Talk:On Being the Right Size

	Evolutionary biology portal This article 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 article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal On Being the Right Size is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Copied][edit]

This article is obviously copied from elsewhere on the net. It was all typed in one edit by 66.116.71.28?

I don't think so. It also has a bad title and, I feel, waffles.--Honeycake 17:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Linked copy of essay is missing text[edit]

The 3rd paragraph in the linked copy of the essay has a few words deleted. A version containing the full text is here: http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_haldane.cfm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.164.193.248 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The current linked version of the essay apparently still has errors. There are some typos ("worm of rotifer" instead of "worm or rotifer" is one). Most severe is the garbled seventh paragraph, beginning "Now if its shape is unaltered..." The sequence in this paragraph, "Comparative anatomy is largely the story of the struggle to example, while vertebrates carry the oxygen from the gills or lungs all over the body in the blood, insects take air directly to every part of their body by tiny blind tubes called tracheae which open to the surface at many different points." seems to have missing portions. A better link for the text of the essay may be http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html. At that site the sentence in question reads, "Comparative anatomy is largely the story of the struggle to increase surface in proportion to volume. Some of the methods of increasing the surface are useful up to a point, but not capable of a very wide adaptation. For example, while vertebrates carry the oxygen from the gills or lungs all over the body in the blood, insects take air directly to every part of their body by tiny blind tubes called tracheae which open to the surface at many different points." JMB3501 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Political Commentary at end of essay[edit]

Perhaps a dissection of the final paragraph would be appropriate to highlite the political view of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealAlmo (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflation with R.B. Haldane's principle[edit]

I found a good citation for Jane Jacob's usage of Haldane's principle, which I added in the article, but there is another principle titled Haldane principle which also happens to be used in civic contexts. Furthermore, there is a separate, more specific, Haldane's rule (by J.B.S.) which is used by biologists. If you Google "Haldane's principle", it appears the Internet is confused too, with circular citations, which I suspect go back to this Wikipedia entry. Philosophistry (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the segment that had the "citation needed" attached to it was lifted from Haldane's principle, which I've since removed, since it referred to Haldane principle (no apostrophe). Philosophistry (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]