text:
Jerry Wald

Jerome Irving Wald (September 16, 1911 – July 13, 1962) was an American screenwriter and a producer of films and radio programs.

Early life
Born to a Jewish family in Brooklyn, New York, he had a brother and sons who were active in show business. He attended James Madison High School.

He began writing a radio column for the New York Evening Graphic, while studying journalism at New York University. This led to him producing several Rambling 'Round Radio Row featurettes for Vitaphone, Warner Brothers' short subject division (1932–33).

Screenwriter
Wald's first feature credit was for the Warners movie Twenty Million Sweethearts (1934); he provided the story along with Paul Finder Moss at Warners. Wald provided the story (along with Philip Epstein) for Universal's Gift of Gab (1934).

Wald then signed with Warners where would be based for many years. He worked on the script for Maybe It's Love (1935) and the Rudy Vallée musical Sweet Music (1935).

Julius Epstein
Wald worked on a series of scripts with Julius J. Epstein: the drama Living on Velvet (1935); In Caliente (1935); Broadway Gondolier (1935) (both uncredited); Little Big Shot (1935); Stars Over Broadway (1935); I Live for Love (1935); and Sons o' Guns (1936) with Joe E. Brown.

Other writers with whom Wald regularly worked were Sig Herzig and Warren Duff who were both on Sing Me a Love Song (1937).

Richard Macaulay
Wald worked on Ready, Willing and Able (1937) based on a story by Richard Macaulay. Wald, Macaulay, Duff and Herzig worked on Varsity Show (1937). Wald did some work on Ever Since Eve (1937).

Wald and Macaulay collaborated on scripts for Hollywood Hotel (1937); The Gay Impostors (1938) for Vallée; Garden of the Moon (1938); Brother Rat (1938), based on the hit play; and Hard to Get (1938) with Dick Powell.

Wald and Herzig were among the writers on Going Places (1938) with Powell. He and Macaulay worked on The Kid from Kokomo (1939), from a story by Dalton Trumbo; Naughty But Nice (1939) for Powell; and On Your Toes (1939).

Wald and Macaulay had both mostly worked on musicals but they had a big hit with the gangster film The Roaring Twenties (1939), with James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart, co-written with Robert Rossen.

They worked on Brother Rat and a Baby (1939) (uncredited); 3 Cheers for the Irish (1940), a comedy; Torrid Zone (1940), with Cagney and Ann Sheridan; Flight Angels (1940); Brother Orchid (1940); They Drive by Night (1940) with George Raft and Bogart; Million Dollar Baby (1941), a comedy co written with Casey Robinson; Out of the Fog (1941) with Lupino, working with Rossen; Manpower (1941) with Raft, Edward G Robinson and Marlene Dietrich.

Producer
Wald was promoted to producer at the recommendation of Mark Hellinger. His first credit was Navy Blues (1941), which he also wrote with Macaulay.

Wald was associate producer on The Man Who Came to Dinner (1941), adapted by the Epsteins; All Through the Night (1942), with Bogart; Larceny, Inc. (1942) with Robinson; and Juke Girl (1942) with Sheridan and Ronald Reagan.

Wald was promoted to full producer, and soon established himself as one of the leading filmmakers on the lot: Across the Pacific (1942), with Bogart and director John Huston, written by Macaulay; George Washington Slept Here (1942) and The Hard Way (1943); he also contributed to the story of the latter, but had effectively given up writing.

Wald went on to produce Action in the North Atlantic (1943) with Bogart; Background to Danger (1943) with Raft; Destination Tokyo (1943) with Cary Grant and directed by Delmer Daves; In Our Time (1944) with Lupino; The Very Thought of You (1944) with Dennis Morgan and Eleanor Parker; Objective, Burma! (1945) with Errol Flynn; and Pride of the Marines (1945) with John Garfield.

Wald produced Joan Crawford's first film at Warners, Mildred Pierce (1945) which won her an Oscar and earned Wald an Oscar Nomination for Best Picture. He did her next film, Humoresque (1946), written by Clifford Odets and directed by Jean Negulesco.

Wald produced The Unfaithful (1947) with Ann Sheridan and director Vincent Sherman; Possessed (1947) with Crawford; Dark Passage (1947) with Bogart and Lauren Bacall for Daves; and To the Victor (1948) with Morgan and Dves.

