This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Molecular Biology:MCBLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofmolecular biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported bythe Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed asLow-importance). Evolutionary biologyHigh‑importance This article is part ofWikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles onevolutionary biology and its associated subfields such aspopulation genetics,quantitative genetics,molecular evolution,phylogenetics, andevolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from theWikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather thansystematics andtaxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see alsoWikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visitWikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale.

I don't think mergingheterogamy 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 mergeheterogamous into theheterogamy article. That page describes only one out of three possible meanings for heterogamous anyway. -tameeria21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasefertilization 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]

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 onoogamy andisogamy 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]

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]

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

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]

Some studies actually use the word "anisogamy" to mean "non-oogamous anisogamy".Alfa-ketosav (talk)21:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• B-Class Molecular Biology articles
• Low-importance Molecular Biology articles
• B-Class MCB articles
• Low-importance MCB articles
• WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology articles
• All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
• B-Class Evolutionary biology articles
• High-importance Evolutionary biology articles
• WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles