Jump to content

Talk:Chronobiology

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

Archive 1

Recent Developments

[edit]

There is a lot of research that has been done in chronobiology:

  • Patrick Fuller and his lab group have made more developments in food entrainable circadian rhythms
  • Research now points to cancer and circadian rhythm disorders having some connection

I will starting adding links as I can to this talk page but chronobiology has it's own research journal Chronobiology International, and my goal is to have this page reflect the more current research happening. Dhawryluk (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a very bad idea to call a section "Recent developments". This is already proved by the first section, which refers to a 9-YO paper... I do not consider 9 years ago to be very recent. Wikipedia is not a journal but an encyclopedia, thus it should be written in such a way. Also: this list will never be complete. Just look at the entries, e.g. "In 2018 a study published in PLoS ONE showed how 73 psychometric indicators measured on Twitter Content follow a diurnal pattern." <-- they are all just people pushing a(/their) random papers. It degrades the quality of this page. My suggestion is to remove this section (and integrate all VALUABLE information into the wiki).JHBonarius (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catachronobiology

[edit]

If nobody has any objections i would like to add a section to this page on catachronobiology, i belive it belongs here somewhere, I happen to know a lot about it but im more than willing to leave the editing in more capable hands —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralSmith (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No response was possible before I looked it up:
  • the study of the harmful effects of time on living systems. Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
  • The study of the deleterious effects of time on a living system. Mondofacto dictionary & others
  • And from PMID 8283159: "The influence of the rhythmic manifestation of life may be shown in the constructive effects of growth, development and maturation and is named anachronobiology. In contrast catachronobiology denotes deleterious effects of time and rhythm which may lead to a diseased state." See also: PMID 2027742.
My first reaction was that catachronobiology simply meant aging. I see it's more (other) than that.
I don't think there should be a section on catachronobiology alone, but perhaps one on anachronobiology and catachronobiology. It would then be very easy to tack those 2 words onto the end of the lead.
Give it a try! If you're nervous about editing the article itself, leave a suggested paragraph here instead. Cheers, Hordaland (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External forcing vs. internal cycles

[edit]

I am opening discussion on this text from the History section that seems unrelated to the rest of the article. Point by point:

  • The influence of external periodic events is not disputed, but this article treats internal molecular clocks and adaptations to external cycles. As well say that mammals grow thicker coats every 40,000 years or so as an adaptation to periodic glaciation.
  • Astrobiology is the study of how life might occur elsewhere than Earth.
  • The rest of this paragraph is a bit of a digression.
  • Significant alternatives to the IPCC view of climate change should be treated at the relevant articles, of which this is not one.
  • Astrotheos - this article is not Astrology.

On balance, none of this belongs. Even the PNAS paper is off topic for this article. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all your subjective perception about what constitutes chronobiology. Obviously Astrotheos is related to Astrology. Lol. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Hordaland deleted an entire section on Chizhevsky from this article without any discussion on this page. Chizhevsky was a founder of chronobiology and heliobiology. To delete the section, as Hordaland did, is vandalism. Nothing written above justifies the deletion of the section by Chizhevsky. The section should be re-added. Zanze123 (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no mention of Frank brown (https://www.wired.com/story/oysters-that-knew-what-time-it-was/) Kdammers (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The link in further reading pointing to the essay 'Biological Rhythms: Implication for the worker' is broken. Here is a link pointing straight to the PDF ( http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9108/9108.PDF ). I didn't want to just go in and fix it as I have never edited anything on wikipedia before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.147.182 (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hordaland (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Question at Template talk:Light Ethology#Convert to sidebar? that you might be able to help with, or give feedback/suggestions on. (please reply there) Thanks. —Quiddity (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Infra- and ultra- -dian

[edit]

If you're going to use "infradian" to mean "less often than daily", then isn't it clearer to define in terms of frequency of events, rather than time period between events? Similarly, "ultradian" means "with a frequency greater than daily". lifeform (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chronobiology. 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: 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) 00:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

[edit]

A split of large portions of this article into Biological rhythm has been proposed (or rather attempted, and then reverted). I am the reverter, not the splitter, so I won't make the argument for why the split should be done but clearly there is a desrire from at least one editor so we should at least discuss it. Lithopsian (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never suggested to split this page. I suggested to properly modify another page, Biological rhythm, which is simply a different subject. If you disagree, please nominate Biological rhythm for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed a small text sourced to this because it looks like a primary source and not about the chronobiology. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with primary sources, given the appropriate care in their use. This particular one has been reputably published (although not peer-reviewed?). The paper in question goes to great pains to distinguish between what it terms biological rhythms, as a scientific discipline, and biorhythms or biorhythm theory, a pseudo-science (they even use the word "fraudulent"). It seems to me like POV to remove it unless you feel it would be contradicted by comparably reputable sources. Perhaps should be discussed in its own section since it is not intended to be part of any split. Lithopsian (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[1] - This is a very general claim (and an incorrect/misleading claim to my knowledge). The cited source does not make such general claim. This is a narrow study of pilot performance or whatever. You need a scholarly book or MEDRS review to source such claim. My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. You barely glanced at it, did you? The article makes a thorough (meta)review of published claims for and against the pseudoscientific theory of biorhythms and discusses in detail both the preponderance of evidence against and problems with the supposed evidence for, and then reaches the conclusion that you deleted (a direct quote). All while, as Lithopsian, who apparently possesses basic reading comprehension skills, unlike you, pointed out (sorry if this sentence is too convoluted for your smooth brain), taking pains to distinguish THAT from real biological cycles. "Pilot performance or whatever." I'm so glad I don't care more about this place. Are you just embarrassed that biorhythm theory exists or are you personally too stupid to distinguish it from the real science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:301:81A0:69F6:9D6C:8A9F:8227 (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "the pseudoscientific theory of biorhythms". Great, so we both agree it does not belong to science, i.e. to this page which is about the science of Chronobiology. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand correctly that you object to removal of a part of content from this page? I left it in the page for now. But I would like ho hear your arguments why you want to keep it here. So far there is none (someones "desire" is not a valid argument). This is a content fork, so I would rather remove. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I object to the removal of a substantial part of the body of the article, leaving behind just history and recent development sections. The edit summary "content was moved to Biological rhythm" seems to suggest this was a split and the content duly appeared as an article which was previously a redirect to this article. Seems like the very definition of a split to me. If you don't want to perform a split then you are welcome to oppose it. Lithopsian (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you want to keep the Description [of biological rhythms] also on this page, I do not mind. Some degree of content overlap is totally acceptable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone thinks the discussion went a bit stale several weeks ago, turns out an editor keeps removing the split tag whenever anyone posts anything they disagree with. Quit it and discuss (retrospectively) the merits of the split that was boldly made and then reinstated without any attempt at discussion. Lithopsian (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am not following. I agreed with you to keep some common content in both pages. What is the disagreement? My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to sources, Chronobiology is the study of Biological Rhythms, similar to how Biology is the study of Life. I don't know what the edits in question were, but this is my take:
I would approve removing info about pseudoscience from a clearly scientific article. biorhythm (pseudoscience) doesn't belong in chronobiology nor biological rhythms articles. The void century (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronobiology&oldid=1218747501"