Talk:Viviparity

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I feel that viviparity should be the title for the following reasons:

1. -parity beats -pary (92,700 to 27,400) on Google
2. dictionary.com has no non-Wikipedia listings for -pary, only -parity.
3. To keep the same pattern as the other two reproductive method articles (oviparity and ovoviviparity)

At the moment the majority of Wikilinks use -pary instead of -parity, though for the above reasons this should probably be changed. Enok^talk 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I learned "vivipary" and only "vivipary", but Encyclopedia Britannica has this at "viviparity", and we have an article at Adenotrophic viviparity. Is it possible that this is an American English/British English distinction? Dekimasuよ! 13:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 16:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Different vivipar(it)y

In my biology text book (Nature of biology, book 1, third edition, published by jacaranda, Chapter 12, page 385-387), they describe several types of viviparity, one being "egg yolk viviparity", which is ovoviviparity, and claiming that the latter term is obsolete. They say that the viviparity seen in mammals (such as humans) is called "placental viviparity". The last type of viviparity says that there are "viviparous [animals] with nutrients from other sources [then the egg yolk and the placenta]". The following text is from the book:

Some species of sharks and rays give birth to a few large young (called pups). These baby sharks and rays are much larger than would be expected if their nutrients came only from the egg yolk. Such pups grow after the eggs hatch but while they are still inside their mother. So, there must be an additional source of nutrients available for these pups before birth. Several sources of nutrients have been identified as follows:

• Nutrition via a shark placenta. This is seen, for example, in the hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zygaena). After three to four months, hammerhead shark pups have used their yolk supplies. When this occurs, the membranes of the empty yolk sac become greatly folded, their blodd supply inc4reases and they become closely attached to the lining of the mother's uterus, forming a so-called shark placenta. [...]
• Feed them eggs! Some female sharks, such as the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus), produce a supply of unfertilised yolky eggs as a source of food for the shark pups after their own egg yolk is used. [...]
• Feed them 'milk'. In some rays, such as the bad rays (Myliobatus californica), cells of the inner lining of the mother's uterus secrete a protein-rich fluid or 'uterine milk' to nourish the embryo after the egg yolk is used. [...]

What I would really like to know is whether the terms (such as egg yolk/placental viviparity) are really used, and if all the types of viviparity explained above are really types of viviparity?

Thank you, Josellis 06:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd example..

The article cites all sorts of animal references, but the picture example is of a plant, which the article doesn't mention at all. Should this be changed? Weasel5i2 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a different solution: move most of the text (description) from the picture to the text, and then add another picture of a viviparous animal of some sort, such as a snake, giving birth. The text that goes with the current image, however, should not be lost. --Jwinius (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

animal / plant

The article says this happens with animals, but the image is of a plant. If this happens with plants too, it needs to be mentioned in the article. If not, the image should be removed. Kingturtle (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

advantages and disadvantages

The article also states "There are numerous advantages and disadvantages to being viviparous." - Such as? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGGraham (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Novel

The novel explanation is confusing. Vivipary isn't a method of conception. And artificial insemination can't replace vivipary. If you want to replace vivipary, you'd need some sort of artificial womb Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Seriously?

New definition

I just inserted a new definition for vivipary, which I took from wiktionary:vivipary. The former definition didn't talk about plant vivipaty but I'm not sure that I got it right. Does the new defintion correctly delineate what is in the category of vivipary and what isn't? For example:

• Are "spores or buds" correct in the plants definition?
• Would normal vegetative reproduction be classified as vivipary?
• The last paragraph says "Viviparous plants produce seeds...". Shouldn't it say "Viviparous plants can produce seeds..." because there are many viviparous plants that do not reproduce from seeds?

I just get the feeling that I'm not dealing with some middle ground of reproduction methods; either something that should be in the definition of vivipary but isn't right now or something that should be excluded from the definition. Would someone who knows more about botany than I do have a look. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Vivipary, in plants, is a vegetative reproduction, not from seeds or buds, that produces a new plant. Eleocharis vivpara is a much better example (IMHO) that is the primary method of reproduction. Anyway, I looked up this article because I have a daylily that has gone vivparous after Fukushima (what I attribute it to); but the scape (flowering stem), now produces a new daylilly fan from a node (vegetatively). In past years, the fan has gone on to bud and flower, while still attached to the scape. The new plant regenerates completely vegetatively without any seed...I know this is a mutation (daylillies just don't do this); but anyway the articles discussion of vivipary in plants is neither clear nor accurate...MBJ 70.209.28.0 (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

About tenses

I see that in the article there was a change to the tenses, from "developed" to "develop". That would be fine if the species in question were extant, but I seem to remember reading that there was doubt about whether the stomach-breeding frog was now extinct. Did the parties responsible for either the text and its editing bear this in mind? Just asking... JonRichfield (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Split

This article covers two independent topics unified only by a term. As such it is currently a violation of WP:NAD. Needs to be split into separate articles for each topic.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is not the same process in zoology and botany, just the same word. Thanks for bringing this up. How does the splitting process work? I'd be happy to work on the zoology side of it, but I'm not sure what the right process is. TheDoormouse (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that the page should be split. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest we split, but use Viviparity for animals, and Vivipary for plants. This avoids clunky names and stays with the search terms that people will naturally use. In fact, we can go right ahead with this since at the moment Vivipary redirects here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There are a bunch of incoming links to vivipary that intend the animal sense. Could use some help getting those pointed to the right article. Plantdrew (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of Viviparity

The "Reversion of Viviparity" section is hard for this layperson to understand. At minimum, it would be improved if it had a short introductory paragraph in layperson terminology, explaining why the pre-existing two paragraphs are relevant to anything. Acwilson9 (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemotrophic viviparity in Gastrotheca ovifera

I scrolled through the sources T. Lodé cites for it, but could not find the article on G. ovifera. The article by del Pino et al. in Biological bulletin 1975 actually is devoted to G. riobambae. Actually, nutrients transfer from mother to the offspring is confirmed in G. excubitor in a 2016 research. Ignatus (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)