He produced a series of classic films: Key Largo (1948) with Bogart, Bacall and Edward G. Robinson; Johnny Belinda (1948), which won an Oscar for star Jane Wyman; and Adventures of Don Juan (1948) with Flynn.

Wald's credits then included One Sunday Afternoon (1949), with Morgan; John Loves Mary (1949) with Ronald Reagan; Flamingo Road (1949) with Crawford; Daves' Task Force (1949) with Gary Cooper; Always Leave Them Laughing (1949) with Milton Berle; and The Inspector General (1949) with Danny Kaye.

Wald produced Young Man with a Horn (1950) with Kirk Douglas; Perfect Strangers (1950) with Morgan and Ginger Rogers; Sherman's The Damned Don't Cry (1950) with Crawford; Caged (1950), with Eleanor Parker; the first adaptation of The Glass Menagerie (1950); The Breaking Point (1950), from a Hemingway novel, with Garfield; and Storm Warning (1951), an anti-Ku Klux Klan film with Rogers, Reagan and Doris Day.

His story, Hot Air shot as Twenty Million Sweethearts (1934), was filmed as the Doris Day musical My Dream Is Yours (1949).

Wald-Krasna Productions
Wald and Norman Krasna formed Wald/Krasna Productions to release films through RKO Radio Pictures. Howard Hughes reportedly paid Warners $150,000 to release Wald from his contract with them. They were to make 12 films a year for five years with a budget of $50 million.

Their movies together included Two Tickets to Broadway (1951), a musical; The Blue Veil (1951), with Jane Wyman; Behave Yourself! (1952), a comedy with Shelley Winters; The Lusty Men (1952), a rodeo drama with Robert Mitchum; and Clash by Night (1953), from a play by Clifford Odets. Wald did some uncredited producing on Macao (1952) with Robert Mitchum.

Krasna and Wald dissolved their partnership because of interference from Howard Hughes, then head of RKO, in their productions.

Columbia
Wald went to Columbia in 1952 as vice president in charge of production.

At Columbia he produced Miss Sadie Thompson (1953) starring Rita Hayworth; Queen Bee (1955) with Crawford, directed by Ranald MacDougall; The Harder They Fall (1956), Bogart's last movie; and The Eddy Duchin Story (1957), a biopic with Tyrone Power and Kim Novak.

Jerry Wald Productions at 20th Century Fox
Wald signed a contract with 20th Century Fox where he established Jerry Wald Productions. He had a solid hit with An Affair to Remember (1957) starring Grant and Deborah Kerr, and some minor ones with No Down Payment (1957) directed by Martin Ritt, and Kiss Them for Me (1957) with Grant. Wald had one of the biggest successes of his career with Peyton Place (1957), directed by Mark Robson.

Wald also produced The Long, Hot Summer (1958) with Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward from the novel by William Faulkner for Ritt; In Love and War (1958), a war film with Robert Wagner and Jeffrey Hunter directed by Philip Dunne; Mardi Gras (1958) a musical with Pat Boone; and The Sound and the Fury (1959), more Faulkner from Ritt with Woodward and Yul Brynner.

During this time Wald told the press that a filmmaker's motto should be "Don't offend the innocent but don't frustrate the intelligent."

Wald produced The Best of Everything (1959) with Crawford, directed by Negulesco; Hound-Dog Man (1959), an attempt to make a film star of Fabian Forte; Beloved Infidel (1959) with Kerr and Gregory Peck; The Story on Page One (1959), written and directed by Odets, starring Hayworth.

Final Films
Wald spent a period in England to make Sons and Lovers (1960). Back in Hollywood he produced Let's Make Love (also 1960), Marilyn Monroe's penultimate film; Return to Peyton Place (1961); Wild in the Country (1961), an Elvis Presley film written by Odets and directed by Dunne; Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation (1962) starring James Stewart and Fabian; Hemingway's Adventures of a Young Man (1962) for Ritt with Richard Beymer; The Stripper (1963) with Woodward and Beymer.

He also produced the Academy Awards telecast twice, the ceremonies for 1957 and 1958.

Among the films Wald was working on at the time of his death were adaptations of The Enemy Within, Ulysses and A High Wind in Jamaica.

Awards
He received four Academy Award nominations as producer of the following nominees for Best Picture: Mildred Pierce, Johnny Belinda, Peyton Place and Sons and Lovers. Although he never won a competitive Academy Award, he was awarded the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award in 1949.

