 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||
 | Biology High‑importance | ||||||
| |||||||
.svg){kind=small}
| This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
| 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 biology | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
| This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | |
| A summary of this article appears in Asexual reproduction. |
 | On 23 May 2007, Parthenogenesis was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
|
|
Rays
editThe case in the US seems to have produced no pups, and may have been a hoax. However, there is a report of a pup born from an ocellated eagle ray in 2018 [1]. I haven't evaluated the reliability of that one. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, yes. I think the moral is that we should avoid recency (if not recentism) and wait a year or two with any news story to see whether it actually goes anywhere useful. I'd be minded to remove the stuff altogether now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)