Talk:Gonochorism

What are the alternatives to Gonochorism? 82.119.241.41 15:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Jakub Sturc

Overlap with sequential hermaphroditism

In the lead, we say that "Gonochorism may have some overlap with sequential hermaphroditism". This seems to be contradicted by later statements, suggesting that in gonochoric species, an individual's sex stays constant. Anyone know what's going on here? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Here’s the thing about sexual systems in general they evolve in between each other.

Evolution takes millions of years. To the point changes are hard to notice at times.CycoMa (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Could we say (addition in italics): "However, in most gonochoric species individuals remain either male or female throughout their lives." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be a original researchy to be honest. So I’m honestly against it.CycoMa (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Also just because sexual systems evolve over time doesn’t mean there isn’t a point where a species aid now gonochoric.CycoMa (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a point where a species is clearly gonochoric or clearly hermaphroditic.CycoMa (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be indicating that there is no overlap between gonochorism and sequential hermaphroditism. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it, how many sources claim there is a overlap? Because I read the sources and only one has claimed that so far.CycoMa (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually I read the source. It said that it’s separate from sequential hermaphroditism but may have some overlap.CycoMa (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

When I think about it for a moment how can it be hard to tell if a species is gonochoric or a sequential hermaphrodite? Maybe they mistaken a natural sex change for a color change.CycoMa (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Template at the top of the "Terminology" section

There are two sources, not one, in this section. In addition, the section is extremely short and does not require many sources. Also, the material presented seems simple and straightforward. Finally, there is no discussion in the talk page about what is wrong with the sourcing. I would suggest the template be removed. 144.200.0.157 (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Pleasantly Surprised

Expected this entry to have already been targeted by gender activists. Let's hope it remains true and intact! 2600:6C54:4100:390D:2C20:BE3E:342F:9709 (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have confused gender and sex. Transgender activism is not affected by this information. RockEaterBo (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm also glad to see this page intact, not expecting it to last forever. Ideology is pushing and there needs to be a protective measure on this page in particular. 124.169.131.147 (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't protect pages before there is any vandalism. RedOak350 (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

“Only” two sexes?

At the top, it says gonochorism is where there are “only two sexes”. This seems to imply there are species with more than two sexes. Is this a mistake? C34H32N4O4Fe (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the word 'only' merely adds confusion.Plantsurfer 12:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)