text:
Ecological selection

Ecological selection (or environmental selection or survival selection or individual selection or asexual selection) refers to natural selection without sexual selection, i.e. strictly ecological processes that operate on a species' inherited traits without reference to mating or secondary sex characteristics. The variant names describe varying circumstances where sexual selection is wholly suppressed as a mating factor.

Ecologists often study ecological selection when examining the abundance of individuals per population across regions, and what governs such abundances.

Circumstances in which it occurs
Ecological selection can be said to be taking place in any circumstance where inheritance of specific traits is determined by ecology alone without direct sexual competition, when e.g. sexual competition is strictly ecological or economic, there is little or no mate choice, females do not resist any male who wishes to mate, all traits will be equally propagated regardless of mating, or the species is hermaphroditic or asexually reproducing, an ecological selection is taking place. For example, environmental pressures are largely responsible for the evolution of different life history strategies between the African honey bee, A. m. scutellata, and the European honey bee.

In sexually reproducing species, it is applicable mostly to situations where ecological pressures prevent most competitors from reaching maturity, or where crowding or pair-bonding or an extreme suppression of sexual selection factors prevents the normal sexual competition rituals and selection from taking place, but which also prevent artificial selection from operating, e.g. arranged marriages, where parents rather than the young select the mate based on economic or even astrological factors, and where the sexual desires of the mated pair are often subordinated to these factors, are artificial unless wholly based on an ecological factor such as control of land which is held by their own force.

In forests, ecological selection can be witnessed involving many factors such as available sunlight, soil quality, and the surrounding biota. During forest growth, tree seedlings in particular, are ecosystem pioneers, and different tree seedlings can often react to a number of members in their ecological community in completely different ways, thus providing a spectrum of ecological occupations. On the other hand, adult trees can heavily impact their ecological communities, reversing the roles of ecological selection. Elements of the soil are an extremely influential selective factor in forest growth. Throughout time, every species of tree has evolved to grow under specific soil conditions, whether it is dependent on the pH levels, the mineral contents, or the drainage levels. Each of these is a vehicle for ecological selection to do its work in the course of evolution. However, ecological selection can be much more specific, not only working within species but within populations, even populations in the same region. For example, scientists in Quebec recently examined how tree seedlings react to different nitrate levels. What they found was that areas with higher nitrate levels contained plants that could much more efficiently metabolize nitrogen. Such plants could perform photosynthesis and respiration at a much faster rate than their nitrogen lacking peers, and also had longer root lengths on average, giving them an evolutionary advantage for their habitat. Nitrogen levels that are unexpectedly too high could harm some tree species, but these particular specimens created a niche for themselves, and could outcompete others around them. A site of tree growth can also be influenced by slope, rockiness, climate, and available sunlight. Space is initially available to everything, but seedlings that can most quickly inhabit the soil and take advantage of the available nutrients are usually most successful. Generally, one of the first factors to control which species grow best in the soil is the amount of sunlight. Soil and water themselves are both very important (For instance, a dry hardwood such as a white oak will not grow in a swamp), but sunlight is the initial decider in forest succession. Shade intolerant trees can immediately grow impressively. They need the sunlight that is offered by an open canopy found in a bare environment. Selection weeds out the seedlings that can not handle full sun, thus tall, straight trees will eventually grow and develop a full, lush canopy. However, these behaviors will soon be reversed. Seedlings that were once removed by ecological selection now become favored, because the shaded forest floor has become ideal for such shade tolerant species. This is a great example of how ecological selection can create niches for different species by performing the same function with different outcomes.

Vs. sexual selection
In cases where ecological and sexual selection factors are strongly at odds, simultaneously encouraging and discouraging the same traits, it may also be important to distinguish them as sub-processes within natural selection.

For instance, Ceratogaulus, the Oligocene horned gopher, left in the fossil record a series of individuals with successively longer and longer horns, that seemed to be unrelated or maladaptive to its ecological niche. Some modern scientists have theorized that the horns were useful or impressive in mating rituals among males (although other scientists dispute this theory, pointing out that the horns were not sexually dimorphic) and that it was an example of runaway evolution. The species seems to have suddenly died out when horns reached approximately the body length of the animal itself, possibly because it could no longer run or evade predators—thus ecological selection seems to have ultimately trumped sexual.

It is also important to distinguish ecological selection in cases of extreme ecological abundance, e.g. the human built environment, cities or zoos, where sexual selection must generally predominate, as there is no threat of the species or individuals losing their ecological niche. Even in these situations, however, where survival is not in question, the variety and the quality of food, e.g. as presented by male to female monkeys in exchange for sex in some species, still influences reproduction, however it becomes a sexual selection factor. Similar phenomena can be said to exist in humans e.g. the "mail order bride" who primarily mates for economic advantage.

Differentiating ecological selection from sexual is useful especially in such extreme cases; Above examples demonstrate exceptions rather than a typical selection in the wild. In general, ecological selection is assumed to be the dominant process in natural selection, except in highly cognitive species that do not, or do not always, pair bond, e.g. walrus, gorilla, human. But even in these species, one would distinguish cases where isolated populations had no real choice of mates, or where the vast majority of individuals died before sexual maturity, leaving only the ecologically selected survivor to mate—regardless of its sexual fitness under normal sexual selection processes for that species.

For example, if only a few closely related males survive a natural disaster, and all are able to mate very widely due to lack of males, sexual selection has been suppressed by an ecological selection (the disaster). Such situations are usually temporary, characteristic of populations under extreme stress, for relatively short terms. However, they can drastically affect populations in that short time, sometimes eliminating all individuals susceptible to a pathogen, and thereby rendering all survivors immune. A few such catastrophic events where ecological selection predominates can lead to a population with specific advantages, e.g. in colonization when invading populations from more crowded disease-prone conditions arrive with antibodies to diseases, and the diseases themselves, which proceed to wipe out natives, clearing the way for the colonists.

In humans, the intervention of artificial devices such as ships or blankets may be enough to make some consider this an example of artificial selection. However it is clearly observed in other species, it seems unreasonable to differentiate colonization by ship from colonization by walking, and even the word "colony" is not specific to humans but refers generically to an intrusion of one species on an ecology to which it has not wholly adapted. So, despite the potential controversy, it may be better to consider all examples of colonist-borne diseases to be ecological selection.

For another example, in a region devastated by nuclear radiation, such as the Bikini Atoll, capacity to survive gamma rays to sexual maturity and (for the female) to term is a key ecological selection factor, although it is neither "natural" nor sexual. Some would call this too artificial selection, not natural or ecological, as the radiation does not enter the ecology as a factor save due to man's effort. Ambiguous artificial-plus-ecological factors may reasonably be called "environmental", and the term environmental selection may be preferable in these cases.

title: Ecological selection


text:
Magnus Maximus

Magnus Maximus (Macsen Wledig ; died 28 August 388) was Roman emperor in the West from 383 to 388. He usurped the throne from emperor Gratian.

Born in Gallaecia, he served as an officer in Britain under Theodosius the Elder during the Great Conspiracy. In 383, he was proclaimed emperor in Britannia, and in Gaul the next year, while Gratian's brother Valentinian II retained Italy, Pannonia, Hispania, and Africa. In 387, Maximus's ambitions led him to invade Italy, resulting in his defeat by Theodosius I at the Battle of Poetovio in 388. In the view of some historians, his death marked the end of direct imperial presence in Northern Gaul and Britannia.

Birth, army career
Maximus was born in Gallaecia, Hispania, on the estates of Count Theodosius (the Elder) of the Theodosian dynasty, to whom he claimed to be related. Most of his early life is unknown as the earliest mention of him in the historical record was of him being a junior officer possibly in Britain in 368 during the Great Conspiracy as he assisted Theodosius in defeating barbarians and criminals in Britannia. Maximus would become a distinguished general in the following years; as he would gain the support of his fellow soldiers and the admiration of the Romano-Britons whom he defended, which would lead to his eventual immortalisation in Welsh legend in the centuries following. He served under Count Theodosius in Africa in 373. Assigned to Britain in 380, he defeated an incursion of the Picts and Scots in 381.

Rebellion and bid for the throne
The Western emperor Gratian had received a number of Alans into his bodyguard, and was accused of showing favouritism towards these Iranian speaking foreigners at the expense of Roman citizens. In 383 the discontented Roman army proclaimed Maximus emperor in Gratian's place. Orosius, who wrote that Maximus was “an energetic and able man and one worthy of the throne had he not risen to it by usurpation, contrary to his oath of allegiance,” claimed that he was proclaimed emperor against his will, but Zosimus portrays him as inciting the troops to rebel against Gratian, as he was upset about Theodosius becoming emperor while he himself was not promoted.

