Talk:Limb development

Anatomy: Embryology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to embryology.

Animal anatomy Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I believe the zone of apoptosis for the early allocation and progenitor expansion model should be 200 microns--not 200 mm. I'm no expert, so I'll leave this to someone more knowledgable than me to correct if necessary.

Why hands and feet are so similar?

Dispite they have different origins?--MathFacts (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

two signal model of proximal-distal patterning

why does this article fail to mention the two signal model for proximal distal patterning. it is one of the most well subscribed models and has much evidence that supports its validity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.11.188 (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link to a relative page

Would it be appropriate to add a link to a page that is related, but does not exist yet (limb evolution)? To this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvarade (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ecapelle

The lead section could use some clean-up and clarification. I found it confusing to get through.

Some information in the lead section is mentioned there and not elaborated on (ie: T-box transcription factors).

The precartilage condensations section could use some more information.

Reformatting of the Proximal/Distal Patterning Modes could make them more defined and obvious. Maybe add numbers?

Ecapelle (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limb development. 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/20080828154815/http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/~tabin/Pdfs/Johnson.pdf to http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/~tabin/Pdfs/Johnson.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) 23:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Limb bud

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Await resolution of controversy in the literature, revise but not merge yet; proposal withdrawn by nominator. Klbrain (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of overlap . Both pages are not overly long and would be better presented on one page Iztwoz (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are addressed to the same issue, but Limb bud ignores the now generally accepted explanation for skeletal patterning by Turing-type reaction-diffusion mechanisms. It should probably be considered as historical. It would be very hard to merge them. StN (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello StN - one of the reasons for the merge proposal - there is more on the limb development page that addresses these issues that the limb bud does not. There is such an overlap of info generally that a merge imo would be an improvement. The limb development page includes the Turing type model and others - what is the need for two separate pages? --Iztwoz (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles seem to be on opposite sides of a paradigm shift. There is valuable factual information in limb bud, but its interpretation in a non-Turing positional information perspective for digit patterning has little support in recent literature. Melding the two articles would be difficult because the significance of the facts are theory-dependent. In principle, it's a good idea, but it would likely lead to conflicts that are best resolved in the scientific literature for a while before a consensus is attempted in an encyclopedia article. StN (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. "Limb bud" seems like a logical article to merge here, and could indeed be merged a subsection. However the content is quite long and technical and may need some finesse to make the merge without loss of content. Sometimes revising the article to be merged by removing duplications and content derived from primary sources and so forth can help. I am not sure on this one. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Have taken Tom's and StN's comments on board.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evodevo

Some researchers working on the limb see themselves as part of the emerging discipline of evodevo, but most by far see themselves and either developmental or evolutionary biologists. It's inaccurate to make limb development studies part of evodevo in the introduction, and particularly the opening sentence. StN (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for the multiple instance of loss and gain of the limbs

"An interesting aspect in understanding limb development is addressing the question of how snakes lost their legs. Snakes are a particularly good example for studying limb loss, as they underwent limb loss and regeneration multiple times throughout their evolution before they finally lost their legs for good."

The linked source does not talk about snakes or their gain and loss, it talks about digit identity

Where does this information come from? 2001:7C0:28E0:108:FCBF:E0E9:31B7:DDB7 (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Developmental and Molecular Biology Spring 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Luziacat (article contribs).