Talk:Spore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spore Seed[edit]

What is the difference between a a spore and a seed?

A spore is not much more than a bit of germ plasm (haploid or diploid cell) in a protective coat; a seed is a package that contains the next generation as an embryo (therefore diploid) along with some amount (depending on the species) of stored food, and all that wrapped in a protetive coat. - Marshman 00:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Are Spores Microbes?

Not always; many spores are reproductive or dispersal cells of macroscopic organisms.--Curtis Clark 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spore (video game)[edit]

I believe a more relevant article for Spore is Spore (video game) now that the game is so popular in media. This article could be named Spore (biology) or some such. I may be wrong though...

-- Andreas Blixt 16:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific term spore is still the predominant meaning of "spore"; the article is fine where it is. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more strongly. The title of a video game is the more relevant meaning? Please! Peter G Werner 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is. Currently, the Spore video game page is getting thousands of reads. So is this, but it's only because when people type in Spore this is the first page they get to. Currently, Spore is definitely the more relevant page. However, a better idea would be for Spore to redirect to a disambiguation page and this page be, as he said, Spore (biology)

I just reverted an effective move of this page (see history of this and the disambig). Please do not move this page w/o achieving consensus at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Page moves like the one under discussion here can't be made unilaterally.--Chaser T 02:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this is a good place to test consensus before going to Requested Moves, and I'd say consensus for a move is not happening. Sorry, fans of Spore (video game).--Chaser T 02:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with moving it to Spore (biology). Like it or not, spore is primarily used in the scientific sense - if you go to India and ask the professors there what "spore" means they won't ask if you if you mean the game or not. I'm an avid gamer and I've never even heard of Spore (video game)! Also think about it this way, the upcoming release of Wikipedia on CD wants high quality articles, do you think the video game stands on equal footing as the scientific term? The computer game itself I am assuming takes its meaning from the scientific term as well, surely that indicates something about its heirachical nature.
Also, the current Spore page has more meaningful links to it (i.e. not user pages or talk pages]]. Is it really that hard for gamers searching for the video game to follow one little link at the top of the page? -- Serephine / talk - 02:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not move – I imagine the game was named after the biological structure. I know the biological structure was not named after the game. Case closed, IMO.--Curtis Clark 03:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move= Yes, the game was named after the biological structure, however, my point is that the game is just as relevant as the biological structure. Who cares what it's named for? Also, the Matrix movie is named after matrixes.
Which matrix do you mean?--Curtis Clark 04:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that matrix is more relevant article than the matrix. Catch my drift. Gah, I'm getting off topic. I vote move, because the game is just as relevant as the scientific meaning. Case closed, IMO.
If you haven't heard of the game, what the hell? That doesn't give you the right to say 'I haven't heard of it, so it's not relevant!'. Because this game is a major step for video games and it's all over gaming news. It's relevant. Oh, and lastly, look at the talk page for the video game. Look at this talk page. See the size? Then look at the article size of the video game. Way bigger. This game is just as relevant as Spore. Mrmoocow 03:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The video game is named after the biological term. This move is ill advised and media attention for such things is fleeting, as opposed to established concepts in biology. Mike Dillon 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is also "popularity" within wikipedia. About 300 things link to this Spore, whereas less than 100 link to the video game. Ideally, all of the links to this article will have to be changed. So, unless there's evidence of overwhelming popularity of this game akin to that of Grand Theft Auto, then the move is not a good idea.--Chaser T 03:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Chaser. Mrmoocow, I hardly dismissed your proposal because I haven't heard of the game... only that as an avid gamer who plays many of Will Wright's game that even I hadn't heard of it. It doesn't make it any less relevent, just gives you another point to consider. Your sweeping generalisations ("This game is just as relevant as Spore", "its all over gaming news", "currently, the Spore video game page is getting thousands of reads") look silly and do not help your argument in the face of the sourced facts offered here by others and myself ("About 300 things link to this Spore, whereas less than 100 link to the video game"). Argue your point calmly and with evidence to back you up, before you launch into what is quite frankly looking like a case of a teenage fan-boy looking to get his game attention -- Serephine / talk - 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you look at the matrix entry, you'll see that it leads to a disambig page: for over 30 different entries. In this case we're looking at two: a game, and the scientific meaning from which that game was derived from -- Serephine / talk - 04:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my matrix point was stupid. I was just saying, you not having heard of the game is not a valid point. And, it is true that it is all over the gaming news. It won 3 awards at E3 2005, (including best of show) and I think it got two this year. Look into any gaming magazine and it should have mention of it. I might be sounding like the fanboy, but the page on the Spore game is currently more popular, due to all the hype in the media. Do you think the majority of wikipedians are actually searchin for this Spore? Look at the talk page on the game. It had to be archived for god's sake! Oh, and I wasn't saying it so the game gets attention. The game already has heaps of attention. I just wanted to do a quick change so I wouldn't have to go through this page to get to it.
Anyway, arguments aside, if you really are an avid gamer, than you'll like this game. Scroll down to the bottom and watch the 36 minute video. Mrmoocow 21:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk:Phaistos Disc has six archives. Ever heard of it?
  • Wikipedians (as contrasted to Wikipedia users) search for articles to make links in articles they write.
Are you telling me you never search for anything that you want information about? Mrmoocow 22:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I just wanted to do a quick change so I wouldn't have to go through this page to get to it." Have you considered making a browser bookmark?--Curtis Clark 22:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is essentially over. Let's not dig up the hatchet, please.--Chaser T 22:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, can't we just have a 'main' link? Forget moving the page, just have a 'main link' so we dont have to go through a virtually empty dissambiguation page. Consider the following. The dissambig page contains the following wikilinks...