Maximus went to Gaul to pursue his imperial ambitions, taking a large portion of the British garrison with him. After five days of skirmishing near Paris he defeated Gratian, who fled the battlefield and was killed at Lyon on 25 August 383. Continuing his campaign into Italy, Maximus was stopped from overthrowing Valentinian II, who was only twelve, when Bauto came with a powerful force to forestall him. Negotiations followed in 384, including the intervention of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, leading to an accord with Valentinian II and Theodosius I in which Maximus was recognized as Augustus in the West.

Administration
Maximus made his capital at Augusta Treverorum (Treves, Trier) in Gaul, and ruled Britain, Gaul, Spain and Africa. He issued coinage and a number of edicts reorganising Gaul's system of provinces. Some historians believe Maximus may have founded the office of the Comes Britanniarum as well, although it was probably Stilicho who created the permanent office.

Maximus was a stern persecutor of heretics. It was on his orders that Priscillian and six companions were executed for heresy, although the actual civil charges laid by Maximus were for the practice of magic. Prominent churchmen such as St. Ambrose and St. Martin of Tours protested against this involvement of the secular power in doctrinal matters, but the executions were carried out nonetheless. Maximus thereby not only established his credentials as an upholder of orthodoxy, but also strengthened his financial resources in the ensuing confiscations. The Gallic Chronicle of 452 describes the Priscillianists as "Manichaeans", a different Gnostic heresy already condemned in Roman law under Diocletian, and states that Magnus Maximus had them "caught and exterminated with the greatest zeal".

In a threatening letter addressed to Valentinian II, most likely composed between the spring of 384 and the summer of 387, Maximus complains of Valentinian's actions towards Ambrose and adherents of the Nicean Creed, writing: "Can it be that Your Serenity, venerable to me, thinks that a religion which has once taken root in the minds of men, which God himself has established, can be uprooted?" in response to "the disturbance and convulsion of Catholic law."

Conversely, Maximus's edict of 387/388, which censured Christians at Rome for burning down a Jewish synagogue, was condemned by bishop Ambrose, who said people exclaimed, "the emperor has become a Jew".

Final conflicts and execution
In 387, Maximus managed to force emperor Valentinian II out of Milan. Valentinian fled to Theodosius I, and the two subsequently invaded from the east; their armies, led by Richomeres and other generals, campaigned against Maximus in July–August 388. Maximus was defeated in the Battle of Poetovio, and retreated to Aquileia. Meanwhile, the Franks under Marcomer had taken the opportunity to invade northern Gaul, at the same time further weakening Maximus's position.

Andragathius, magister equitum of Maximus and the killer of Emperor Gratian, was defeated near Siscia, while Maximus's brother, Marcellinus, fell in battle at Poetovio. Maximus surrendered in Aquileia, and although he pleaded for mercy was executed. The Senate passed a decree of Damnatio memoriae against him. However, his mother and at least two daughters were spared. Theodosius's trusted general Arbogast strangled Maximus's son, Victor, at Trier in the fall of the same year.

Fate of family
It is not recorded what happened to Maximus's family after his downfall. He is known to have had a wife, who is recorded as having sought spiritual counsel from St. Martin of Tours during his time at Trier. Her ultimate fate, and even her name (but see the Welsh tradition below), have not been preserved in definitive historical records. The same is true of Maximus's mother and daughters, other than that they were spared by Theodosius I.

One of Maximus's daughters may have been married to Ennodius, proconsul Africae (395). Ennodius's grandson was Petronius Maximus, another ill-fated emperor, who ruled in Rome for only 77 days before he was stoned to death while fleeing from the Vandals on 24 May 455. Other descendants of Ennodius, and thus possibly of Maximus, included Anicius Olybrius, emperor in 472, but also several consuls and bishops such as St. Magnus Felix Ennodius (Bishop of Pavia c. 514-21). We also encounter an otherwise unrecorded daughter of Magnus Maximus, Sevira, on the Pillar of Eliseg (9th century), an early medieval inscribed stone in Wales, which claims that she married Vortigern, king of the Britons.

Role in British and Breton history
Maximus's bid for imperial power in 383 coincides with the last date for evidence of a Roman military presence in the western Pennines and the fortress of Deva. Coins dated later than 383 have been found in excavations along Hadrian's Wall, suggesting that troops were not entirely stripped from it, as was once thought. In the De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae written c. 540, Gildas says that Maximus "deprived" Britain not only of its Roman troops, but also of its "armed bands...governors and of the flower of her youth", never to return.

Having left with the troops and senior administrators, and planning to continue as the ruler of Britain in the future, his practical course was to transfer local authority to local rulers. Welsh legend supports that this happened, with stories such as Breuddwyd Macsen Wledig (English: The Dream of Emperor Maximus), where he not only marries a wondrous British woman (thus making British descendants probable), but also gives her father sovereignty over Britain (thus formally transferring authority from Rome back to the Britons themselves).

The earliest Welsh genealogies give Maximus (referred to as Macsen/Maxen Wledig, or Emperor Maximus) the role of founding father of the dynasties of several medieval Welsh kingdoms, including those of Powys and Gwent. He is given as the ancestor of a Welsh king on the Pillar of Eliseg, erected nearly 500 years after he left Britain, and he figures in lists of the Fifteen Tribes of Wales.

After he became emperor of the West, Maximus returned to Britain to campaign against the Picts and Scots (i.e., Irish), probably in support of Rome's long-standing allies the Damnonii, Votadini, and Novantae (all located in modern Scotland). While there he likely made similar arrangements for a formal transfer of authority to local chiefs—the later rulers of Galloway, home to the Novantae, claimed Maximus as the founder of their line, the same as did the Welsh kings.

The ninth century Historia Brittonum gives another account of Maximus and assigns him an important role:

"The seventh emperor was Maximianus, He withdrew from Britain with all its military force, slew Gratianus the king of the Romans, and obtained the sovereignty of all Europe. Unwilling to send back his warlike companions to their wives, families, and possessions in Britain, he conferred upon them numerous districts from the lake on the summit of Mons Iovis, to the city called Cant Guic, and to the western Tumulus, that is Cruc Occident. These are the Armoric Britons, and they remain there to the present day. In consequence of their absence, Britain being overcome by foreign nations, the lawful heirs were cast out, till God interposed with his assistance."

Modern historians believe that this idea of mass British troop settlement in Brittany by Maximus may very well reflect some reality, as it accords with archaeological and other historical evidence and later Breton traditions.

Armorica declared independence from the Roman Empire in 407, but contributed archers for Aetius's defence against Attila the Hun, and its king Riothamus was subsequently mentioned in contemporary documents as an ally of Rome's against the Goths. Despite its continued usage of two distinct languages, Breton and Gallo, and extensive invasions and conquests by Franks and Vikings, Armorica retained considerable cultural cohesion into the 13th century.

Maximus also established a military base in his native Gallaecia, which persisted as a cultural entity despite occupation by the Suebi in 409, see Kingdom of Galicia.

Aetius sent large numbers of Alans to both Armorica and Galicia following the defeat of Attila at the Battle of the Catalunian Plains. The Alans evidently assimilated quickly into the local Celtic cultures, contributing their own legends, e.g., to the Arthurian Cycle of romances.

Welsh legend
Legendary versions of Maximus's career in which he marries the Welsh princess Elen may have circulated in popular tradition in Welsh-speaking areas from an early date. Although the story of Helen and Maximus's meeting is almost certainly fictional, there is some evidence for the basic claims. He is certainly given a prominent place in the earliest version of the Welsh Triads which are believed to date from c. 1100 and which reflect older traditions in some cases. Welsh poetry also frequently refers to Macsen as a figure of comparison with later Welsh leaders. These legends come down to us in two separate versions.

Geoffrey of Monmouth

According to Geoffrey of Monmouth's fictional Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136), the basis for many English and Welsh legends, Maximianus, as he calls him, was a Roman senator, a nephew of Coel Hen through Coel's brother Ioelinus, and king of the Britons following the death of Octavius (Eudaf Hen). Geoffrey writes this came about because Octavius wanted to wed his daughter to just such a powerful half-Roman-half-Briton and to give the kingship of Britain, as a dowry, to that husband, so he sent a message to Rome offering his daughter to Maximian.

Caradocus, the Duke of Cornwall, had suggested and supported the marriage between Octavius's daughter and Maximian. Maximian accepted the offer and left Rome for Britain. Geoffrey claims further that Maximian gathered an army as he sacked Frankish towns along the way. He invaded Clausentum (modern Southampton) unintentionally and nearly fought the army of the Britons under Conan Meriadoc before agreeing to a truce. Following further negotiations, Maximian was given the kingship of Britain and Octavius retired. Five years into his kingship, Magnus Maximus assembled a vast fleet and invaded Gaul, leaving Britain in the control of Caradocus. Upon reaching the kingdom of Armorica (historically, the region between the Loire and Seine rivers, later comprising Brittany, Normandy, Anjou, Maine and Touraine), he defeated the king and killed thousands of inhabitants. Before departing to Rome, he summoned Conanus, the rebellious nephew of Octavius, and asked him to rule as king of the land, which was renamed Brittany. Conan's men married native women after cutting out their tongues to preserve the purity of their language. Geoffrey of Monmouth presents this legend to explain the Welsh name for Brittany, Llydaw, as originating from lled-taw or "half-silent". Given that Conan was well established in genealogies as the founder of Brittany, this account is certainly connected to an older tradition than Geoffrey.

Following the death of Caradocus, rule of Britain as regent passed to Dionotus, who – facing a foreign invasion – appealed to Maximus, who finally sent a man named Gracianus Municeps with two legions to stop the attack. He killed many thousands before the invaders fled to Ireland. Maximus died in Rome soon after and Dionotus became the official king of the Britons. Unfortunately, before he could begin his reign, Gracianus took hold of the crown and made himself king over Dionotus.

While a broadly positive account of Maximian, the History concludes with the success of the barbarian invaders, and laments, "Alas for the absence of so many warlike soldiers through the madness of Maximianus!".

The Dream of Macsen Wledig
Although the Mabinogion tale The Dream of Macsen Wledig is written in later manuscripts than Geoffrey's version, the two accounts are so different that scholars agree the Dream cannot be based purely on Geoffrey's version. The Dream's account also seems to accord better with details in the Triads, so it perhaps reflects an earlier tradition.

Macsen Wledig, the Emperor of Rome, dreams one night of a lovely maiden in a wonderful, far-off land. Awakening, he sends his men all over the earth in search of her. With much difficulty they find her in a rich castle in Wales, daughter of a chieftain based at Segontium (Caernarfon), and lead the Emperor to her. Everything he finds is exactly as in his dream. The maiden, whose name is Helen or Elen, accepts and loves him. Because Elen is found a virgin, Macsen gives her father sovereignty over the island of Britain and orders three castles built for his bride.

In Macsen's absence, a new emperor seizes power and warns him not to return. With the help of men from Britain led by Elen's brother Conanus (Welsh: Cynan Meriadoc, Breton: Conan Meriadeg), Macsen marches across Gaul and Italy and recaptures Rome. In gratitude to his British allies, Macsen rewards them with a portion of Gaul that becomes known as Brittany.

Coel Hen
According to another legend, Maximus appointed Coel Hen, perhaps the legendary "Old King Cole", as governor of northern Britain, ruling from Eburacum (York). Following Maximus's departure for the continent, Coel became high king of northern Britain.

Other links with Caernarfon
Magnus Maximus and Elen are traditionally given as the parents of Saint Peblig (or Publicus, named in the Calendar of the Church in Wales), to whom a church dedicated stands in Caernarfon. The church is built on an important early Christian site, itself built on a Roman Mithraeum or temple of Mithras, close to the Segontium Roman Fort. A Roman altar was found in one of the walls during 19th century restoration work. The present church dates mainly from the 14th century.

The medieval English king Edward I was influenced by the legendary dream of Macsen Wledig/Magnus Maximus. In the dream Maximus had seen a fort, "the fairest that man ever saw", within a city at the mouth of a river in a mountainous country and opposite an island. Edward interpreted this to mean Segontium was the city of Maximus's dream and drew on the imperial link when building Caernarfon Castle in 1283. It was apparently believed that Maximus died in Wales. According to the Flores Historiarum, during the construction of the Castle and the nearby planned town, the body believed to be of Magnus Maximus was discovered entombed; King Edward ordered its reburial in a local church.

Later literature
The prominent place of Macsen in history, Welsh legend and in the Matter of Britain means he is often a character or referred to in historical and Arthurian fiction. Such stories include Stephen R. Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle, Mary Stewart's The Hollow Hills, Jack Whyte's Camulod Chronicles, M J Trow's Britannia series, Nancy McKenzie's Queen of Camelot and Rudyard Kipling's Puck of Pook's Hill. The popular Welsh folk song Yma o Hyd, recorded by Dafydd Iwan in 1981, recalls Macsen Wledig and celebrates the continued survival of the Welsh people since his days.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Magnus Maximus


text:
Talk:Artificial selection

Differentiating
Artificial Selection and Selective Breeding are distinguished both by process and outcome.

Artificial Selection is a process by which humans or other organisms, through a process of elimination or reproductive restriction, select which members of a population of organisms will reproduce. This process differs from Natural Selection in that the individuals selected to survive and reproduce do not necessarily possess traits that would be beneficial or provide any reproductive advantage in the "natural" environment outside the protection of the humans or other "selectors". It is this process that domesticates organisms.

Selective Breeding is a process by which individual organisms with certain traits preferred by the breeder are deliberately chosen to produce offspring with these desired traits. This differs from Artificial Selection in that the organisms chosen to breed are removed from the general population to establish a new breeding population, whereas in Artificial Selection those individuals with undesired traits are simply removed from the original population. It is the process of Selective Breeding that produces distinctive breeds of domestic animals and plants.

In general, Selective breeding produces a population with a particular trait. Artificial selection produces a population lacking an undesireable trait.
 * There is no evidence given to support this. As the article and Darwin himself defined the concept, it includes both intentional and unintentional selection; selective breeding would therefore be a type of artificial selection, not another side of the human-based selection coin. Richard001 08:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro
I rewrote the intro. I did not find the previous intro to be very clear -- perhaps this is because this is a complicated topic, but I did not change the rest of the text so I hope the complexities are still here. I changed it with an eye towards two things: first, not defining AS as a residual category; second, framing it in terms of a more general theoretical context. SR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs)

Baldwinian
Did I miss something? Can someone tell me how any of this is different from Baldwinian evolution? It seems to me that natural scientists theorized all of this a hundred years ago and I am surprised that the article does not inform readers as to this history. And why call it "artificial selection" when for a hundred years people have called it something else? SR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs). Yipes! More from 24's canon:

 * Artificial selection is a specific type of Baldwinian evolution, which itself is a specific type of Darwinian evolution.  According to Darwin, evolution occurs through natural selection, whereby environmental conditions determine the relative success of specific traits.  This model seems to present organisms as passive.  But James Baldwin pointed out that organisms can alter their environment, and thus alter selective pressures, which can thus affect the evolution of the organism's own species.

Artificial selection is a not a type of Baldwinian selection, nor is every example of Baldwinian selection neccesarily a type of artificial selection. Without going into too much detail here, Baldwinian selection is an evolutionary theory dating back to the end of the 19th century describing how what was originally learned behaviour can become innate behaviour (essentially via the usual route of natural selection). It primarily arises in studies of evolutionary psychology and in particular the evolution of language in humans.

Amongst other bad examples (e.g., harems, and economic conditions), there is this fallacious jump:

 * However, a more obvious artificial selection takes place when an unmarried human male is imprisoned for a crime - removed from the general human society and mating environment for a period of time - most likely for the aggression or valuables-gathering capabilities that natural selection must encourage.

This would require the inferrence that these very tendencies - aggression or "valuables gathering capabilities" in this case - are demonstrably inheritable (let alone "... that natural selection must encourage" them - consider altruism). The whole nature/nurture argument suddenly becomes an "obvious" example of artificial selection. One might try to imply that, in the United States, where non-white racial designation correlates with imprisonment, that this would have a discernable genetic effect; but that's not what is being asserted here.

 * Controversially, profound examples of artificial selection are often said to be seen in humans themselves, who employ substantial cultural bias in mate selection, most obviously in the preference of human females for socially powerful mates - a factor which is not directly related to natural ecology or to simple secondary sexual characteristics...

...or even inheritable characteristics; or is this article espousing the view that being "socially powerful" is an inheritable characteristic on a par with having red hair? See sociobiology for this type of theory.

 * ... sexual selection in all mammal species favors aggressive males, and that males of other primate species trade food for sex...

Uhhmmm, bonobos much? Polyandry as a phenomenon in humans and other mammals? Presumption that aggression = greater access to food sources? Other animals such as anglerfish as blatant counterexamples? Etc.?

 * Were a Marxist or feminist view to predominate, then their shared humanism would be artificial selection.

Come again? Is "amenability to marxism" then a distinctive inheritable characteristic?

 * Some believe the term artificial selection should be employed only to make a distinction between the human-chosen "artificial" factors and the combination of instinct and ecology that is "natural" without human choice.

 * Along with almost all biologists, ecologists, creationists, and evolutionary theorists, count me in this camp. Certainly, when very few people use the term in any other way, it makes sense for an encyclopedia entry to use the standard meaning of the term, rather than a personal essay on all things vaguely political and evolutionary. All of this may be interesting speculation in the areas of politics and sociobiology - but it's not a very good definition of artificial selection! Chas zzz brown 04:01 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Dairy Cows are also a good example of artificial selection, we bred these cows to constantly produce milk and they have to be milked every 12 hours. They have become dependant on us and if they are not milked they will suffer disease and most likely die. If we humans were to disappear the cows would definately die and it is because we have made them so dependant on us. Is this exactly fair? Who are we to select what they are and what they are supposed to look like? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.83.25.10 (talk • contribs).

cleanup of this article
I did some cleanup of this article and removed the following text:

''Controversially, profound examples of artificial selection are often said to be seen in humans themselves, who employ substantial cultural bias in mate selection, most obviously in the preference of human females for socially powerful mates - a factor which is not directly related to natural ecology or to simple secondary sexual characteristics. Critics of this view argue that sexual selection in all mammal species favors aggressive males, and that males of other primate species trade food for sex - and that aggression and food-gathering capacity are causally related to social power in any social species. This argues for a fuzzy line between ecological, artificial and sexual selection, especially in a highly cognitive and highly social species.''

