Talk:Germ plasm

	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 Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

History of Science

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Makyladan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

The two stated articles are essentially the same, and hence should definitely be merged. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but the page should be at germplasam which is how the phrase is used now.--Peta 02:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for that? Every time I've read the term, it's been in two words. Phasmatisnox 02:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only know the term germplasm as a collection of genetic ressources in breeding. What is explained in the article "germ plasm" is something completely different. Therefore I'd propose to keep the articles separate.

The two terms descibe totally sparate entities. Merging them makes no sence whatsoever.

I also am only aware of the term "germplasm" and is a single word and refers to seeds and other genetic materials usually related to plants. the discussion "germ plasm" in the associated page (which is proposed to be merged) has no relevance whatsoever to the context in which I am used to seeing the word. If the articles were to be merged the merger would need to be caveated so the user is aware of the different contexts and meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.171.34 (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I put up the merger template. I think this one is self-explanatory. Phasmatisnox 02:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.... the subject of the two articles is obviously completely unrelated: a germplasm is a living gene bank, in the form of seeds or plant collections, while "germ plasm" is a cytological term. I'm removing the template. --NoahElhardt (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move page ?

I think this page should be renamed into Germ plasm theory. The current name, and page structure —one large paragraph, dedicated to the theory— is the outcome of a 2007 split from the Germplasm article (diff). It seems obvious the main topic here is the theory. The “germ plasm” term (in two words) is hardly ever used in another context. Tinm (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was Darwin Lamarckian?

This raises a question which I've tried to resolve with this edit. Basically, Lamarck had a bundle of transformism / transmutation ideas including inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin rejected much of what Lamarck proposed, but accepted what he called Effects of Use and Disuse. Darwinism as proposed by Huxley meant evolution in general, without necessarily insisting on natural selection. Later on, Weismann's stricter approach and insistence that natural selection is the central mechanism came to be known as Darwinism (or Neo-Darwinism), and inheritance of acquired characteristics was called Lamarckism (or neo-Lamarckism).
Not sure if the statement "Thus, the historian of science Rasmus G. Winther states, Weismann was not a Weismannian, as he, like Darwin, did believe in the inheritance of acquired characteristics" actually adds anything to the article, but have left it while adding a clarification. Sources available if required. . . dave souza, talk 12:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]