and reaction norms are all gene-environment interaction, so group them? --KimvdLinde 03:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Lamarckian that I am, I tend to be less than devoted to the Central dogma of molecular biology :-). Nonetheless, since Lamarckism is listed, I wonder if its converse should be? Maybe not, that might be getting too far afield into molecular biology rather than developmental biology. But an idea for you other folks to think about. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote no to all three suggestions. If you were to link QG, you'd also have to link population genetics and developmental biology, which we've not done. To reaffirm this view, I've taken out evolution, which is really too general a topic to be included in this particular template.
Plasticity and canalisation are different aspects of genetic architecture; so is mutational stability and so is evolvability. None of these make sense without environment; the template is supposed to help move away from the nurture-nature misunderstanding of how phenotypes are generated. Every aspect of phenotype involves the environment. Reaction norms are an illustrative tool; they do not imply gene-environment interactions as a fact.
I'd be happy to take out Lamarckism.
BTW, if anyone feels that the template does not reflect what it says in the title, please feel free to suggest an alternative! - Samsara contrib talk 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm with you. It makes me think that I should try to put in a sentence or two in the Lamarckism article that points to the way in which certain molecular mechanisms you might call Lamarckian violate the central dogma... but that's a much finer point than we need in the template. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I vote in favor of a link to Quantitative genetics in the "key concepts" row. I don't see that this obliges us to link to population genetics and developmental biology and I don't suggest we do. I'd also vote against Lamarckism... Pete.Hurd 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm cool with Quantitative genetics, if you want to add it Pete. I'm neutral on Lamarckism. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment half directed at Pete: note that I am also working on a quantitative genetics template. The subject seems a little underrepresented on wikipedia at present. You can watch my progress at User:Samsara/Template05. This does not prohibit us from including it in this template, but it's something to keep in mind. - Samsara contrib talk 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Plasticily, reaction norms and GxE all require some form of environmental variaiton, be it internal or external environment (in which the internal is also affected by the genes of he organism). Canalisation can be internal, without environment, against genetic pertubations (by mutations). Heritabilities are defined as for a specific genotype and environment, and as such aslo depedent on the enviroment. Just remember that field estimated h2/H2's are generally lower than lab based h2/H2's as a result of the better control of the lab environment. --KimvdLinde 23:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] linkage disequilibrium

I'm thinking linkage disequilibrium would fit better into the User:Samsara/Template05 quantitative genetics template rather than this one. Pete.Hurd 05:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've actually now put it in the population genetics one, Template:popgen. - Samsara contrib talk 10:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, much better idea. Pete.Hurd 15:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

Bradstadt changed all the terms on that template to initial caps. Could he please comment on this action. I was actually inclined to add terms that way myself, but noticed that Samsara had used the lower case troughout, so deferred to that. I have no particular opinion on which one is more in keeping with WP standards, but it would be good to note the question explicitily, and make sure editors agree.

Notice, btw: Template:Qg, Template:Evolution, Template:Popgen as examples of lower case (except for proper names, bu`t of terms). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lulu.
Just now, I tried looking in Wikipedia's different Manuals of Style (Wikipedia:Manual of Style & Help:Template), but I actually wasn't able to find any information on the subject of capitalization of items in (navigational) templates.
My reason for editing was to follow (what I thought was) the convention: Most (so it seems – I haven't done any counting :-) of the templates at Wikipedia:Navigational templates capitalize each separate item.
I'm neither religious or fanatic about it, so if you – any of you – think different, it's up for discussion.
Best regards, Fred Bradstadt 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Not capitalising makes it easier to distinguish mere technical terms from actual names of places, people or organisations. - Samsara contrib talk 17:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that people who like to spell "capitalize" as "capitalise" also tend to be more fond of lower-case letters :-) (e.g. "AIDS" vs. "Aids"). Still, while I could never convince myself to do the first thing, I'm indifferent about the second. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)