Jump to content

Talk:Meiosis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Regarding major revision 21:36 & 21:42 on 26 July 2005

I've revised At birth?

Meiosis is arrested in Prophase I prenatally for mammalian females. It stays in Prophase I until ovulation, when the oocytes are formed -- completing the rest of the meiotic stages.Ted 19:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Detailed description of meiosis

Dies someone have some pictures to accompany the detailed explanation of meiosis? I think it would greatly increase its understandability.Redmess 19:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

tetrad

I thank you guys for having the word tetrad in this article. I've been wanting to know what in the world that word had to do with meiosis. Okay, I think that's all. --JDitto 06:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

The simpler, but less descriptive names for the two parts of meiosis are (obviously) Meiosis I and Meiosis II. More descriptive names are reduction division and equational division, respectively. The diagram at the top of the article alternatively uses "reductional division" to name the first step. Yet these more descriptive names are mentioned nowhere in the text of the article. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

suggestion of diagram

here is one you can add: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/primer/images/Meosis4.GIF but i'm having troube including it.

and another better one: http://www.bioethics.gov/images/sc_images/meiosis.gif

I definately think we should use the second one, the picture on the page is much too confusing. Eipiplus1 11:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest developments

I removed this statement from the prophase I section:

During this stage, one percent of DNA that wasn't replicated during S phase is replicated. The significance of this cleanup act is unclear.

While I doubt that it is untrue, it was not cited, and if anything, it would confuse the reader. If someone can find the journal article it came from, I feel as though it could be added in a different section (possibly about the latest developments; we could also add something about how experiments on ''S. cerevisiae'' show that a lot of the processes of crossing over might occur before currently thought or become visible). I just feel that adding these special cases to the body of information might be confusing. If someone wants to work with me to add such info, I'd be willing to add it. --Michael 01:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor Revision on Polar Bodies

I corrected this statement: "Each oogonia that initiates meiosis will divide twice to form a single oocyte and two polar bodies." There are actually three polar bodies produced by meiosis in females, as one cell devides into two, and two cells divide into four, not three. and if only one viable oocyte is produced, that leaves three nonviable polar bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.115.0 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Edit on Diplotene stage

59.88.141.4 Thank you for your edit. I have tidied it a little. I hope you don’t mind. Prim Ethics (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Site of discovery

The article currently claims that meiosis was discovered in sea urchin eggs. Surely sea urchin gonads or sea urchin embryos are meant, no? I checked the article on Oskar Hertwig but this discovery is not mentioned there. --arkuat (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Hertwig reporting pronuclear fusion during sea urchin fertilization, not meiosis? Dr d12 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's indeed what the Hertwig article indicates now, but this article still (mysteriously) credits him with discovering meiosis. --arkuat (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oskar Hertwig now fills out the details thus: he recognized the role of the cell nucleus during inheritance and chromosome reduction during meiosis arkuat (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why two divisions?

Why does the cell undergo two divisions? Wouldn't it be more likely to evolve as the cell splits once?

My ASCII diagram isnt working. Okay, verbal description. The cell has a chromosome pair. It doesnt double. It splits. Wouldnt that make two gamates?

Yes, they would as both cells would be haploid. However there would be no crossing over and therefore almost no genetic diversity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.247.187 (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense?

Ryz (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC) "Meiosis is not essential for sexual reproduction and therefore this is the worst thing i've ever saw (including single-celled organisms) that reproduce sexually."

G2 phase of interphase

After checking several other websites, it appears that the section on Interphase is incorrect- there does seem to be a G2 phase of interphase.