''In many societies, institutions such as polygamy and the harem have served to permit some of the most successfully aggressive and logistically competent males to father drastically more offspring than others. Similar historical observations are made of harems of the Ottoman Empire and Siam, and of polygamy in Islam and among Mormons. ''

''There is substantial controversy as to whether these are truly artificial selections, or examples of ordinary sexual selection, or even (when the economics predominate) natural selection, carried to extremes in human beings. Controversies of this sort lead some to make a careful distinction between ecological selection and sexual selection, i.e. to differentiate which of the two aspects of natural selection can be said to apply to humans in what circumstances, and what "artificial" aspects are perhaps "environmental" but neither naturally ecological nor wholly sexual.''

''Another way to resolve the controversy is to suggest that when humans act on humans, as when other animals act to select any of their own species as mate or when members of their species are harmed as a part of the mating rituals, the entire process should be considered part of sexual selection, and that only man acting on non-human species is a true "artificial" selection. ''

''In this view, even such complex matters as economics may be considered wholly "sexual" (by certain green economists) or even wholly "natural" (by some anthropologists using the neoclassical political economy). This begins to intersect with Social Darwinism and fascism to a degree, both of which held that dominant human societies optimized, but did not alter, the fundamental factors driving selection of individuals to propagate a species.''

''Predictably, such assumptions also conflict with Marxist or feminist views which hold rather that an imposed political economy, i.e. capitalism (classical and neoclassical economics) or patriarchy/feudalism/militarism (as in the harem case above), are creating artificial conditions drastically at odds with what is of highest survival utility for the human species as a whole. But, as other cases of runaway sexual selection demonstrate, individuals or cliques within a species do not in general act for species-wide utility, and individuals and even whole species are sometimes extincted due to excesses of their species' sexual selection process. Were a Marxist or feminist view to predominate, then their shared humanism would be artificial selection.''

Some believe the term artificial selection should be employed only'' to make a distinction between the human-chosen "artificial" factors and the combination of instinct and ecology that is "natural" without human choice. To describe more deliberate influences on human behavior they may refer to moral selection or ethical selection, e.g. as in the prison case. ''

''These terms, too, often recur in moral philosophy and in arguments regarding influences on the evolution of societies deemed "desirable". The central focus in many religious traditions of suppressing sexual desire seems to suggest that what is usually deemed desirable for the society as a whole may well be exactly the opposite of what is desirable for the individual under normal natural selection, e.g. a human male who learns he has Human Immunodeficiency Virus could attempt to impregnate the maximum number of females hoping to have one born without the virus, or could choose to forgo sexual activity entirely due to the suffering it could cause. Or, alternatively, could choose to reveal the deficiency to partners, exactly the type of acquired trait that males in natural sexual selection would conceal. Removing oneself from the mating pool or drastically limiting mating choices in these ways would seem to constitute both morally sound and reasonably ethical behavior, and also clearly exemplify artificial selection. ''

However, most biologists and evolutionary theorists employ the term artificial selection only'' to make a distinction between the intentionally human-chosen "artificial" factors and the combination of instinct and ecology that is "natural" without human choice. To describe more deliberate influences on human behavior they may refer to sociobiology, moral selection or ethical selection.''

... which is sort of POV-ish, poorly written, and not terribly useful. Anyone have an attachment to this text or some of the ideas it contains? Opabinia regalis 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Selective Breeding
The selective breeding article covers the same topic as this article, but is confined to the scope of domesticated animals. I think selective breeding should redirect to this article, and the information from the present selective breeding article be merged in as a subtopic. Tarcieri 02:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the content of selective breeding, I agree with you, but there's a long chain of merge proposals here - crossbreed into selective breeding and crossbreeding into crossbreed. I can't say I see much of value in the latter two, but one concern is that a number of dog breeding-related articles seem to link to them, and in those contexts a link to artificial selection might be a bit off track. Opabinia regalis 04:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The actual breeding of domestic animals, while related, is certainly a topic unto itself. The specifics of dog and cat breeding are common enough in culture to merit their own articles, thus I don't think these should be merged. Artifical selection is more general and probably should be kept that way. If however, someone can think if a more descriptive name than selective breeding, I wouldn't object to that. The crossbreed and crossbreeding can go together, but should stay away from both artificial slection and selective breeding. I see no reason to merge selective breeding and artificial selection as I think it would make the topic too diverse to be comprehended. pschemp | talk 05:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, first, the merge tags were not set up correctly, but I fixed that. Second, the whole crossbreeding thing centers around hybridisation, maybe it should go visit articles in that topic area. However, it has little to do with the selective breeding or natural selection as hybridisation is not their main focus. That being so, I removed the crossbreeding from this merge proposal as it doesn't make sense, and was formatted incorrectly anyway. pschemp | talk 05:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I merged Crossbreed and Crossbreeding and agree they should stay out of any article that results from this discussion. In general, regardless of the outcome, the cat/dog/etc breeding articles should stay distinct from the evolution-related articles. That said, selective breeding at the moment is a bit of a misnomer, because it's almost entirely about mechanisms for deliberate breeding of domesticated animals. That's half domestication and half artificial selection, but doesn't really cohere as a topic of its own. It's also slightly backwards that artificial selection is listed as one strategy for selective breeding, when conceptually selective breeding is a subtype of artificial selection. This might make a big mess since so many articles link to selective breeding, but if I were starting from scratch I'd redirect it to artificial selection and keep separate and expanded articles on cat breeding, dog breeding, etc. (Or maybe a general breeding of domestic animals article). Opabinia regalis 05:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking this through, but I think what you are running up against is a term used in the popular lexicon in a different manner than the scientific one. The other thing is that that breeding is not the same thing as selection, so just eliminating it by making it a redirect doesn't make sense. It is true that selective breeding uses artifcial selection, but as they aren't synonyms, one shouldn't redirect to the other. It is obvious from the muber and type of links that selective breeding in the popular use has a different meaning than a biologist might use. However, getting rid of it for that reason probably isn't the best idea. A few things link to it when really they should link to Artificial selection, but that can be easily cleaned up. Basically, A.S is the biological concept, and selective breeding is that concept in action. Many, many things refer to selctive breeding in the way that our article is written. I agree it needs to be cleaned up and straightened out, but I can't see a merge of the information being beneficial. More thoughts later. pschemp | talk 05:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's what I'd suggest then: Rename "Selective breeding" to "Selective breeding (domesticated animals)", then configure a redirect from "Selective breeding" to "Artificial selection" with a reason of:
 * This article discusses selective breeding in the context of biology. For its colloquial usage regarding household pets and farm animals, see selective breeding (domesticated animals).
 * That way both uses are covered, the redirect takes you to the biological usage of the term, and the dog/cat related articles can update their links accordingly. Is that a good solution? Tarcieri 09:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just caught up with this discussion again. I didn't look to break down the types of articles linking to selective breeding but I'd have to think the default would be to not do anything that would make dozens of domestic animal related pages have to change their links. I'm starting to think the best response is to put a disambig statement on selective breeding redirecting to artificial selection for the usage in evolutionary biology. Opabinia regalis 04:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and removed the mergefrom/to tags and just put a disambiguation-type statement on the selective breeding page, since no one else did anything. Tarcieri 09:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"genetic processes underlying..." wording
there is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection

I'd like to see the wording here altered a bit. While it may be true that the genetic material acted upon by selection is the same regardless whether the selection is 'artificial' or 'natural,' there are no "genetic processes underlying selection." That is, said "genetic processes," i.e. mutation and recombination, are independent of selection.

The intent of the quote is clear, and I accept it. As I read it, it is trying to say that both "types" of selection act upon the same substrate, and both result in evolution. True as can be. That said, such processes do not underly selection; rather, they independently and irreverently precede it.

Perhaps for some this is a paltry distinction; I see it as a cause worthy of a more discriminating phraseology. The notion that genetic variation is itself somehow an element of selection is a misapprehension which contributes to the subsequent and frequent misunderstanding (common among both laypeople and science-kinder) that selection is directional, and evolution fatalistic.

