Comparisons[edit]

There are some good examples here but also some questionable ones. Marsupial "mice" such as the Mulgara, planigales, antechinuses etc, are carnivorous and probably better compared to shrews rather than small rodents. A marsupial equivalent of a badger would be a wombat rather than a Tasmanian Devil, which is largely a carrion scavenger - more like a small hyena. Maias (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wombat is very much a herbivore - unlike a badger which is an omnivore. The wombat's chisel teeth are comparable to those of a rodent. Also, the wombat is in the process of evolving a hide or shell like an armadillo with a substantial thickening of the skin over the rear back of the beast which it also uses to crush an attacker against the roof of its burrow - useful for dingos or snakes.

The controversy over the taxonomy of microbats, megabats and outlier species such as the colugo sometimes touches on the possibility - but seeming improbability - of convergent evolution with regard to the development of flight. In contrast, wingform studies between pterosaurs, birds and bats show marked differences. Pettigrew's studies of megabat eye-to-brain linkages suggested primate characteristics not found in microbats.

I am interested in opinions on the relationship between Muskox and Takin. Is this divergent or convergent evolution? 211.26.165.199 (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Ian Ison[reply]


Where should cross-class convergent evolution be placed? For example, the mirror self-recognition that is found in corvids, dolphins, and some hominids. m.j.hymowitz (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd comparison[edit]

"Marsupial Tasmanian Devil has many resemblances to the placental Badger." Really? What are they? Perhaps the person was thinking of a wombat and a badger, rather than a devil and a badger. Sad mouse (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I was thinking they are more like a Wolverine then a Badger (Dirrtypittie (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Interesting article from MSNBC, "Antarctic animals look like plants". I am not an expert this field, but this seems to my humble eyes are great example of convergent evolution between plant and animal (8:38, 6 June 2010, UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleTedesco (talk • contribs)

Plants[edit]

I am removing the portion about peyote and ayahuasca, (which in any case is a preparation derived of two plants). The similarity of the two psychotropic compounds is not great. Perhaps the author was thinking of psilocybin mushrooms and the Psychotria viridis shrub used, along with yage, in ayahuasca. I would say it is Dimethyltryptamine which arises in several distantly related plant species, anyway.

On a different matter, perhaps a mycologist could add to this list in general; I came here today looking for convergent evolution in yeasts and found nothing.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fern and Palm[edit]

Similarities between Fern trees and Palm trees can also be added.-.@Photnart. (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

weak and/or undocumented example - should be removed[edit]

"Mosasaurs of the Mesozoic era are like whales but are closely related to living monitor lizards and the Komodo Dragon." - how are mosasaurs like whales, besides both living in the sea? Their physiology doesn't resemble whales at all. The statement about relations to monitors and dragons is not relevant to convergent evolution. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protein convergent evolution[edit]

The entire section of protein structural convergence is a little unconvincing. Examples are either unreferenced or to vague to be useful.

For now I have removed most of the examples, though please revert if you think I've been too harsh. I'm happy to be disagreed with, but either way, some clarification is needed. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Mimicry not convergence, deleted text[edit]

HCA thinks not related species looking the same is mimicry, not convergence. The information and ref is from utexas.edu courses on Convergent Evolution, that describes it as Convergent Evolution, not mimicry. If it was only behavior HCA would be correct, but this DNA that give these species the same look. Asking HCA not to undo edits, with correct ref links.

From http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Convergence.html The University of Texas at Austin, Convergent Evolution. by Eric R. Pianka


Telecine Guy 21:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not mimicry is a sub-type of convergent evolution, I feel including it in this article would be unnecessarily confusing. The two are distinct in that convergence occurs truly independently (species can be on opposite sides of the planet or separated by millions of years) in response to external factors (often physical or ecological), while mimicry is due to the interaction between species (requiring them to be contemporaneous and sympatric). Given that the covergent evolution article draws a distinction even between convergent and parallel evolution, I don't think lumping mimicry in here is useful. HCA (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telecine Guy 23:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ zo.utexas.edu, Convergent Evolution, by Eric R. Pianka

Suggestion[edit]

Hi all, I've been asked to pass this on. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 10:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated in the first paragraph:

"Unrelated organisms often develop analogous structures by adapting to similar environments. "

Within the theory of evolution, ALL organisms are related. So I think it should be clarified what "unrealted organisms" means, or use a different description such as "organisms in different lines of descent. Or "organisms of separate evolutionary paths" or something.

I have seen this page quoted out of context by creationists as evidence that species are unrelated.