However, this topic is not well documented online, so I have left the main article alone. Any expert advice would be welcome

Steddurz292 (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

1N vs 2N during meiosis

I've noticed repeated changes between 1N and 2N in the description of the first meiotic division. I'm changing it back to 1N (haploid) and refer you to the following:

  • If N refers to the number of chromosomes, 2N is diploid and 1N is haploid. Since all somatic cells have 46 chromosomes or 23 homologous pairs (one paternal and one maternal), somatic cells are diploid (2N). Likewise, spermatogonia are also diploid (2N). At the end of the first meiotic division, the secondary spermatocytes have 23 double-stranded (containing a pair of daughter chromatids) unpaired chromosomes and are, therefore, haploid (1N). At the end of the second meiotic division, there are 23 single-stranded chromosomes and these are also considered haploid (1N). (from http://www.andrologysociety.com/resources/handbook/ch.6.asp)

Note that N should not refer to the amount of DNA in a cell (as in part B in the above page) - instead, 'C' should be used for DNA content. Dr d12 (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC) is it true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.63.95 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph disappears into a half-sentence at the end.

The autor of this part of the edit needs to come back and finish this paragraph's last sentence.


In female mammals, meiosis begins immediately after primordial germ cells migrate to the ovary in the embryo, but in the males, meiosis begins years later at the time of puberty. It is retinoic acid, derived from the primitive kidney (mesonephros) that stimulates meiosis in ovarian oogonia. Tissues of the male testis suppress meiosis by degrading retinoic acid, a stimulator of meiosis. This is overcome at puberty when cells within seminiferous tubules called Sertoli cells start making their own retinoic acid. Sensitivity to retinoic acid is also adjusted by proteins called nanos and DAZL.[6][7]meoisis involves sper, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.110.192 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

suggestion of diagram

here is one you can add: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/primer/images/Meosis4.GIF but i'm having troube including it.

and another better one: http://www.bioethics.gov/images/sc_images/meiosis.gif

I definately think we should use the second one, the picture on the page is much too confusing. Eipiplus1 11:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we should explain more about oocyte meiosis. I'm not sure, but what I know is that fertilized oocyte has haploid (pronuclear) which is came from maternal chromatid previously crossed over with paternal chromatid. Notice that paternal chromatids at primary oocyte are discarded during meiosis I (first ploar body has two peternal chromatids and one of them previously crossed over with maternal one). Then, Secondary ooctye takes step of meiosis II (fertilization) decarding non crossed over chromatid which is fate to be second polar body.
So I got two images here and I think second one is the best, but the image quitliy is too low. The first image has problem to explain fate of the crossed over chromatids, and second image doesn't include explanation of fate of the 92 chromatids (at least it should have one another chromatid for visualization). I don't know exactly about shifting chromatids (changing each other) to other chromosome sets.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_C4HfAXUiufc/SD8L43L2HPI/AAAAAAAAAOI/QGbSlULTHMM/s400/gametogenesis.jpg
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gh19/b1510/fertiliz.gif
Oh! Where do you think it's appropriate to explain the detail information? in 'Meiosis' or in 'Oogenesis'?
(I'm not a man speaks English. I hope you understand what I mean. Moreover, I'm not sure about my knowledge, so I wish somebody insert more detail and accurate information instead of me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisguard (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the current image wrongly attributes colors to the chromatids - the daughter nuclei II nuclei are switched two by two: the first two from top to bottom should be the last two and vice-versa. I know this is a problem at source, but the truth is the image initially classifies the genetic material by color and then discards the classification in the end - this may be confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.62.9.200 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Figure at beginning of article seems incorrect.

The diagram at the top of the article has caption, "Events involving meiosis, showing chromosomal crossover". It shows four states of meiosis from left to right. The fourth and final state shown is labeled, "Daughter Nuclei II". In this fourth state four daughter nuclei are shown. The problem is that in this fourth state, the top two nuclei and the bottom two nuclei should be swapped so that the daughter nuclei from which they are formed are to the left of the correct pair. Thisisdavid (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC) ==First Picture is terrible I didn't understand meiosis when I looked at this article, and I still don't. I found the first picture totally confusing and crappy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.57.123 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"goyong goyong ni faruk kay yede ele bolabolas"

first sentence under metaphase I, i believe this is an error because this obviously is not english71.146.22.241 (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That was vandalism. It's been reverted. Emw (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Will delete this Heading tomorrow at this time if there is no longer a need for it. Rhadamanthine (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

  • Origin and function of meiosis labels transformation as "bacterial sex", which I think is misleading. There are some underlying similarities between transformation and sexual reproduction (e.g., they both require homologous recombination), but I think calling transformation a form of bacterial sex ignores an important distinction. Transformation is decidedly one-way, whereas sexual reproduction involves much more equivalent genetic contributions. This should be clarified before merging, and I think we should veer away from equating transformation with sex. Emw (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The article should also be more densely cited before being incorporated here. It is unclear what statements are attributable to reliable sources and what statements are the author's editorializing. Emw (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Meiosis is a topic commonly covered in high school. I think much of the Origin article is too advanced for this article's target audience. Emw (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This merger didn't happen, and one of the merger tags has been removed, so I'll remove the other for consistency. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

crossing over does not happen randomly

crossing over doesn't happen randomly, it occurs more frequently at certain points in the chromosome than others, and never at other points. Perhaps this could be explained in the article by someone who knows more about this. For now I've just removed the word 'randomly', and changed it with 'may'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.177.242 (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This was explained to me once by a great population geneticist who worked a lot with Drosophila. Crossing over is random. It appears to be non-random because by studying humans the population size that would be required to show that it actually is random would be far greater than the number of people who have ever lived. Unfortunately, I don't know a good clear citation for that. Perhaps this could lead to it: Ackerman, S.; Kermany, A.R.; Hickey, D.A. (2010). "Finite populations, finite resources, and the evolutionary maintenance of genetic recombination". Journal of Heredity. 101 (suppl_1): S135-141.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

All Eukaryotes?

Meiosis is essential for sexual reproduction and therefore occurs in all eukaryotes

I thought there were Eukaryotes that reproduced entirely asexually? For example, the page on Amoebae says "Amoebas reproduce through binary fission", ie, Mitosis, and the page Amoebozoa puts them in the Eukaryotes... Evercat 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah think it was just a missing comma.... anyway I've added parentheses to make it clearer... Evercat 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

'have lost the ability to carry out meiosis' implies that the ancestral eukaryote(s) was/were able to do meiosis, which is almost certainly not true, so i've changed 'have lost' to 'do not have' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.177.242 (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Meiome

Oppose: Meiome is too specialized a subject to form part of this general article. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: Meiome is too small to be an article on its own, and is questionably notable. A paragraph on it in this article would be a good way of covering the subject. Warren Dew (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Meiome page has now disappeared, what happened? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
What is the basis for saying that a technical concept such as meiome is questionably notable? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I've no idea where the proposal to delete Meiome was discussed, but have removed the merger proposal from this page since that doesn't make sense after the deletion. The text of the deleted page has been recovered (it is good material!), so I'll suggest that it be merged into Transcriptome; expert help would be appreciated (one question is whether there are other -ome terms that could be similarly treated). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Extensive editing reverted

I have reverted a group of 11 edits from IP 72.204.0.236 that were clearly made in good faith, but did not help the article. Since the edit summary is too short to properly describe why I reverted these, here is some more explanation. The principal problems were that the sister chromosomes and the non-sister homologous (maternal and paternal) chromosome pairs were mixed up, and that processes from mammals were described as if they applied to all organisms. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

== Organization of cell

ORGANIZATION OF LIFE ON EARTH:


CELL: The cell is an basic structural and functional unit of an organism.Since all living organisms are made up of cells and functions of an organism depend on the functions carried out by its cell,cell is considered as an basic structural and functional unit of an organism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.58.38 (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you have a comment to make about this? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Overview diagram confusing

I find the diagram that has just been added, an overview of the meiotic and mitotic cell cycles to be confusing: at first glance it would appear that mitosis produces haploid somatic cells, and perhaps that haploid somatic cells merge with one another. The meiotic parts of the diagram seem very difficult to puzzle out. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

EVOLUTION SPEED UP

Any theory that time efficiency as advantage of sex? Let's say we have a random machine that gives us a string. And we want a string of length N, for example say "GOOD" The probability of us getting the string of length N as exactly as we want is exponentially small 1/Z^N where Z is the size of the alphabet and N is the length of the string. However, if we forgo perfection and want only a string that looks close enough to "GOOD", we can try to get a bunch of strings as long as we have G at the first position, O at the second and third position and D at the last position, when we merge repeatedly with many successes and errors, there is chance that we'll get a string looking close enough to "GOOD". The blurry residual from mixing is still there, but if we can tolerate certain level of imperfection and the string looks close enough to "GOOD" then the problem is reduced to only polynomially difficult. This means creating a specie with many good characteristics will probably only take a polynomial time, or at least we move it to sub-exponential. Of course that does not mean there is a single DNA code out there, the same specie can also have another string say "AWESOME".

Maybe the advantage of sexual reproduction is a combination of the two mainstream theories: - segregation and/or repair and/or elimination of errors - creation of diversity together with the above: - Efficiency in running time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6027:53:3109:9883:1114:DC4F (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Meiosis in mammals

This section appears to be incorrect concerning the number of polar bodies. In mammals, the first division produces the first polar body, which is discarded and does not normally divide again, plus another cell which divides to produce the second polar body plus the oocyte. The reference given actually says this if read carefully. Peter coxhead(talk) 22:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. A one-shot change missed by the watchers, from an IP on 12 April 2011. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I've made a few edits to try to give an accurate account. However, writing about meiosis generally, as the first sections do, is not easy if the account is to be precisely correct. In particular, some of the text said (and may still say) that the products of meiosis are gametes, which is not true in organisms with alternation of generations. It also said (and still says in places) that the product of meiosis is four cells, which is not true of mammalian oogenesis, where the first polar body normally disintegrates rather than dividing, and also doesn't make clear that in the production of eggs and megaspores, even if all four cells are produced, three are much smaller and disintegrate so aren't the "end product" of meiosis. I don't have time for a more thorough check/rewrite, but it is needed, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of diagram

I am completely confused by the diagram at File:MitosisAndMeiosis en.png, so I have removed it until the diagram is more clear. Three issues serve as examples. First, the diagram does not show the S-phase of either mitosis or meiosis. Second, the cell division in mitosis clearly shows two different daughter cells, but mitosis produces two replica daughter cells. Third, 'crossing over' is not shown in meiosis. Chalky (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Misspelling

Please change the spelling of the word "meiosis" in the table in the introduction. It is currently spelled "mieosis." 152.3.43.140 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Done 786b6364 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible confusion with regard to 'sister chromatids'

The introduction to the article makes reference to chromosomes splitting to form sister chromatids in the final step of meiosis. In the linked page on sister chromatids, these are defined as being 'identical' copies of each other. However in the case of meiosis, my understanding is that this cannot be correct as each 'sister chromatid' may be genetically different due to the crossing over that occurs earlier in the process. Therefore, there appears to be an inconsistency - either in the definition of sister chromatids, or in the use of the terms in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.137.76 (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've added some discussion at sister chromatid. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The wording of the intro is also misleading, as it implies that a gamete has a quarter of the parent's genes: "In the second stage, each chromosome splits into two, with each half, called a sister chromatid, being separated into two new cells, which are still haploid. This occurs in both of the haploid cells formed in meiosis I. Therefore from each original cell, four genetically distinct haploid cells are produced. These cells can mature into gametes." Howunusual (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was quite confusing. I've tried to rework it. See what you think. The usual difficulties have become quite bad here, the confusion between haploid and monoploid, and between ploidy as a DNA measure and as a chromosome count. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It's starting to sink in now that I've read it a few times. From the second paragraph, does "... and may exchange genetic material ..." mean may as in might (but might not), or may/will/can now (probably) proceed and likely/probably exchange genetic material? The English language is so horribly/wonderfully vague at times. The diagram to the right does help guide through the process phases, though it does make one wonder: Do one of each of the original duplicates (typically) remain (mostly) unchanged, or perhaps the diagram is simplified for clarity's sake. Finally, beyond the scope of the original introduction's clarification: What is the typical number of (sub-)segment crossovers? What is the final overall (typical) mother/father content ratios (40:60 to nearly 50.0:50.0)? When do the newly formed haploid cells mature into gametes (late-stage fetus, newborn, juvenile mammals)? Realize this may vary by species and individual chromosomes, if not environmental influences as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.236.111 (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