  • Endospores, a bacterial, non-reproductive survival mechanism
  • Spore (video game), a video game being developed by Maxis
  • Spore, an abbreviation for the Republic of Singapore
  • SPORE, Security Protocols Open Repository

Now which of those do you think will be accessed the most often in the coming months when this extremely popular game is released? Sure as hell not the republic of Singapore. Any article in a dissambig page that is accessed more frequently then any other in the list is by default worthy of a link for ease of use by the wikipedian community. For example, the article on toilet paper has a south park episode of the same name, so I added the link, making it easier to access since there was no dissambig page. I belive that a link to the spore (video game) page, not changing the name of this article, will make the article easier to access for all wikipedians. --Simpsons fan 66 22:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I would support it if we could get some other biology editors on board, although I imagine in five years people will think "there was a video game?"--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At E3 2005, the game won the following Game Critics Awards: Best of Show, Best Original Game, Best PC Game, and Best Simulation Game. At E3 2006, Spore was awarded the following Game Critics Awards: Best PC Game, Best Original Game, and Best Simulation. So it is quite a notable article, and since I think a lot of people will be accessing it in the upcoming months, it deserves a for the video game... link for ease of use. It doesn't exactly clog up the article. --Simpsons fan 66 04:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well? Shall we go with it? It won't effect the page's size or anything. --Simpsons fan 66 23:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Curtis. You will save yourself many headaches later on. --Simpsons fan 66 23:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solution?[edit]

The Virus article may have an answer to make searching for the game easier, yet retaining the biological use as the primary article without renaming. The disambig link at the top of virus is as follows:

This article is about a biological infectious particle; for the computer term, see computer virus. For other uses, see virus (disambiguation).

I think for Spore, something along the lines of:

This article is about a biological reproductive particle; for the video game Spore, see Spore (video game). For other uses, see spore (disambiguation).

-- Serephine / talk - 05:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A similar solution was used on this page once before.--Curtis Clark 05:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh I see, I take that it was removed due to its redundancy when a disambig page was created? -- Serephine / talk - 05:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any objections to reinstating the Spore (video game) link to the disambiguation notice?
– Andreas Blixt ☺ 12:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any in the first place, should make everyone happy -- Serephine / talk - 12:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll copy your version of the disambiguation notice over the current one then.
– Andreas Blixt ☺ 12:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, guess that's better than nothing. At least I don't have to go through this page and the disambiguation page. Now I just have to go through this page :o. Mrmoocow 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the standard way of doing a disambiguation when one meaning of a word is major and all other are minor. As a "fan" of the Spore (video game) article, I wholly and utterly oppose moving this article anywhere, because the video game is so much less significant encyclopedically.
Incidentally, if you don't want to have to click through Spore to get to Spore (video game), click the "watch" link at the top of the vide game article and use your Watchlist. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed, when typing spore into the search box and landing on this page, that the video game link has again been removed from the disambig link at the top. Since the edit summary was simply "rv [whatever]", and the consensus on the talk page seems to indicate support for inclusion of the video game link, I will put it back in there. If anyone feels that the additional link doesn't belong, please explain your position here rather than simply reverting. Dansiman 02:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting it back correctly; I reverted a clumsy addition, and didn't have time then to go back in the history and find the text that had been used previously.--Curtis Clark 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move[edit]

