Talk:Anisogamy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Evolutionary biology High‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge[edit]

I don't think merging heterogamy here makes much sense. That page is a disambiguation page and only one out of the three meanings is synonymous with anisogamy. The other two are different topics. I think it would make sense though to merge heterogamous into the heterogamy article. That page describes only one out of three possible meanings for heterogamous anyway. - tameeria 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fertilization risk[edit]

The phrase fertilization risk occurs five times but its meaning is not obvious nor given. —Tamfang (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fertilization risk section needs rewritten. I deleted part that was redundant. It doesn't mention the benefits to motility of a smaller size, and only indirectly references the value of redundancy. It implies that having smaller size enables more sperm to prolilferate, but doesn't mention storage or crowding or why it would be easier for smaller cells to divide more.

173.25.54.191 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

This article could use a list of examples of species that exhibit a particular form of anisogamy (the diagram shows three different variants). MarqFJA87 (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarqFJA87 that could be a good idea.CycoMa (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, please, not a list, unless you feel like making a separate list article. If you want to add an example of a species that does variant A to the place where anisogamy variant A is discussed, that is another matter, and a far better idea: that strengthens the article, reinforcing its structure, logic, and readability. A list section does the opposite. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on oogamy and isogamy have sections on occurrence. Maybe a list isn’t a good idea but maybe a section on occurrence is more ideal.CycoMa (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the lead changed?[edit]

The lead wasn’t like this before but for some reason it was merged to this.CycoMa (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead had two major problems: 1) it introduced "new" material not explained or cited in the body; 2) it introduced three citations not found in the text either.

The function of the lead is to summarize the body text briefly, evenly, and neutrally. I moved the "new" materials into the body with an edit comment explaining the issue, and marked the lead as needing attention. I believe that all these actions are proper, according to policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about sexual selection and anisogamy[edit]

I’m probably gonna need to research further on anisogamy and sexual selection.CycoMa (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major Error in 'Sexual Dimorphism'[edit]

The second sentence in the section 'Sexual Dimorphism' begins, 'Most species do not sexually reproduce...' This claim is massively inaccurate. In fact, the vast majority of multi-celled animals, over 99.9%, reproduce sexually. Such a claim calls for a close examination of the entire article. RobotBoy66 (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]