organization of function subheading

"Meiosis facilitates stable sexual reproduction" should go under function rather than having its own section.ThokozileA (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed clarification

"Meiosis begins with one diploid or polyploid cell containing multiple[citation needed] copies of each chromosome. " Which part of this needs clarification? The fact that meiosis occurs in cells that are diploid or polyploid (as opposed to haploid)? Or that diploid and polyploid cells have multiple copies of each chromosome? The latter is self-evident from the words: "di-" means "two" and "poly-" means "many", both of which would fall under "multiple". --Khajidha (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Meiosis/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 high school/SAT biology content - tameeria 14:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The article would benefit from having pictures of the meiotic stages, e.g. prophase I stages. It needs a section on chromosome crossover and meiotic recombination. - tameeria 18:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The first diagram of meiosis has a small error. The upper two cells on the right side should be switched with the lower two in order to make sense.Smadorsky (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Smadorsky

Last edited at 07:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 23:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Question moved from the page

The following reference (number 7) is worded as follows: 

J.B. Farmer and J.E.S. Moore, Quarterly Journal of Microscopic Science 48:489 (1905) as quoted in the Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, June 2001, s.v.

Jump up ^

But it should just end at 1905 citation, but NOT cite the "Oxford English Dictionary" because the Farmer & Moore paper is primary literature and a complete source.

Please consider changing it to the following. 

J.B. Farmer and J.E.S. Moore, Quarterly Journal of Microscopic Science 48:489 (1905).
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is clear that editors should not add citations to sources they haven't seen without saying where they got the source from. So the editor who added this originally was doubtless correct. It can only be changed by someone who has actually read the Farmer & Moore (1905) paper. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Process

In this section, Law of independent assortment and crossing over was mentioned by definition, the proper naming of these processes was not included. Also for independent assortment metaphase II (at the chromatid level) some information was left out. I also listed citations for both of these topics. This was my edit "Meiosis generates gamete genetic diversity in two ways: (1) Law of Independent Assortment. The independent orientation of homologous chromosome pairs along the metaphase plate during metaphase I & orientation of sister chromatids in metaphase II, this is the subsequent separation of homologs and sister chromatids during anaphase I & II, it allows a random and independent distribution of chromosomes to each daughter cell (and ultimately to gametes);[8] and (2) Crossing Over. The physical exchange of homologous chromosomal regions by homologous recombination during prophase I results in new combinations of DNA within chromosomes.[9]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ba16b (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Life sciences

Meiosis Nothando Yaka (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Citations in Metaphase II

Inverse proportionality of prophase II: I'm taking out the claim "Prophase II takes an inversely proportional time compared to prophase I " since it remains unverified. "The new equatorial metaphase plate is rotated by 90 degrees when compared to meiosis I..." needs a source as well.

Homologous chromosomes Nothando Yaka (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Life sciences Revision document Nothando Yaka (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarity of lead section

It would help greatly if the lead section contained a clearer diagram, in which the parts were labelled using the same terms that appear in the text. At the moment it is hard to relate the diagram to the text, or even tell whether it is describing the same thing. Which is the "diploid cell"? What does "two copies of each chromosome" look like on the diagram? Is it one H-shape? Two H-shapes? Four sock-shapes? What does the red colour coding mean? Etc. 86.160.220.179 (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Second paragraph is a huge gray blob. Get rid of details and be more clear.

The original strands from the mother, and the father, are "homologous". OK. Then, each strand is replicated. The duplicates are also "homologous" with each other, therefore all four are "homologous". So, constantly reminding us that this or that is "homologous" just confuses.