I think that since the Spore video game is getting so much attention in the media, the scientific meaning of Spore isn't the only relevant meaning. I think that Spore should redirect to a disambiguation page, which would have links to both the scientific and the video game meanings. This page would then become Spore (biology)Mrmoocow 02:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oh, and obviously I vote Strongly Support. Mrmoocow 02:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mike Dillon 03:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In the long run, and indeed, perhaps even in the short-run, the game is vastly less important than actual spores. --maru (talk) contribs 03:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In the long run, the popularity of the game which was named after the actual object will simmer down. (I've been editing the Spore (video game) article as well; no bias be here) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the use of spore is predominant as a scientific term (as indicated by wikipedia "What links here" pages and Google), the game is undeserving as yet of equal status -- Serephine / talk - 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Apple links neither to a dab page nor to the computer; I see no difference here.--Curtis Clark 04:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Apple as a company is far more widely recognised than this game -- Serephine / talk - 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although I beleive that a move would be useful for people who are searching for the game, the bad outweighs the good when it comes to having to deal with changing all the links. E946 04:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did it before. I'm actually new to wikipedia, so I didn't know the rules when it came to changes and it got reverted. It tooke me all of two minutes. The bad doesn't outweigh the good. 220.237.189.218 06:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. It's a bit more work.--Chaser T 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Wikipedia's page naming conventions are clear on this: "When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page."; in terms of page links, there are well over 250 for Spore, and fewer than 100 for Spore (video game) (and many of those are "User" and "User:Talk" pages).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter G Werner (talk • contribs)
  • Strongly Oppose: As per Serephine. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 06:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: While I was the first to suggest the move, after seeing the statistics for "What links here", I'll have to say that currently Spore will have to be the main article. However, I believe it's important that a link directly to Spore (video game) is available in the Spore article. If (once the game is released) it becomes a very big topic, it might be worth reevaluating this case. – Andreas Blixt ☺ 11:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong oppose. That's speaking as a fan of both the incipient game and Wikipedia's editorial standards. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am eagerly anticipating the release of the game, but I still feel that the biological definition is more prevalent. Further, my personal belief is that other things being equal, preference should be given to standard academic topics; while Wikipedia is a broadly inclusive encyclopedia with a very wide scope, we shouldn't let that scope crowd out the traditional topics. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - This reminds me of the time someone suggested we move Java (the island with 124 million people) and make it a disambig because of Java the programming language. There is clearly an order of magnitude difference in the significance of the two usages, one is a video game which is only called spore because spores. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments.
  • Not participating b/c we don't take votes on anything. We have a discussion (like below) and seek consensus.--Chaser T 03:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Straw polls are useful to gauge consensus. That is, in cases where the discussions are very messy and not obviously one-sided. In this case, only one or two users seem to be supporting the change in the discussions, so the poll isn't incredibly useful. It doesn't hurt, though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is less of a vote and more a general survey to see what people think, one sentence describing your opinion is easier than reading through a page of comments :-) -- Serephine / talk - 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Sorry for the overly-stern response, Mrmoocow.--Chaser T 05:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you leave "sporulation" as a separate entry in Wikipedia which can also be discussed under "spore". Also include the term "sporulation" in the Wiktionary.Dallas austin 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

I think that it's pretty safe to say from an objective and subjective point of view that the request for movement to Spore (biology) is not going to carry. However, the link to the video game has been reinstated at the top of the page in the disambiguatiuon link. I have removed the "Request for move" box from the top and hope that this compromise suits everyone -- Serephine / talk - 10:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why doesn't "spore" go straight to the disambiguation page? I typed Spore and got here. It seems reasonable to go to that page instead. Maybe that has been discussed but I didn't have time to read through everything. I've got to get back to work. Dawhitfield 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that typing 'spore' should bring you to this page, as it is the accepted definition of the term, but there needs to be a link to the game at the top of the page due its popularity Ygoloxelfer 11:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup or revise needed[edit]

