Talk:Ecological selection

	This redirect 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 redirect is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Ecology Mid‑importance

	Ecology portal This redirect is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Evolutionary biology Mid‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This redirect is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

I'm not satisfied with ecological selection. I think the selection page etc over-represent ecological selection as a category, and incorrectly classify sexual selection as a sub-category of natural selection. IMHO, natural selection and sexual selection are thought of as two distinct processes by practitioners within the field, with natural selection occupying the position in the figure in selection that is currently occupied by ecological selection. At least, some references should be added to selection and ecological selection to support the views presented and some historical information should be added to trace the change from Darwin's view to the one presented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete.Hurd (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 July 2005‎ (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Some grammatical editing of this article would be helpful -- it is so full of modifying clauses that it becomes difficult to follow. Brigner.15 (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article could use quite a bit of editing. Some suggestions I have in mind are:

1) use more citations, obviously, and no original research.

2) Provide more circumstance for which it occurs. Ecological selection is huge component of natural selection, and I think it needs to be accentuated more in this article. Also I feel that the comparison to sexual selection is somewhat unnecessary, and it leads to more confusion about the issue.

3) Lastly, I feel that the structure of the article is insufficient. A paragraph providing more examples would be beneficial, as well as a history of experts and their studies.

Brigner.15 (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brigner, the link you provide, and your sentence are about resource selection functions. This might seem intuitively related to what one might guess the term 'ecological selection' is intended to mean, but it isn't. It isn't about ecological effects on population distribution or population size. This article is about phenotypic change resulting from natural selection, where the original creators of the article hold that 'natural selection' has two sub-types 1) sexual selection, and 2) ecological selection. It has always been my impression that biologists don't divide up natural selction this way, but rather think of sexual selection and natural selection as two different form of selective pressure. This article, and the definition of 'ecological selection' as 'natural selection minus sexual selection', has always struck me as being a bit WP:OR, something that exists in wikipedia but not in biology departments. my 2c. Pete.Hurd (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is some much needed grammatical editing for this page, and possibly a complete re-haul. The different sections do not make much sense as they are, and most of the sentence structures are somewhat confusing.

For the sexual selection subject, I do not feel that it should be removed from the page, because I believe that a comparison between ecological and sexual selection is necessary to understand ecological selection. Sexual selection is not a separate regime entirely from natural selection, but actually a mode of natural selection. Ecological selection is often explained as a cause of change, making it a mechanism of natural selection, but this is argued by many, so I feel that it should be described in terms of all arguments. This means that references should be added, so I definitely agree with that point. The arguments presented need support, and they to be contrasted with other arguments.

Brigner.15 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that the topic of sexual selection be removed from this article. I'm arguing that sexual selection has not, historically, been considered a subset of natural selection which is the premise for this article and for the existence of this term. If it is a newly coined term, then I'd like it's proposal to be documented and referenced. I've got a bookcase full of classic texts on natural selection and sexual selection and I can't find the term in use anywhere. The claims made in the first sentence are totally at odds with my understanding of the history and study within the field. I would expect this term to appear in Fig 1.1.2 "Relations between sexual and natural selection" of Malte Andersson's 'Sexual Selection' book, among very many others if the article is correct and I am wrong. I think this whole page is WP:OR, I said that in Aug 2006, and no one since then has produced a sources to back up the claim that that this page reflects how evolutionary theorists classify types of selection. Do current textbooks include this term in the index, and support the claims made in the lede? Or do they classify artificial selction, natural selection and sexual selection as (non-mutually exclusive) alternatives without this fourth "ecological selection" type? Because, at least at the time I got my PhD working on this topic, I don't think it was at all. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

I do not feel that ecological selection is over-represented. Ecological selection is an active and critical mode of natural selection, and is necessary for evolution to occur.

Sexual selection is not a subcategory of natural selection, but more a form of natural selection, and it should be contrasted with ecological selection. I agree that the definition "selection minus sexual selection" is very off-putting, because I believe the two functions are very intertwined and actually rely on each other. This article is very flawed with it's focus on sexual selection as a subset of natural selection, because that definition is simply wrong. Both ecological selection and sexual selection are modes of selection, that work together.

The whole subject is foggy right now, and a lot of primary literature is still very arguable. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, however. Ecological selection is prevalent in a huge amount of research right now, the term definitely exists (I have a list of resources if anyone doubts this). Scientists just use it in varying ways, whether it be encompassing resource use, ecological functions, or as a cause of sexual selection. That's why I believe that the page should be redone, because it currently provides only one argument (ecological selection separated from sexual selection), and there are no sources given. References are desperately needed to support backing arguments, because there are many.

Brigner.15 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]