Then, some pairs are connected by a centromere. Originally, the Father's and Mother's strands are connected by a centromere. Are the father-duplicate and mother-duplicate connected to each other by a new centromere? Or is the original centromere removed and the two father strands connected together, and the two mother strands connected together, by two new centromeres?

Would be nice if there were four unique names for each strand, to avoid confusion, like father-original and father-duplicate. Then, don't try to describe two things at once: use two sentences instead. EG don't say "then the father strands and the mother strands get joined by centromeres", instead say "then the father strand and its duplicate get joined by a centromere. Then the mother strand and its duplicate are joined similarly."

The intro should avoid tangential details, that's for the rest of the article. Just describe the fundamental process and move details to the rest of the article. Examples of what should be removed:

  • during S phase of the cell cycle,
  • This S-phase can be referred to as "premeiotic S-phase" or "meiotic S-phase".
  • enter a prolonged G2-like stage known as meiotic prophase
  • by extrusion into polar bodies

"and undergo genetic recombination, ... as the parent cell" Remove that whole part, you're in the middle of a completely different description that's already complex. It's for the lower part. Just mention there's some "recombination (see below)"

OsamaBinLogin (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Top Diagram confusing, 2nd diagram incorrect?

First diagram is very confusing, and misleading. It does not help in understanding the subject - in fact detracts from that. This Diagram should indicate that 1- The left cell is reflecting TWO pairs of different chromosomes, e.g. the larger chromosome 1 and the smaller chromosome 9. Thus the two larger ones are chromosome 1 pair, and the two smaller are chromosome 9 pair. 2- The grey reflects let's say the paternal chromosome, while the red is the maternal. 3- The second cell has each of the four chromosomes copied to get four sister chromatids. 4- The sister chromatids 1 recombine together and sister chromatids 9 recombine together to arrive at the 3rd figure.

As is, this figure is very confusing and is misleading.

Also the 2nd figure does not follow the text and conflicts with the first figure. It says recombination happens at Prophase I, while it appears recombination happens after the sister chromatids have developed. Furthermore, the blue and red coloring is incorrect and it is not clear at what stage the sister chromatids develop. I believe another talk entry below refers to this same problem.

(preceeding comments not signed)

The second diagram (with red, blue, yellow and green) shows individual strands looking like two strips, so for instance in the first panel where it says "homologous chromosomes", both red and blue strips look like they are made of two strands. Are these supposed to look like opposite sides of the DNA ladder? Or is the red one a homologous pair, and the blue one another homologous pair?

Red parts overlapping other red strands, get lost. Same with blue on blue. They should be outlined so you can see what's connected to what.

OsamaBinLogin (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Meiosis in gametocytes.

Guys., what is special about the meiosis in gametocytes? Mrjoefansharrif (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Resumption of meiosis into Meiosis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was don't merge. Firestar464 (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Very similar to this page, could have its own section? NonsensicalSystem(err0r?)(.log) 11:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I actually think this is fine as a separate article. I cut out the duplications from Meiosis; the rest is quite substantial, and Meiosis is already looong. I'd rather suggest adding a subheading with a one-sentence summary and a "Main article" link here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Me too, this seems like an independently notable topic, so I don't agree with a merge. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

pictures or diagrams

I think this page needs diagrams at each step of meiosis in order to help the reader visulize the process. I don't think the one diagram at the beginning is enough. as said above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.17.43 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pachytene stage

During this stage the paired chromosomes "thicken" and crossing over occurs - from lecture notes. I would like to learn more about each of these stages. Please do research on these -ene stages and fill in more details, maybe make a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkjazzer (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

sentence chopped

The last sentence of the first paragraph (referencing meiospores) is arbitrarily specific for the introduction to an encyclopedia article. It is also a non sequitur. That information does not go there, if we are interested in prioritizing and readability. If you wrote it, find another spot for it. I am editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.113.189 (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meiosis/Archive_1&oldid=1195602457"