How's the new version? I think I revised it enough to deal with this problem. HCA (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiktaalik and Fish section:[edit]

The Fish section shows an image of Tiktaalik rising from the water onto land. Now I've in a few places that Tiktaalik and other early tetrapods did not ever leave the water. See:

See:

As such, I think that image should be removed. Then the section should be re-written from the view that Tiktaalik did not ever move onto land and then focus on the other areas that are convergent. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite is true, in fact - given the sheer frequency of terrestrial exploits by modern fish with minimal apparent adaptations to terrestriality (walking catfish, snakeheads, climbing gourami, mangrove rivulus, etc), it would be surprising if most of the known early tetrapods did not move on land, at least intermittently. That said, the current consensus is that a) walking likely evolved underwater before on land, as is seen in a variety of modern fish, b) early tetrapods were probably *primarily* aquatic, only venturing onto land for short jaunts or to catch prey, and c) Ichthyostega's anatomy suggests that it may have reverted to a more aquatic lifestyle than its predecessors. With regards specifically to Tiktaalik, the site of the discoverer (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/index.html) specifically says that, while it was likely primarily aquatic, it could and probably did at least periodically move on land (just not exclusively or even predominantly). As such, the figure isn't inaccurate in depicting some level of terrestriality; while it focuses on a behavior that was, in all likelihood, a very small fraction of Tiktaalik's daily life, it is also the fraction that is of the most evolutionary interest. HCA (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of examples of convergent evolution. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism needs fixing[edit]

This line "the enigmatic Fruitafossor that lived in the Late Jurassic Period, the singular Australian marsupial known as the numbat, the aberrant aardwolf," is almost certainly plagiarized from the reference that it cites. No one calls animal singular, enigmatic, aberrant. If it is a quote, it should be in quotation marks and referenced properly. You can't lift a sentence or sentence fragment verbatim without quotation marks and reference. If it is NOT a quote, then who on earth puts these cutey adjectives in? They are totally out of place unless it is a quote.Lehasa (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, they were out of place anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of examples of convergent evolution. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

genesispark.com[edit]

I've just pulled a link from genesispark.com, which is by no stretch meets WP:RS. It looks to me like the sources on this article could use an audit. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

An IP editor has repeatedly, both here and at convergent evolution, reverted by different editors, added multiple alternative names for listed species, even though these are immediately available by following the bluelinks. Multiple IP addresses have made near-identical edits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018[edit]

"Lungless salamanders are found in two genus, not related, one set in Lineatriton and one set in Oedipina.[122]"

This is inaccurate. There are many genera of lungless salamanders. What the author probably intended to state was that lung loss has evolved multiple times, convergently, across amphibians. There are at least four instances of lung loss that are known. Once at the base of Plethodontidae, once within Hynobiidae (the genus Onychodactylus), once in caecilians (Typhlonectes eiselti) and once in frogs (Barbourula kalmantanensis). See https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.006 for a review. Slalomander (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019[edit]

More animals converged to evolution 203.220.192.165 (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Your request is unclear, please indicate a specific "change this to that" style request. If new material is proposed, citations would also be useful. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2020[edit]

"Camouflage of two kinds: twig-like camouflage independently in walking sticks and the larvae of some butterflies and moths; leaf camouflage is found independently in some praying mantids and winged moths."

The link on "walking stick" in the quoted bullet point in the Arthropod section leads to the page for the object instead of the insect. Could someone please fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.224.30 (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Velayinosu (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between separated by organisms of by convergent features?[edit]

I'm wondering why the separation of convergent evolution was made using different groups of organisms (animals, plant, fungi, etc.), rather than the actual character that is convergent (echolocation, repeatedly moved between marine and freshwater environments, etc.).

I wanted to add new examples such as the platypus' 'bill' which is capable of detecting electric fields generated by the animals that it preys upon (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.1995.0030) (See also the article about Electroreception here and this book which shows a lot of examples of convergent evolution!). But I don't know if I should put it in mammals, fish, insects, or else. What would be suggested regarding its placement and how should new convergent evolution examples be added?

There should be examples of sound production either by stridulation (club-winged manakin, crickets, lowland streaked tenrec, some venomous snakes, and other insects) and more generally in birds (song birds), arthropods (crickets, grasshoppers and cicadas), fish (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/faf.12368, https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783709118450), and frogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beausoleilmo (talk • contribs) 01:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Special:Contributions/193.119.116.137[edit]

Special:Contributions/193.119.116.137 has recently made a series of edits with no explanation. They need explanation and/or correction

Jameel the Saluki (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has been trying to add this strange and excessive list of examples for several months now. example 1 example 2 example 3 Usually they don't add sources, but now I guess they've upgraded to falsifying sources. I have removed the changes yet again. CodeTalker (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has reverted your changes without discussion. I feel this needs Administrator involvement and will make actions to doing so Jameel the Saluki (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of examples of convergent evolution[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of examples of convergent evolution's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Robinson":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories