Talk:Outcrossing

There

There is substancial information that may well be good, but is unsourced. Additionally, much information appears to be POV. This should describe what Outcrossing is not how it should best be done be done.--Counsel 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If one uses Mendelian formulas, using the standard charts for the crossing of an individual homozygous for the deleterious trait, placed up against an "outcross" that is homozygous, not carrying the deleterious trait, an increase of the number of individuals either expressing or carrying the deleterious trait is an ubiquitous result. For example, With TT representing the lack of the trait, and tt representing the diseased homozygous individual, the Mendelian formulas would be as follows:

ttxTT = 100% Tt, all offspring carrying...

the number of individuals present in the gene pool would then be 1+all offspring produced, or at least 2 individuals would at least have or carry the gene.Therefore there is an increase of at least one with the use of outcrossing.

Furthermore, if the trait is a dominant one, outcrossing does nothing to remove the trait. In fact it increases the number of individuals who are disease ridden.

YYxyy= 100% Yy, all offspring diseased...along with the homozygous
parent

The previous version was demonstrating a POV supporting outcrossing as The only "natural" form of breeding. This was unsupported by any proper form of documentation or supported argumentation. In practice, nature allows for both in breeding and outcrossing through selection either by natural causes, or by assortative breeding. --Kerheals 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This makes absolutely no sense. Of course if you breed an animal carrying the gene for a deleterious trait, you would get more animals with the gene. This is a result of breeding the affected animal and not of outcrossing. Inbreeding would give you the same result, with the exception that some individuals might actually express the deleterious trait. --Dodo bird (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that Kerheals understands the genetics, but is ignoring the fact that the person doing the outcrossing will take steps to prevent the spread of disease; that's the point of outcrossing. I'm removing some of the edits K has made because they are, at best, out of place. Maybe a note explaining the genetics would be appropriate, but the way it is now just makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCooley138 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Language

I'm not a native speaker and also no breeder, but interested in genetics, and it occurs to me the article have some insider language that is hard to understand for someone more familiar with classical genetics, and science. Maybe this is unavoidable. Or maybe you could try to see it from an 'external distance' and consider that the average reader would be no expert in this area. --michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.206.93 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

yes Bangla Md-rosid (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources?

"Outcrossing is now the norm of most purposeful animal breeding, contrary to what is commonly believed."

FOUR citations for this sentence, wow - ??

A closer look at these sources is revealing: The first one does not say anything at all about outcrossing or about "what is commonly believed". The second and third have disappeared from the internet. The fourth is a page giving recommendations on how to breed a certain dog breed without having inbreeding happening.

All four sources are puppy or cat breeding sites. None of them is anywhere near what you might call a serious scientific source. None of them supports either of the claims that are made in the sentence above, neither the one about the norm of breeding nor the one about whatever may be "commonly believed".

Please provide some reputable scientific sources for these statements, or remove the sentence altogether. --87.150.15.193 (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Needs lots of help

This page is pretty bad. Unsourced claims, incorrect claims are abundant, even in the header. For example, the first sentence: "Out-crossing or out-breeding is the technique of crossing between different breeds with no common ancestors." Every living thing has a common ancestor! I study evolutionarily population genetics, so I'll try to clean this page up a bit. However, if would be great if everyone could fix information, and add high-quality (preferably peer-reviewed) sources to this page. Which, at the moment, suffers from WP:NPOV errors and non-encyclopedic phrasings. I've added the NPOV tag and disputed information tag as it is systemically biased towards an unusually favorable view of outcrossing, and contains factually incorrect information that I will fix later today.--Prunepeck (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I fixed most of the obvious errors and removed the tags I added.--Prunepeck (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comments. Generalrelative (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure of why my statement keeps being deleted for unnecessary information, "thus, the patterns associated with outcrossing drastically shape an organisms ecological and evolutionary processes." Talking about outcrossing needs to coincide with a discussion on its importance in evolution. That is essential the purpose of outcrossing. Additionally, I've reviewed many of the sources who's notes were minimal, and added addition details to relate the sources back to the topic at hand--again, deleted. What does everyone want to see from this page? I'm trying to add peer reviewed literature and discussions about outcrossing with my information being deleted. Alyssahockaday (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, there needs to be a consensus if this page is 'outcrossing' or 'outbreeding' because those are two different methods. Outbreeding is breeding unrelated animals, while outcrossing is the same breed with no common ancestors for up to 4-6 generations.Alyssahockaday (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging, Alyssahockaday, and I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. As I'm sure we both can agree, this article is a hot mess of poorly connected ideas. You're absolutely right that we need to observe the distinction between outcrossing and outbreeding. This article, of course, is about the former, though it may be helpful to contrast it explicitly with the latter, and provide a source for those interested in exploring this distinction further.

To address the specific content you added which I reverted:

1) The sentence Thus, the patterns associated with outcrossing drastically shape an organisms ecological and evolutionary processes. contains a number of unclear and/or incorrect elements. It did not seem worth correcting because it's not clear that it adds anything in terms of sense that wasn't already there. To be specific about its problems: The word "thus" is used incorrectly, i.e. what follows it does not follow logically from the previous sentence. The phrase "patterns associated with" is unclear: patterns of what? The word "drastically" does not appear to have a clear meaning in this context either; it appears to be a senseless intensifier. The word "organisms" is incorrectly spelled (should have an apostrophe). The phrase "shape an organisms ecological and evolutionary processes" is also quite vague. Can you think of a more specific way of phrasing what you wanted to say here? If so I would be happy to discuss.

2) The sentence Fungi are model eukaryotes in the fact that they are able to express diversity in multiple modes of reproduction and mating systems; including outcrossing. had similar problems. Note that animals and plants also "express diversity in multiple modes of reproduction and mating systems; including outcrossing" so there is no operative distinction here. One would have to be much more specific. Also, the idea of "model eukaryotes" is simply dropped in as though it were self-evidently meaningful to the reader. Many of our readers will be unfamiliar with the idea of both eukaryotes and model organisms, so these should be properly introduced if necessary –– and avoided if unnecessary. As it stands, the fact that fungi are model eukaryotes is not at all clearly relevant.

For both of the above, see WP:MOS: Since using plain English makes the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to read, editors should avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording. The important thing to ask oneself when thinking about adding material is: how will the reader experience this?

Note too that I have happily left in much of your recent contributions, including the sentence that begins Outcrossing in fungi involves syngamy between haploid cells... and the paragraph that begins Life-history traits are said to increase the probability of outcrossing in fungi... along with the references you added to back them up. This is super helpful stuff. It is simply not the case that you are being unilaterally blocked from contributing.

I hope that my reasoning makes some sense to you, even if you don't agree with me on everything. This article can use all the help it can get. I'm just wary of material that might serve to further clutter and/or obscure rather than clarify. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)