Talk:Life history theory

Plants? Fungi?

The first sentence in the "Life Cycle" section is "All organisms follow a specific sequence in their development,[9] beginning with gestation and ending with death, which is known as the life cycle". But *gestation* is about animals, and plants are organisms too, and their life-history is studied. I'm not an expert, but this casts a pall over the whole article, as it seems to be not a serious article. 46.208.26.89 (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Rushton?

Is this the same "life-history theory" as proposed by Rushton in Race, Evolution and Behavior? --JereKrischel 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Rushton did not "propose" this concept. alteripse 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I'll revert my edits and walk away...we were trying to find an appropriate article for what Rushton calls "life-history theory" in Race, Evolution and Behavior. Looks like this isn't the place. --JereKrischel 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I should think this *is* what Rushton means by life history theory. But he is persona non grata in much of academia, and no no one would thank you for linking him to any serious subject. But as a matter of accuracy, yes! And, there is no other "life history theory". A link would be kind that made it clear this is a serious topic in biology, existing long before Rushton came along, with a very respectable history and present; and biologists can't help it if their work is abused by others. 46.208.26.89 (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This is no description of life history theory!

I don't mean to be snide here, but from looking at this I don't think anyone can figure out what "life history theory" actually means. An analytical framework? At its root, life history theory (and there are many different theories, not one) has always had an evolutionary core. The question has always had to do with how organisms (not "animals and humans." Most organisms are not animals, and most empirical research has been done on organisms other than animals. Like plants.) allocate resources to affect their contribution to future generations. In other words, it has always concerned the question of how the quantities you discuss are subject to natural selection. Unless you put demography and evolution at the core of any discussion, you miss the entire point of biologists in developing theory to explain the evolution of these traits. Gafox1 (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the tags at the top of the article, this needs a lot of work. Be bold and improve the article yourself. It could certainly use your expertise! GoEThe (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry to just edit this I never add or edit wiki but I also was confussed about this and had to look up the defention in my anthropology book and the definition from that is as follows - the details of an organism's exsitence from conception through senescence and death.

This article was TERRIBLE! Apparently it had become a place for people to advertise their own research. I've edited it down to a reasonable statement that could be expanded on by those who know something about life history theory. Sep 1. 2009

a good review about the state of the art. --Jmaspons (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Correction

"to produce the largest possible number of surviving offspring." - This is wrong. There is no condition which makes this necessary. zzz --89.217.37.242 (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page was massively vandalised a year ago, but has been rewritten since. This version was 17k but it was vandalised to 6k. Someone should look over this version and see what can be remedied from it. SmartSE (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• A check with google shows that much of the content in the earlier and bigger version is a cut and paste from Freeman and Herron Evolutionary analysis Chapter 12: Aging and Other Life History Characters.--LittleHow (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

r/K selection theory

could some biologists chip in at the talk page regarding the current status of this theory?·Maunus·ƛ· 12:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I second this request. The article on r/K (and subsequent googling) seems to indicate that it is pretty much obsolete, thus to say that this "can be understood in terms of r/K theory" would probably seem to the biologist to be the equivalent of saying "this is BS". So, is that true? SamuelRiv (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Check this paper. If I have time I will try to improve the article --Jmaspons (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Who is the authors of the theory?

The article does not state it.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Class Assignment

Working on improving this article for a class, let me know if you have any suggestions! Ceceholm (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Life history theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831053720/http://www.unm.edu/~kimhill/papers/kaplan2000a.pdf to http://www.unm.edu/~kimhill/papers/kaplan2000a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Life history theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060422031657/http://ag.arizona.edu/fcs/fshd/people/ellis/Psyc%20Bull%20Ellis%202004.pdf to http://ag.arizona.edu/fcs/fshd/people/ellis/Psyc%20Bull%20Ellis%202004.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831063557/http://web.missouri.edu/~psycorie/Vigiletal%5BDP2005%5D.pdf to http://web.missouri.edu/~psycorie/Vigiletal%5BDP2005%5D.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)