I think the "classification of spores" section is a bit messy and hard to use. It may be better to rearrange it in the form of a list. Also it should include classification "by organisms", since most people, I think, would want to find a certain kind of spores based on the organism in which it is present. 石川 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree about adding a classification, but disagree about restructuring. I think the structure is adequate, and more info will probably be added to each section with time. A list will certainly be awkward. -Pgan002 08:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do procaryotic endospores get their own entry rather than being classified as a type of spore? What is it about the definition of "spore" that the bacterial kind doesn't meet? Their sporulation and germination processes and triggering conditions are analogous to those of diploid eukaryotes, and the asymmetric fission leading to formation of an endospore is similarly analogous to that of the asymmetric division producing eucaryotic spores. I suspect a cladistic bias leading to classification on the basis of evolutionary origin rather than objective details of structure & function. Robert Goodman (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean that you would rather have a page that disregarded evolutionary relationships in favor of having a page covering things that have the same name and are kind-of alike, but not homologous and don't do the same thing or serve the same function? Endospores are structures which encapsulate an entire (prokaryotic) organism as a means of surviving unfavorable conditions. Spores in eukaryotic organisms are a means of dispersing the next generation and/or gametic transmission as part of sexual reproduction. They aren't the same thing and serve different purposes, in addition to the fact that they happen in different domains of life. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I do favor classification by structural-functional likenesses over cladistic homology because that's how I think biology should be taught, and it's the way I teach it. I think someone seeking to learn about a subject, as by looking it up in Wikipedia, will find it a more efficient way to learn it. Teaching things by imputed relationship of descent I find pedantic and puts the cart before the horse. (I teach bacterial conjugation together with zygote formation as well.) If I were teaching principles of architecture (not that I know about that, just saying), I would teach how certain kinds of buildings are built, regardless of whether some of those buildings come from one tradition of architecture and others from another, because they serve the same functions in roughly the same way. What do you think prokaryotes that sporulate are doing? They're not making additional copies of an individual, but they're getting a representative line of a population thru some tough times. The spores of eucaryotes do the same thing, assuring continuance of the population past times unfavorable to vegetative life. Dispersal is about as likely to occur with either type of spore. The only difference is that bacterial sporulation is not conducive to conditions of population growth, while there are eukaryotes which will sporulate as part of even log phase growth. However, it should be understood that log growth is not the usual way of the world! Robert Goodman (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally, totally, totally disagree with teaching bacterial conjugation along with syngamy; it's these glib "comparisons" that keep biology mired in the 20th C. Nevertheless, eukaryotes do make resting spores. Furthermore, it is not at all clear that either resting spores or dispersal spores are strictly homologous among all the eukaryotes that have them. The fault is not so much in there being a separate article about endospores, but rather that this article is such a mish-mash. I've been considering cleaning it up, but haven't yet had the time or energy to do it justice.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the "by organism" classification sometime, after I have sorted out some necessary information. Meanwhile, I want to clarify a bit: what I have in mind when I said "a list" is something like this:

=== By function ===

I'm of the opinion that this format would increase legibility and isn't awkward. How do you find it? 石川 (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sporulation in Yeast[edit]

Could someone please add a description of sporulation in yeast? I notice imparticular that the French page linked to this one is entitled "sporulation," and it's an important concept in genetics and molecular biology. I don't have the expertise just yet--maybe in a couple months. --aciel 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird content box[edit]

Why does it cut the lede in half? Keith Galveston (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was probably done to avoid having the TOC four paragraphs down into the article. It's a "quick fix", though. The article is long overdue for a thorough rewrite. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a rewrite is due, but for now I've added {{tocright}} as an alternative quick fix that doesn't interrupt the lede. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite on classification section[edit]

I finally decided to be bold and tried reorganize the "classification" section. My main idea is that all kinds of spores should be mentioned on this page. Below are some explanations of my edits:

  • About the link of "diaspores": I removed it because it turns out to link to a kind of mineral, and the disambig on top of that page redirects to spore. A little stupid, I think. I also changed the redirect to directly point to this section.
  • The examples given for diaspores was "fungi, mosses, ferns, fern allies, and some other plants": too unspecific. Can anyone who knows more on this fix it?
  • Both chlamydospores and zygospores are described as having "thick-walled resting spores", and according to zygospores it is a kind of chlamydospores, so I merged them.
  • The sentence "zygospores are thick-walled resting spores (hypnozygotes) of zygomycetous fungi which are produced by sexual gametocystogamy and can give rise to a conidiophore ("zygosporangium") with asexual conidiospores" was taken out because it was horrible. First, it doesn't explain at all what "hypnozygote" is. Second, "gametocystogamy" appears to be a nonce term that's being copied from Wikipedia into all the google hits one may find. Third, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen any source that says zygomycetes produce conidia.
  • I wanted to add a "By organism" classification, but then realized that the classification "By spore-producing structure" already covers much of it, so I decided otherwise.
  • Most fungi does not produce mitospores according to the statement here: "However, mitotic sporogenesis is an exception and most spores, such as those of plants and most fungi and algae, are produced by meiosis." If that statement is false, you're welcomed to fix it back, but for now I've edited the section according to that.
I've fixed the article. I don't have a reference at hand, but I'm nearly certain it's in Biology of Plants, and the article Deuteromycota covers fungi that reproduce exclusively by asexual spores, by definition.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used the term "precursor cells", but I wasn't 100% sure if it's proper here; usually I hear it in discussion about animals.
  • Conidia isn't the only way of asexual production in fungi: budding is one other example. So the sentence "Fungi in which......" needs to be rewritten, though I don't know how.

Keith Galveston (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. However, I would still list zygospore as a separate type under Spore-producing structure; otherwise you only have it listed by function. I have added two types of spores found in red algae that were not yet in the list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I say, then, that zygospores are spores produced by zygosporangium? Keith Galveston (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than that, a zygospore is a spore produced in a zygosporangium by a member of the Zygomycota; it is taxon-specific. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to know the distinction between a zygospore and a zygosporangium; the terms seem to be used interchangeably, and as far as I was ever able to tell, the structure ordinarily consists of a single multinucleate cell inside a rather complex cell wall.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm starting to doubt if "diaspore" is actually used to refer to a kind of spores. All the pages I've seen show "diaspore" either as a mineral or as a typo for "diaspora". Keith Galveston (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just minutes after I posted this I saw what Graminophile said below. And according to [Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diaspore], it's a disseminule, not necessarily a spore, so maybe we'll have to remove that. However, that would leave only one item in the "by functions" section. Anyone got any good ideas? Keith Galveston (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to give some references (here's one anyway); a diaspore is a dispersal unit. A spore can be a diaspore, but not all diaspores are spores.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spores & Diaspores[edit]

The article doesn't make clear that diaspores are dispersal units, rather than simply a type a spore. The term can include seeds, fruits and vegetative propagules as well.

This sentence:

A chief difference between spores and seeds as dispersal units is that spores have very little stored food resources compared with seeds.

is also dubious, as some seeds (e.g. many orchids) are extremely small and smaller than some spores e.g. spores of Gigaspora can be >500µm diameter and contain a relatively large amount of food reserves. --Graminophile (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, certainly. This page needs lots of work. Done properly, this page would be many times its current length. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to cover lichen diaspores as well? — Omegatron (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although isidia and soredia are indeed diaspores, they are not spores, which by general convention are unicellular (although there are certainly exceptions).--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Cryptospores[edit]

I am attempting to de-orphan the above article. I have added a link to it in the See Also section. However, if appropriate, it would probably be better if someone more knowledgeable than I work a link into the text. Thanks. --Sophitessa (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Spores[edit]

Spores are defined here as "a spore is a unit of asexual reproduction that may be adapted for dispersal and for survival, often for extended periods of time, in unfavorable conditions" in the first sentence. However, sexual spores seem to exist as well, and are not defined or distinguished from zygotes. Clarification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.98.59 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable text making reference to a sexual spore, please post that information here with the reference and, if correct, the article can be changed. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   22:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sporulation Page?[edit]

Various Pages have the word Sporulation with a link ending in either Spore or some other Page relating to the process, none of which neccesarily makes it clear what "sporulation" is. I assume sporulation is the creation of a spore. Do we have enough information to be worth now creating the (currently Redirect) page Sporulation? Could we create a titled paragraph on Sporulation here in Spore or wherever is deemed apt? I suggest the latter for now, working towards a Page.

IceDragon64 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of information in the literature, but the details of the process differ enormously between different groups of organisms. There could never be a single summary article on the subject with any depth to it at all; it would end up being just another page subdivided into a dozen separate mini-articles covering the process in each group. Sporulation is, simply, the production of spores. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I too have seen a lot of articles using the term Sporulation. I am wondering if the section Dispersal in this article could be renamed Sporulation, as it pretty much describes the process, and would allow more direct referral of readers to the process by which spores are dispersed, rather than the article itself. Incidentally, on a very fast read of the Spore article, I did not see anything that describes the conditions or stimuli under which spores are actually formed. It seems like a logical inclusion to the article, especially since we're talking about sporulation, but its not my area of knowledge (ie I'm not the person who could fix it). Any feedback is always welcome. Prime Lemur (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Define Spore[edit]

Define Spore 111.119.178.177 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a definition in the opening sentence, but an issue is that the term spore has slightly different meanings in different groups of organisms, which makes it tricky to produce a clear definition. In plants, the definition in The Kew Plant Glossary is fine: "a cell capable of developing into a gametophyte", although you then have to define gametophyte. But this isn't correct for fungal spores or bacterial spores. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what disambiguation is for?
Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that occur when articles about two or more different topics could have the same "natural" page title. This category contains disambiguation pages: non-article pages containing links to other Wikipedia articles and disambiguation pages.
This certainly sounds like it would resolve any confusion between using the term in different contexts. Have the search term redirect to a disambiguation page. VoidHalo (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: BIOL 412 HONORS[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allisonk444 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Elaw529, Kaitlin3farrell, Laj1032.

— Assignment last updated by Cara.begley (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spore&oldid=1213013391"