Eradicating this misconception has long been a focus of popularizers of evolution science like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins (though the former much more than the latter), since it precludes what they (and many biologists) interpret as an extremely important corollary of evolution: a strong refutation of human-centric fatalism--that humans are a "pinnacle of evolution," that our species was "destined to arise." [note: This is a significant cornerstone to the belief held by Dawkins and many others now and before him, that evolution is an argument against the existence of God (or god or gods).] In essence: (a) without evolution, humans would not exist; (b) evolution lacks goals; therefore, (c) humans are not the achievement of a goal. [note: I have summarized this argument in such a way as to make its logical inadequacies clear. Despite its flaws, it is often presented, albeit in more obfuscating prose, by people-who-should-know-better of all stripes (my favorite figurehead is Dawkins, but he's put himself there, so I don't feel bad about it). The next time you hear it, please call them on it! Also, if you'd like to chat about why it is logically inadequate, and the more interesting and rigorous conclusions that can be drawn without making it, feel free to message me!]

Returning to the topic at hand... 'in summary: evolution includes selection AND processes which yield genetic variation; BUT selection'' DOES NOT include processes which yield genetic variation. The two processes are independent constituents of evolution.'''

That said, I propose (and, barring objection, will institute) the following change to the wording:

From: "It should be emphasized that there is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection"

To: "It should be emphasized that the genetic material ultimately acted upon by selection is the same whether the selection event is termed 'natural' or 'artificial'"

Thoughts? Vitriol? Sweet, sweet lovin'?

Cheers! Temptinglip 10:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm. I'm not a fan of the phrase 'genetic processes' (though I think I may be the original perpetrator). But I think your suggestion leaves out some of what the original is trying (failing) to express. It's not just that both processes operate on the same genetic material (that much is, or should be, blatantly obvious), but also that natural and artificial selection are not two different things. In 'artificial selection', human preferences and practices form part of the environment of an organism; it's not functionally distinct from any other species remodeling its environment. Opabinia regalis 05:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I understand the importance of the distinction, but "artificial selection" and "natural selection" are different. The substrate on which they act, genetic material, is the same, but they are "two different things" for two key reasons.

 * Mechanism: Artificial selective pressure regularly exceeds (and by orders of magnitude) the low, stable thresholds common to natural selection. This is by no means simply a distinction by degree: modern population genetic models of evolution by natural selection--that is to say, modern evolutionary canon--regularly assume weak selection, both as an acceptance of empirical evidence (high values of selective pressure metrics are exceptionally rare), and because assuming strong selection results in major changes to the output of these models.  Belyaev's foxes are a fantastic example of artificial selection's ability to produce both output and rate of change that would not occur given weak selection, and thus would be a curious exception to the rule if observed in nature.

 * Agency: Turning to a more philosophical realm, we have the issue of the agent of selection. Artificial selection, by definition, results from the work of an agent, a "selector," whereas natural selection... to phrase this carefully... requires only a selective environment, not a selective agent.  [There are those who posit that natural selection is guided by supernatural forces of various descriptions, and my point about Dawkins was that even he, when pressed, admits that such direction is ultimately unfalsifiable (which is why he opts instead to employ arguments of improbability.)]  I'm not sure where you're from, O. regalis (great username, by the way), but here in the United States (and other countries with popular evolution-denial movements) this is far from a trivial distinction.

 * My previous post was probably not as clear as it could have been, and also included the point that evolution and natural selection are non-synonymous (which is still important but irrelevant to the objection at hand). I agree with you, though, that my phrasing is weaker than what it replaced, and am certainly open to suggestions about how to accommodate for these important considerations while maintaining the strength and spirit of the original, so please feel free to suggest a revision! Temptinglip 06:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Why, thank you; good usernames are in short supply these days ;) Much of this, though, is distinctions without differences. 'Agency' is a red herring here. Humans are animals, they have an impact on the environment experienced by other animals, and thus influence the reproductive outcomes in those populations. The process is in no way different because we're more organized about it or do it faster. That's like saying a chemical reaction that occurs in nature is fundamentally a different process than the reaction that occurs in a beaker with a synthetic catalyst. I agree that anything in the article should not misleadingly imply that the analogy runs the other way around, and that a 'selector' is a component of all selection processes. I don't have any good suggestions just yet, but I'll think about it. Opabinia regalis 08:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Species quote
Quote from OriginOS: "Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest."

Darwin only used the phrase once. The phrase was not in use before he published it. How did Darwin formally establish that man is "feeble"? Feeble in relation to what. I am looking for something on par with http://en.wikipedia.com/Astronomia_nova where Kepler established the laws of planetary motion, which was used by Newton to derive calculus which led to the Fourier Transfrom without which the Internet would not exist. In what way did Darwin formally establish the concept of Artificial Selection. How did he derive it from first principles. Where did he establish the principle of SoFittest, Artificial Selection must be independantly specified because in the quote he seems to define AS in terms of SoF. He seemed to conflate Natural Selection, SoFittest, never making clear what is the distinction. Darwin did'nt formally define AS, and ever since everybody has simply assumed it to be somehow formally established like the Laplace Transform is established. Artificial has a pejorative meaning as his use of "feeble" indicates. And survival of the fittest is an obvious tautology. It should be deeply embarrasing for Evolutionists to keep on stating that those that are fit survive and those that are not fit won't. TongueSpeaker 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Differentiation with Eugenics
Maybe the article doesn't need it, but I do. My previous understanding of the terms Eugenics and Artificial selection were that they were the same. I've read the respective articles, and I'm not any clearer on this. Maybe someone could explain it?

Is it that Eugenics is Artificial Selection practiced on humans, and carries negative connotations? The negative connotations are easy to account for. Is this the only distinction? Eugenics isn't practiced on sheep, is it? Cheers.--The Chairman (talk · contribs) 08:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Eugenics is a form of voluntary selective breeding to improve the quality of society, at least in Galton's sense. Artificial selection is much broader, including, for example, antibiotic resistance. Richard001 05:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how voluntary it might be, I still remember the mentally challenged adults that spoke to my High School civics class and how they complained about being forcible sterilized. Hardyplants 12:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Eugenics is a form of artificial selection, not a synonym. But whether it is voluntary or forced, ethical or not, or to what end it is employed is not relevant to this article; this particular topic is biological in nature. I see no problem mentioning it as an example, but I don't think it's mandatory to do so.Powermanbeard (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

MERGE FROM Negative selection (artificial selection)
Can we merge this here? I don't see any logic splitting off something like this from an article as underdeveloped as this one. Richard001 23:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Not that I have time to do it now. But I thought I'd post my agreement for the record... Dspark76 (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

lost picture
There's a misisng image on this page, info below:

File:Corn selection.jpg

Selective breeding transformed teosinte's few fruitcases (left) into modern corn's rows of exposed kernels (right). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs) 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was lost during a name change here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_selection&oldid=267410600 I don't see any intentional reason for it's removal, so I'll restore it... Dspark76 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Who?
In the "Contrast to natural selection" section it says:

"Indeed, many evolutionary biologists view domestication as a type of natural selection and adaptive change that occurs as organisms are brought under the control of human beings."

Which evolutionary biologists say this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.84.204 (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Biruni and atificial selection
In another magnificent example of Jagged85 islamocentric bias, we are given the impression that artificial selection began in the medieval islamic world, when in fact it can be traced to the ancient world (as practically everything in medieval Islam). See Here, here and here. Biruni´s description is utterly irrelevant. He was just telling a very old story--Knight1993 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Given that there is something of a personal attack on another editor in your tone, the deletion of properly sourced material seems to reflect an assumption of bad faith. So I suggest this be discussed a bit before being cut. I'll look at your sources, and you can explain things a bit in a non-attacking tone.   Montanabw (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Follow up: per your sources, I added material on the Romans and changed two words in the Biruni section, I hope that eases your concerns.   Montanabw (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Artificial selection largely unintentional?
I find it somewhat contradictory that in the introduction, artificial selection of domesticated crops and animals is described as largely unintentional, but immediately in the next section, mentions how Romans practiced artificial selection. I find it difficult to believe that a complex and advanced civilization practiced artificial selection largely unintentionally...when it comes to a complex society, food supply is one of the most important, if not the most important things (as is today). In my personal opinion, artificial selection is undertaken in order to improve, diversify, increase, etc. one's food supply.

The ancients might not have known exactly what they were going to get from doing these "proto-experiments," and they may have at first wandered blindly in the dark, but after a while they clearly must have recognized some patterns...and by the time humans got to Rome, I'm sure they were doing things with a particular end in mind.

In other words, this is primarily a semantic issue - I am inclined to believe that the author used the word "unintentional" to mean that the domestication process wasn't carried out in a formulaic, completely informed, etc. way...but it gives the impression that voila!!! There are these wonderful crops and domesticated animals...how in the world did that happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.173.19 (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Artificial selection


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

-   Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

DOY inclusion discussion - project members input requested
See Talk:June_13 Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

DOY Questions and Suggestions
I have been directed here by @Kiwipete so that my comments reach a larger audience. With that said, hello. My name is Keir and I have been adding professional tennis players to the Days of the Year births sections. In the course of doing so I noticed a few things:

Firstly, since the style insists upon the use of &ndash; and not –, is there a way to produce the former in Visual editing that does not include copying it from another entry? Anyone that knows how please drop me a reply here or on my talk page.

Secondly, it was brought to my attention that multiple instances of persons born on the same year should be ordered alphabetically by surname. This is mentioned in some but only a few of the Days of the Year entries between the end of the Births list and the beginning of the Deaths list. The vast majority of entries omit either the necessity to order alphabetically by surname, or that these entries need to be ordered alphabetically at all. May I suggest signing off on a single message that contains all the relevant information and copying this into the entry for every single article so as to avoid any confusion.

Further to the topic of surname alphabetisation, I seek some clarity regarding certain specific scenarios:

1. What's the rule when two persons born on the same day of the same year with the same surname (such as twins) are both notable professionals? I encountered this with Karolína Plíšková and her twin sister Kristýna Plíšková. Here I elected to order by first name between the two players.

2. What's the rule when dealing with persons with names from other languages and cultures? I noticed that Chinese professional tennis players are known professionally as, for example, Qinwen Zheng when their Wikipedia entry observes the order Zheng Qinwen. What would users advise is followed in Days of the Year Births entries regarding which order is preferred? The same question is extended to names from Spanish and other cultures. Is there any scenario in which what's considered a surname, here used for the purpose of alphabetisation, becomes disputed?

3. Next, I had a question about persons such as internet celebrities and others who go by a mononym. How is this to be treated in surname alphabetisation? Should we look for actual surname and order that within the list? Does it matter if the mononym is their first or last name itself or of pseudonymous origin?

4. I noticed also that some entries make reference to a specific achievement, worded such as 'Brazilian footballer and Olympic medallist', but the vast majority do not even when the person concerned has multiple noteworthy achievements. What is the rule here? Should these be removed when noticed? If they are allowed, should citations make explicit reference to this achievement? Is there a calibre of achievement worthy of note such as 'Academy Award winner', 'Olympic medallist', 'Nobel Prize winner' etc. etc., and if so, where is the line?

Finally, I just wanted to note that in every instance of a female professional tennis player that I have personally added, I have linked their Women's Tennis Association profile. This is a minor issue for some younger players as the website is unfortunately behind on the inclusion of birthdays. In these instances, I have also linked another reference such as Eurosport, ESPN, Wimbledon etc. that makes explicit reference to their date of birth. I plan on keeping these WTA profile references in place as they should, in good time, come to show their exact date of birth. If this is a problem, please let me know.

Thank you for your time reading this. I will continue to add professional tennis players, past and present, with Wikipedia entries and of course adequate reference to their date of birth and existence in a professional and noteworthy capacity.

Kxcii (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

External links - Today in Canada history
These links seem to be dead permanently. At least, I can no longer access them and the link on December 29 has been marked as permanently dead. We should consider if these should be kept or removed; I suggest the latter. Also, does anyone have an efficient way to remove all 366 of them? Ciridae (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 * January done. Kiwipete (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And February. Kiwipete (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've updated all DOY articles now. In the process, I noticed that the New York Times links were no longer working. I found that the NYT has archived all of these articles, so I updated the template with the new URL. If anyone notices any problems, please drop a line. Kiwipete (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Are links to other language Wikipedias acceptable?
The DOY Project page states: "All events, births, deaths, and holidays should be linked to existing Wikipedia articles ..." Does that mean English Wikipedia articles? I've been removing entries with links to other language Wikipedias, for example, this one. Am I correct? —Bruce1eetalk 15:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes, Bruce, I think you're correct. I notice that Mars Wawrzyn asked you as well on your talk page, but they haven't responded, so presumably they accept your rationale that there needs to be an English wiki article. Kiwipete (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If there is consensus on this, then perhaps the word "English" needs to be added to that sentence on the Project page. —Bruce1eetalk 21:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Kiwipete (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

List of good/reliable sources
I think it would be a good idea to have a section on the main project page with a list of good and reliable sources that editors can use and quickly add to DOY articles. These can be especially good for birth and death dates, and holidays.

We can have subsections based on whether the source is free/open, free subscription, paid subscription or available through Wikipedia Library.

Thoughts? Ciridae (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi @Ciridae, first of all, a big thanks to you for all the citations you've been adding. I think this is a good idea, but are you suggesting something other than what already exists at WP:RSPSOURCES? Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for your kind words. And yes, something that would be specifically useful to DOY project editors. Good and reliable sources for biographies and obituaries which would have birth and death dates (I don't think we can help with Events much by using this). I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from using other sources so a disclaimer might also be required: that these are suggestions, not requirements. Ciridae (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Idea Lab discussion of interest to this Wikiproject
See Village pump (idea lab). -- Jayron 32 18:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 * This WikiProject does follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, so I will add the QUALITY_CRITERIA parameter to the WP banner template as you say.
 * We currently don't display the quality assessment using the Talk page WP banner. Since the only quality assessment we do is to determine that an article is up to our "citation standards" or not, I'm not sure how to implement that in the WP banner. We're currently showing that in the WikiProject's main page. Ciridae (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Question about entries missing inline citations.
Should we add citation needed tags to existing entries missing inline citations? Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 * That would be thousands of entries. I don't think it's necessary. Kiwipete (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I wish pending changes reviewers could enforce WP:DOYCITE instead of being told to find and add the citations and not to revert the pending edits adding an entry without an inline citation. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Who is telling whom? I for one try to enforce WP:DOYCITE as much as possible. Kiwipete (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ive tried reverting pending edits that added entries without inline citations before. A ip user kept adding them without the inline citations and got warned 4 times and then I eventually reported them. The report was dismissed by an admin and the admin literally reasoned that since the majority of the entries on the article didn't have inline citations that the ip user's entry shouldn't have to have them. The admin said that the pending changes reviewer should do the inline citations and accept the entry instead of reverting the entry. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Active Peer Review notification
There is an ongoing peer review for the DOY article February 8. I've been working on the article for a bit now and was hoping for additional input before I nominate it for Featured List status. Please feel free to directly edit the article or post comments/suggestions regarding it on the peer review talk page. Thanks! Best, Dan the Animator 23:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Change all 365 articles to the DMY date format
Why are the articles named e.g. October 1 and not 1 October? The DMY format is more logical and used internationally. I suggest changing the date format for all 365 articles from MDY (May 7, 1983) to DMY (7 May 1983). See map below: Date format by country. Map showing which countries primarily use which endian date format. Colors for base formats CMY, mixing using CMYK color model. {{legend|css=" title="#0FF|#0ff|DMY – Day/Month/Year –  Little-endian}} {{legend|css=" title="#F0F|#f0f|MDY – Month/Day/Year –  Middle-endian}} {{legend|css=" title="#FF0|#ff0|YMD – Year/Month/Day –  Big-endian (used internationally as ISO 8601)}} {{legend|css=" title="#00F|#00f|DMY + MDY}} {{legend|css=" title="#0F0|#0f0|DMY + YMD}} {{legend|css=" title="#F00|#f00|MDY + YMD}} {{legend|css=" title="#888|#888|DMY + MDY + YMD}}

Formatting for abbreviations on DOY articles
In one of the comments I've gotten so far during the peer review for the February 8 article, Pamzeis suggested that I put in the template where ever there are abbreviations in the article, which is primarily in the birth/death section lists of DOY articles, which use "b." and "d." in place of "birth" and "death," respectively. I switched out the text for the template but the use of the template apparently isn't aligned with the DOY-project consensus and Kiwipete recommended I open a discussion regarding it. Personally either way works for me and the only reason I made the switch was because of the peer review but I still would like to see other editors' opinions on this and whether it might be better for the DOY articles to use the template. I also don't want this issue to hold up the article's FL nomination when it comes around. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Expanding DOY article leads
Yesterday I started a Featured List nomination for the article February 8 given how much work I've put into improving it and the personal significance the day has to me. So far, of the two comments I've gotten on the nom, both have directly pointed to the need to expand the lead. Currently DOY articles, as per the wikiproject template, have one-sentence standardized leads, which is inconsistent with WP:FLCR and MOS' guidelines (see MOS:LEADLENGTH). Given the current DOY wikiproject guidelines explicitly state the need to achieve consensus here before making any changes that differ with the template, I won't be able to successfully finish the FL nom until this discussion reaches some sort of a decision. I'll ping involved/potentially interested editors to increase participation but definitely post links to this discussion anywhere where it could help. Also, besides changing the guidelines, feel free to give suggestions on how the lead should be expanded as well (personally, I think having a sort of summary that mentions the most notable events, births/deaths, and holidays in a way similar to the year articles (GA example) would make the most sense). Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Pinging involved and potentially interested editors. Cheers, Dan the Animator 02:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm in favour of that. I don't see what else you could say about a specific date unless you want to list holidays/saint's days that always take place on that particular date. Listing events would be pointless as the date itself is not normally significant or related to the event, except in cases where something always takes place on that particular holiday, e.g. a rebellion or riot that regularly takes place on, e.g., St Valentine's Day. Deb (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tend to agree. While we appreciate your hard work on Feb 8, I'm not in favor either. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * February 8 looks to be in excellent shape – thank-you for all your work on the article! I am not in principle opposed to having longer leads for DoY articles (though I'm largely uninvolved in the Wikiproject at the moment, so my opinion might not carry much weight).  However I find it very hard to see how you could make such a lead work.  The events in year articles are temporally connected together so that one can synthesize a story for the lead: DoY articles are mostly arbitrary sets of events that happened to occur on the same day.  To take examples from the article, how would one decide whether e.g. the start of the Russo-Japanese war was more or less significant than the Ba'ath party coming to power in Iraq or the founding of the Boy Scouts?  I suggest that a way forward might be to mock up a lead for February 8 on this talk page and see what people think – but I can't see how you would do it without making an almost entirely arbitrary set of choices of what to include.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the comments on the FLN page, I opened an RfC to discuss this question. Here's the link to the open RfC on handling the lead issue for these articles. Feel free to add your thoughts/comments/etc. to that page. Thanks! Dan the Animator 02:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

December 25
I've raised an issue about edits to December 25 here. If anyone is able to have a look and reply, please do so there. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

What to do about people with uncertain dates of birth or death?
Hello, I have been editing quite a few articles of days and I have a question; what is a correct entry of a person's birth or death if the exact year is unknown? I have seen a few entries that format it as the following example:

• 123 – John Doe, fake person (b. c. 12)

Most of the time, I see entries of people with uncertain births or deaths simply left blank. If anyone could help answer me, I would greatly appreciate it. All the best, Danny Magic (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Leave it out. Toddst1 (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Famous birthdays mirrors
There is an editor that is littering these articles with entries supported only by obvious WP:MIRROR articles from UPI and AP with titles like "Today's Famous Birthdays." Please keep an eye out and revert/remove this garbage on sight. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I agree, @Toddst1, but to back up your argument, could you get these sources listed at WP:MIRROR? Kiwipete (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Founding of Atari not listed on the June 27th wiki Page
On the June 27th Wiki page there is not an entry for the founding of the Atari company. I think it should be on there but I'm not sure if that counts as a "notable event". Josiah A. Freeman (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 * According to Atari, this is just a brand name, not an actual entity. So if there is/can be no article specifically about its founding, it can't be listed there. Kiwipete (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Dividing events by pre-1600 and later
It looks like every day article, e.g. March 29, divides events, births and deaths into three timeframes: Pre-1600, 1601–1900 and 1901–present. Why is that and was there some decision on such arbitrary division? Brandmeistertalk  11:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 * It was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Template. Suonii180 (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate birthdays
I wrote a script to scan all the days of the year pages and to see which people have duplicate names. Obviously this script isn't perfect (e.g. Old Style being listed under people), and I originally wrote it to point out mistakes in individual pages. However, it does makes me curious as to how the project goes about the following:
 * How are old and new style dates handled in the project? Should it be listed under one date, or both? If both old and new style dates are included, how should it be indicated per the format?
 * Should two people with a shared page (e.g. the Duffer brothers) count as being independently notable? Would them being born on the same day affect whether or not they should? As per WP:DOY, "being part of a group with an article or having the page that bears one's name redirected to a different article does not qualify as having one's own article".

Here is the output of said script:

Isaac Newton - January 4, 1643 (Old Style and New Style dates|NS), December 25, 1642 (Julian calendar|OS) Denny Barry - January 7, 1905, July 15, 1883 Yoon Hae-young - January 19, 1972, May 1, 1972 Uto Ughi - January 21, 1944, January 22, 1944 Darren Helm - January 21, 1987, January 21, 1987 Thomas Paine - January 29, 1737, February 9, 1737 Yoon Bo-ra - January 30, 1989, December 30, 1989 Bo Hopkins - February 2, 1938, February 2, 1942 Michele Greene - February 3, 1962, February 13, 1962 João de Castro - February 7, 1500, February 27, 1500 Freddie Blassie - February 8, 1918, February 18, 1918 Alejandro Ávila - February 9, 1964, November 24, 1973 Kathleen Beller - February 10, 1956, February 19, 1956 Felice and Boudleaux Bryant - February 13, 1920, August 7, 1925 Ken Wahl - February 14, 1957, October 31, 1954 Duffer brothers - February 15, 1984, February 15, 1984 Tom Crean (explorer) - February 16, 1877, July 20, 1877 Louis-Alexandre Berthier - February 20, 1753, November 20, 1753 Zenaida Manfugás - February 22, 1922, February 22, 1932 James and Oliver Phelps - February 25, 1986, February 25, 1986 Syreeta Wright - February 28, 1946, August 3, 1946 Leo and Diane Dillon - March 2, 1933, March 13, 1933 Nathalie Kelley - March 3, 1984, October 5, 1984 Josh Bowman - March 4, 1984, March 4, 1988 Princess Clémentine of Orléans - March 6, 1817, June 3, 1817 Kate Bornstein - March 15, 1948, May 15, 1948 Frances Conroy - March 15, 1953, November 13, 1953 Sophia Dorothea of Hanover - March 16, 1687, March 26, 1687 Johann Sebastian Bach - March 21, 1685, March 31, 1685 Dimitrie Cuclin - March 24, 1885, April 5, 1885 Xenophon Zolotas - March 26, 1904, April 26, 1904 Maimonides - March 30, 1135, April 6, 1135 Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin - April 1, 1755, April 2, 1755 Menachem Mendel Schneerson - April 2, 1902, April 5, 1902 Bernhard Gregory - April 10, 1879, April 22, 1879 Helenio Herrera - April 10, 1910, April 17, 1910 Valeriy Brumel - April 14, 1942, May 14, 1942 Ryan Mathews (American football) - May 1, 1987, October 10, 1987 Maryam Mirzakhani - May 3, 1977, May 12, 1977 Beryl Burton - May 5, 1937, May 12, 1937 Symon Petliura - May 10, 1879, May 22, 1879 Jiddu Krishnamurti - May 11, 1895, May 12, 1895 Louis de Buade de Frontenac - May 12, 1622, May 22, 1622 Old Style and New Style dates - May 18, 1692, May 21, 1688 Robert Richard Torrens - May 31, 1812, July 1, 1814 Mas Oyama - June 4, 1923, July 27, 1923 Stefan Postma - June 10, 1976, October 6, 1976 Gavin Hill - June 11, 1965, December 11, 1965 Zygmunt Janiszewski - June 12, 1888, July 12, 1888 Manuel González Flores - June 17, 1833, June 18, 1833 Ivonne Coll - June 18, 1947, November 4, 1947 Old Style - June 20, 1642, June 20, 1647, June 20, 1723, June 21, 1639, June 21, 1676, June 21, 1881 Billy and Bobby Mauch - July 6, 1921, July 6, 1921 Kārlis Skrastiņš - July 7, 1973, July 9, 1974 Amalia Mendoza - July 10, 1923, July 23, 1923 Han Yong-un - July 12, 1879, August 29, 1879 Johann Bernoulli - July 27, 1667, August 6, 1667 Emily Kinney - August 15, 1984, August 15, 1985 Aimé Bonpland - August 22, 1773, August 29, 1773 Chuck Brown - August 22, 1936, August 23, 1936 Martin Erat - August 28, 1981, August 29, 1981 Pope Gregory XVI - September 8, 1765, September 18, 1765 The Batten Twins - September 8, 1958, September 8, 1958 Inez and Charlie Foxx - September 9, 1942, October 23, 1939 Miroslav Dvořák (ice hockey) - September 11, 1951, October 11, 1951 Tegan and Sara - September 19, 1980, September 19, 1980 Bhagat Singh - September 27, 1907, September 28, 1907 Diosdado Macapagal - September 28, 1910, September 29, 1910 Frank Stagg (Irish republican) - October 4, 1941, October 5, 1941 Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) - October 5, 1949, October 8, 1949 Jeremy Davies - October 8, 1969, October 28, 1969 Giambattista Marino - October 14, 1569, October 18, 1569 Eric Benét - October 15, 1967, October 15, 1970 Christopher Wren - October 20, 1632, October 30, 1632 Sarah Bernhardt - October 22, 1844, October 23, 1844 Kray twins - October 24, 1933, October 24, 1933 Velimir Khlebnikov - October 28, 1885, November 9, 1885 Laura Bassi - October 29, 1711, October 31, 1711 Denny Doherty - November 19, 1941, November 29, 1940 Pierre Charles Le Monnier - November 20, 1715, November 23, 1715 Paulo Figueiredo - November 20, 1972, November 28, 1972 Mona Hanna-Attisha - November 24, 1976, December 9, 1976 Garcelle Beauvais - November 26, 1966, November 28, 1966 Hasan al-Askari - December 4, 846, December 6, 846 George Whitefield - December 16, 1714, December 27, 1714 George Newbern - December 30, 1963, December 30, 1964 Ricky Whittle - December 31, 1979, December 31, 1981

2604:3D08:4F7A:BA30:0:0:0:5F48 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Each of these entries should be removed from the DOY pages unless supported by WP:RS. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC on If DOY articles should have their assessment set to list-class.
Should all the Days of the Year articles have their article assessments set to list-class? If its agreed on, I can go through and set the assessments. Shadow311 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (summoned by the bot) My instinct is yes – they're more like lists than they are like normal articles. But is there any context to this RfC? Is it related to the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mx. Granger No, I've just been bothered seeing unassessed on them and wanted to know if everyone else would be fine if I set their assessments to list-class. Shadow311 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. The proposal sounds reasonable to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the list assessment, it's essentially what they are. Suonii180 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Yes, that seems right. HenryMP02 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I have now gotten the articles set to list class. One or two May be set to class B since I didn't want to change the assessment if it was set to class b or higher.Shadow311 (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well done on this, . You may want to have a look at a subsequent edit done to Talk:February 25. I can't tell if this makes any difference to your changes. Kiwipete (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Mass removal of entries on DOY articles
I've opened a discussion with @Eddie Scarpa on the talk page for May 13. @Eddie Scarpa, could you please refrain from these bulk removals before first discussing this here? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I think the project should work toward both removing a mass chunk of people to not make the lists too long. A good example of what I saw before editing was the May 11 page. I noticed it was much lighter compared to the other DOY pages and had sources next to every single person. I believe if we can shorten the pages and work to add sources to every individual then the pages would be updated and clean enough.
 * I have noticed trends where these pages are biased toward certain individuals, notably stub articles from Estonians, Australians, and many, many athletes.
 * There is a reason the year pages such as 1990 removed including long lists of births and deaths in favor of putting them into a category page Category:1990 births. Other year pages such as 1960 include a list of some notable people and many do not have sources. I know it is a different project, but I believe that the formatting should be shortened since it is usually much longer in length then the "Events," "Deaths," and "Holidays and Observances" sections. Eddie Scarpa (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Expand geography and subject matter
I'm really enjoying the history of individual dates, and thanks to all the contributors! It's a bit Amero-Eurocentric and has a heavy emphasis on battles and warfare, though. These pages could include more histories related to other continents (there are some references, but not many), and it could include more histories of arts, sciences, and technology. That would take more work, I realize, and hopefully I can contribute after I finish a book I'm working on. It would also lengthen the pages, but perhaps there can be more headers to organize content by continent or main topic (Military, Art, Science, etc). In the meantime, until I can free up more time, perhaps someone else can consider starting on some of these improvements. 2601:204:F101:4F50:148D:BD08:6B6A:B685 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


text: Talk:Middle-earth

title: Talk:Middle-earth


text:
Sampler (needlework)

A needlework sampler is a piece of embroidery or cross-stitching produced as a 'specimen of achievement', demonstration or a test of skill in needlework. It often includes the alphabet, figures, motifs, decorative borders and sometimes the name of the person who embroidered it and the date. The word sampler is derived from the Latin exemplum, which means 'example'.

History
The earliest sampler extant is a spot sampler, i.e. one having randomly scattered motifs, of the Nazca culture in Peru formerly in the Museum of Primitive Art, New York City. It is estimated to date from ca. 200 BCE –300 CE and is worked in cotton and wool pattern darning on a woven cotton ground. It has seventy-four figures of birds, plants and mythological beings.

Coptic sampler fragments of silk on linen in double running stitch and pattern darning have been found in Egyptian burial grounds of 400–500 CE. These are pattern samplers having designs based on early Christian symbols.

Samplers were known to be used by stitchers in Europe as early as the beginning of the 16th century, although none that early have been found. A collection of fifty dechados (samplers) was listed in the 1509 inventory of the possessions of Queen Joanna (Juana I, 1479–1555) of Castile (Spain). They were described as stitchery and deshilado (drawn thread work), some in silk and others in gold thread. At the time of the inventory they were in the care of her chamberlain Diego de Rivera and his son Alonso, but they have all disappeared.

Early mentions of samplers in text include Skelton (1469-1529), and Shakespeare (1564-1616).

The oldest surviving European samplers were made in the 16th and 17th centuries. As there were few pre-printed patterns available for needleworkers, a stitched model was needed. Whenever a needleworker saw a new and interesting example of a stitching pattern, they would quickly sew a small sample of it onto a piece of cloth – their 'sampler'. The patterns were sewn randomly onto the fabric as a reference for future use, and the needleworker would collect extra stitches and patterns throughout their lifetime.

The first printed pattern book Furm oder Modelbüchlein was published by Johann Schönsperger the Younger of Augsburg in 1523, but it was not easily obtainable and a sampler was the most common form of reference available to many women. Pattern books were widely copied and issued by other publishers. Some are still available in reprint today.

The earliest English dated surviving sampler, housed in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, was made by Jane Bostocke who included her name and the date 1598 in the inscription. Stitched with silk and metal thread on linen it has pictorial figures above with border and all-over patterns below. The inscription reads:

The museum has two other samplers believed to date from the 16th century, one from Germany with religious motifs and one from Italy with floral patterns and grotesques. Both are worked in silk and linen. A Dutch sampler dated 1585 survives in the Nederlands Openluchtmuseum in Arnhem.

A sampler in the Museum of London has two cutwork bands stitched in silk, gold, and silver threads and thirteen bands of reticella whitework in white linen thread. The fourth band from the top has the initials E R, the royal arms of Queen Elizabeth I, and the maker's name SUSAN NEGABRI in bold letters. It is believed to date before the queen's death in 1603.

Because very few samplers from the 16th century have been found it is not possible to generalize about their style and appearance. By the middle of the 17th century English, Dutch, and German samplers were being stitched on a narrow band of fabric 6 – wide. Hand-woven linen, bleached or unbleached, is the foundation material of early samplers. As fabric was very expensive, these samplers were totally covered with neat rows of stitches. They were known as band samplers and valued highly, often being mentioned in wills and passed down through the generations. These samplers were stitched using a variety of needlework styles, threads, and ornament. Many of them were exceedingly elaborate, incorporating subtly shaded colours, silk and metallic embroidery threads, and using stitches such as Hungarian, Florentine, tent, cross, long-armed cross, two-sided Italian cross, rice, running, Holbein, Algerian eye and buttonhole stitches. The samplers also incorporated small designs of flowers and animals, and geometric designs stitched using as many as 20 different colors of thread. Some were stitched partially or entirely in whitework.

Band samplers were more decorative than the utilitarian random motif spot samplers, and stitchers finished them by adding their names, dates of completion, and sometimes teacher or school names. As the work of sampler making moved into schools in the late 17th and early 18th centuries design styles changed. Alphabets and verses were added along with pictorial elements such as architectural motifs, landscapes, and large potted plants. Educational themes included maps, multiplication tables, perpetual calendars, and acrostic puzzles.

By the 18th century, samplers were a complete contrast to the scattered samples sewn earlier on. They became wider and more square, eventually with borders on all four sides. Samplers were mainly school exercises during the 18th and 19th centuries, and were almost entirely worked in cross stitch. Design styles were increasingly influenced by Berlin woolwork which became popular worldwide, due to the availability of patterns, initially emanating from Berlin, Germany. This style of needlework reached its height of popularity between the 1830s and 1870s. These samplers were stitched more to demonstrate knowledge than to preserve skill. The stitching of samplers was believed to be a sign of virtue, achievement and industry, and girls were taught the art from a young age.

Berlin woolwork designs had naturalistic shading and more depth of perspective than the flat two-dimensional objects on traditional needlework. By mid-19th century adult needleworkers were devising long and narrow stitch samplers having geometric patterns done in woolwork. The Art Needlework movement and elimination of samplers from female education brought about the decline in traditional sampler making that continued into the 20th century.

Modern samplers
Samplers are widely stitched today, some using kits purchased from needlework shops, some from chart-packs, and many from patterns available on the Internet or through e-mail from designers. Patterns range from simple using only one stitch, to complex, using 15 to 20 and more stitches. Designs range widely in style, from accurate reproductions of historic pieces to much more contemporary and modern styles including subversive stitching. Popular topics include designs commemorating births and marriages, family trees, and mottoes of all kinds. Map charts are widely available in English-speaking countries and Denmark. These are often pictorial maps of local areas, whole countries, or even the imaginary realms of Tolkien's Middle-earth. Many sampler reproductions are also available, copying colors and imperfect stitches from the originals.

The word "sampler" is sometimes inaccurately applied to any piece of needlework meant for display. However, the genre may broadly be said to include any needlework in sampler style with or without lettering.

Materials used include aida cloth, evenweave, and linen fabrics, in cotton, linen, and man-made materials combined in more and more ways; and fibers from cotton floss to silk, rayon, viscose, and metallic.

title: Sampler (needlework)