Impact
Wald is often cited as the real-life inspiration for the character Sammy Glick in the novel What Makes Sammy Run by Budd Schulberg.

Jerry Wald, was a close friend of Joan Crawford in the forties, offering her many parts including the title role in Mildred Pierce, which he produced. He convinced director Michael Curtiz that she would succeed in the role, which brought her the Oscar for Best Actress in 1946. Jerry Wald not only produced Mildred Pierce, but also Humoresque (1946), considered one of the best performances of Crawford's career, Across the Pacific (1942), The Man Who Came to Dinner (1942), Possessed (1947), Flamingo Road (1949), The Damned Don't Cry (1950). After her career at Warner's fizzled out slowly even though she wished to remain with Warner's, after years of reinventing herself, she bought out her contract.

He is alleged to have responded, when asked why he attended Harry Cohn's funeral, “Just to be sure the bastard was dead”

Marriage
Wald married his wife Constance Emily "Connie" Polan (née Polan) on Christmas Day 1941; the couple had two sons. She became a California socialite and hostess whose dinner parties, frequented by her friend Audrey Hepburn continued after her husband died.

Death
Wald had been ill for the last few years of his life. He died, aged 50, at his home in Beverly Hills, California from a heart attack.

Films as writer
• Twenty Million Sweethearts (1934)

• Gift of Gab (1934)

• Living on Velvet (1935)

• I Live for Love (1935)

• Maybe It's Love (1935)

• Sweet Music (1935)

• In Caliente (1935)

• Broadway Gondolier (1935) – Additional Dialogue.

• Stars Over Broadway (1935)

• Little Big Shot (1935)

• Sweet Music (1935)

• Sons o' Guns (1936)

• Ever Since Eve (1937)

• Sing Me a Love Song (1937)

• Ready, Willing and Able (1937)

• Varsity Show (1937)

• Hard to Get (1938)

• Hollywood Hotel (1938)

• Gold Diggers in Paris (1938)

• Going Places (1938)

• Garden of the Moon (1938)

• Brother Rat (1938)

• The Kid from Kokomo (1939)

• The Roaring Twenties (1939)

• On Your Toes (1939)

• Naughty But Nice (1939)

• Three Cheers for the Irish (1940)

• Brother Rat and a Baby (1940)

• Brother Orchid (1940)

• Torrid Zone (1940)

• They Drive by Night (1940)

• Flight Angels (1940)

• Out of the Fog (1941)

• Navy Blues (1941)

• Million Dollar Baby (1941)

• Manpower (1941)

• The Hard Way (1943)

• Humoresque (1946)

• Possessed (1947)

• My Dream Is Yours (1949)

• The Damned Don't Cry! (1950)

• Peyton Place (1956)

Select Filmography as Producer
• Navy Blues (1941)

• George Washington Slept Here (1942)

• The Man Who Came to Dinner (1942)

• All Through the Night (1942)

• Across the Pacific (1942)

• Larceny, Inc. (1942)

• Juke Girl (1942)

• Background to Danger (1943)

• The Hard Way (1943)

• Action in the North Atlantic (1943)

• Destination Tokyo (1944)

• The Very Thought of You (1944)

• In Our Time (1944)

• Objective, Burma! (1945)

• Mildred Pierce (1945)

• Pride of the Marines (1945)

• Humoresque (1946)

• The Unfaithful (1947)

• Dark Passage (1947)

• Possessed (1947)

• Key Largo (1948)

• Adventures of Don Juan (1948)

• Johnny Belinda (1948)

• To the Victor (1948)

• Flamingo Road (1949)

• Task Force (1949)

• Always Leave Them Laughing (1949)

• The Inspector General (1949)

• One Sunday Afternoon (1949)

• John Loves Mary (1949)

• The Damned Don't Cry (1950)

• Caged (1950)

• The Breaking Point (1950)

• Perfect Strangers (1950)

• Young Man with a Horn (1950)

• The Glass Menagerie (1950)

• Storm Warning (1951)

• The Blue Veil (1951)

• Behave Yourself! (1951)

• Clash by Night (1952)

• The Lusty Men (1952)

• Macao (1952)

• Miss Sadie Thompson (1954)

• Queen Bee (1955)

• The Eddy Duchin Story (1956)

• The Harder They Fall (1956)

• Kiss Them for Me (1957)

• Peyton Place (1957)

• An Affair to Remember (1957)

• No Down Payment (1957)

• Mardi Gras (1958)

• The Long, Hot Summer (1958)

• In Love and War (1958)

• The Story on Page One (1959)

• Beloved Infidel (1959)

• The Sound and the Fury (1959)

• The Best of Everything (1959)

• Hound-Dog Man (1959)

• Let's Make Love (1960)

• Sons and Lovers (1960)

• Return to Peyton Place (1961)

• Wild in the Country (1961)

• Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation (1962)

• Hemingway's Adventures of a Young Man (1962)

• The Stripper (1963)

title: Jerry Wald


text:
Marlene Catterall

Marlene Catterall (born March 1, 1939) is a former Canadian politician. Catterall was a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the House of Commons of Canada, representing the riding of Ottawa West—Nepean from 1997 to 2005 and previously representing the riding of Ottawa West from 1988 to 1997.

Born in Ottawa, Ontario, Catterall is a former consultant and teacher. She is a former Deputy Government Whip and Chief Government Whip and a former Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. She ran for Mayor of Ottawa in 1985 but lost to Jim Durrell by over 20,000 votes. She was well involved in Ottawa politics serving as an alderman on Ottawa City Council from 1976 to 1985.

Catterall announced that she would not be a candidate in the 2006 federal election. Following her retirement, the riding changed from Liberal to Conservative by a margin of around 5,000 votes.

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

title: Marlene Catterall


text:
Pentagon station

Pentagon station is a split platform station on the Washington Metro located adjacent to The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. The station was opened on July 1, 1977, and is operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Providing service for both the Blue and Yellow Lines, the station is where the two lines diverge and thus acts as a transfer point. Northbound, both lines rise above ground, with the Blue Line serving the Arlington Cemetery station, and the Yellow Line crossing the Potomac River into the District of Columbia.

The station opened on July 1, 1977 with the completion of 11.8 mi of rail between National Airport and RFK Stadium.

Photography is not allowed anywhere on the station grounds.

Bus service
Pentagon station is also a major bus hub in northern Virginia. The current bus facility opened in 2001 as part of the Pentagon Renovation Program.

 * Arlington Transit: 42, 87, 87A, 87P, 87X
 * DASH: 35, 103, 104
 * Fairfax Connector: 306, 393, 394, 395, 599, 698, 834, 835
 * Metrobus: 7A, 7M, 8W, 10A, 16A, 16C, 16E, 17B, 17G, 17K, 17M, 18G, 18J, 18P, 21C, 22A, 22F, 28F, 29G
 * Loudoun County Transit: 282, 482, 682, 882
 * PRTC OmniRide: 543, 602, 612, 942, D-100, D-200, D-300, L-100, L-200, MC-100, MC-200, RS
 * Ride Smart Northern Shenandoah Valley: DC Motorcoach (From Front Royal to D.C.)

Station layout
The station is located underground, adjacent to The Pentagon, and formerly had a direct (but secure) entrance to the Pentagon and its underground shopping center. This entrance was closed in 2001 as part of the Pentagon Renovation Program. Access to the Pentagon is now gained via a new secured entrance facility above ground near the bus depot and the entrances to the subway station. The new exit features signage displayed at Gallery Place-Chinatown and newer stations.

Pentagon is one of two stations (the other being the Rosslyn station) at which trains going one direction are boarded on a different station level than trains going the other direction, as a way to prevent an at-grade crossing. This is because the Blue and Yellow lines split apart an extremely short distance from the station.

An indicator sign at the north end of the station flashes to inform passengers of the arriving train's destination, showing Blue for Downtown Largo, and Yellow for Mount Vernon Square. This feature is only used at final transfer stations; another example being L'Enfant Plaza.

South of the station, two empty tunnels diverge from the tracks towards Columbia Pike for future extension, but the plans were later dropped.

2010
On March 4, 2010, a gunman, identified as John Patrick Bedell, who espoused anti-government views, shot and wounded two Pentagon police officers at a security checkpoint in the Pentagon station. The officers returned fire, striking him in the head. Bedell died the next day, on March 5, 2010.

2021
At 10:40 a.m. EST, on August 3, 2021, a stabbing occurred, killing officer George Gonzalez and leading to a lockdown of the Pentagon that was later lifted. The perpetrator, 27-year-old Austin William Lanz shot and killed himself using Gonzalez's service weapon. In an apology issued by Lanz's family, they stated that in his final few months, he suffered from "many mental health challenges". There was a warrant out for Lanz's arrest due to an incident months earlier, in which Lanz broke into a Georgia home with a crowbar.

Notable places nearby

 * Pentagon Memorial
 * United States Air Force Memorial

title: Pentagon station


text:
Planet of the Daleks

Planet of the Daleks is the fourth serial of the tenth season of the British science fiction television series Doctor Who, which was first broadcast in six weekly parts on BBC1 from 7 April to 12 May 1973.

Continuing from the events of the serial Frontier in Space, the story involves a small team of Daleks plotting to revive an army of Daleks which are being kept in suspended animation on the planet Spiridon.

Plot
The Third Doctor has been wounded after being shot by the Master. Jo helps the Doctor into the TARDIS, where he sends a message to the Time Lords before he collapses then falls into a coma. The Time Lords direct the TARDIS to the planet Spiridon, where Jo leaves the TARDIS in an attempt to find help, and encounters a party of Thals, the Daleks' oldest enemy. The Thals rescue the Doctor from the TARDIS, the outside of which has been overtaken by a lethal fungus, and explain to the Doctor that the Daleks have set up a research base on the planet to gain the native Spiridons' power of invisibility.

The Thals take the Doctor back to their ship, but the Daleks arrive first, destroy the ship and capture the Doctor. He presumes Jo to be dead, but fortunately she had already been removed from the ship by a Spiridon named Wester, having become infected with the fungus, which Wester cures. As the Doctor is held captive in the Dalek base, another party of Thals arrives and informs the first group that their intelligence had been mistaken; there isn't just a small research team of Daleks on the planet, but an army of ten thousand, which will form a galactic invasion force.

As the Doctor and a fellow captive Thal break out of their cell, the other Thals break into the base, and the Doctor confirms the existence of the Dalek army, before the group escapes and reunites with Jo and Wester. The Doctor realises that making use of the planet's natural ice volcanos will be key to defeating the Daleks. Meanwhile, a Dalek ship commanded by a Supreme Dalek lands on the planet, and the Supreme executes the lead Dalek for failing to deal with the Doctor and the Thals.

The group sneaks back into the base, where the Daleks are preparing a bacterial weapon in a laboratory chamber to destroy all life on the planet. However, Wester unleashes the weapon prematurely, ensuring he is its only casualty and creating a no-win situation for the Daleks, where those previously inoculated in the laboratory cannot leave or open the chamber, lest they infect their bretheren. The Doctor, Jo, and the Thals return to the cavern where the Dalek army is being brought out of stasis, and the Doctor sets off an explosion that floods the entire base with liquid ice, freezing the army. The Thals take the Supreme Dalek's ship to return to their home world of Skaro, while the Doctor and Jo narrowly get away in the TARDIS, though the Supreme Dalek vows that they are not defeated, and that they will someday thaw their army back out. The Doctor offers to take Jo anywhere in time and space, but after their recent adventures, Jo is happy to go back to Earth.

Production
The story was originally commissioned as Planet of the Daleks, but during production it briefly changed to Destination: Daleks. Episodes 2 & 4 do not feature a reprise of the previous episode's cliffhanger ending, while the reprises in Episodes 3 and 5 are re-performances. Though this latter technique was commonplace in 1960s episodes, by this time in the programme's history it was an approach almost never used.

The Dalek Supreme in this story was a modified prop from the film Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. (1966) that had been given to Terry Nation. Its eyestalk has been replaced with a conventional torch, which flashes when it speaks.

For many years Episode 3 of the serial existed in the BBC Archives only as a black-and-white 16mm telerecording, as the 625-line colour PAL transmission master videotape for that episode was wiped for reuse by the BBC in 1976. Episode 3 was restored to full colour in 2008, using a combination of computer colourisation by Legend Films with software developed by the Colour Recovery Working Group. This version was released on DVD in 2009. The colour masters for the other five episodes are still extant.

Cast notes
Bernard Horsfall had previously appeared as Lemuel Gulliver in The Mind Robber (1968) and as the First Time Lord in The War Games (1969). He appeared once more in The Deadly Assassin (1976), as Chancellor Goth. All these serials were directed by David Maloney.

Prentis Hancock had appeared as a reporter in Spearhead from Space (1970), and would return as Salamar in Planet of Evil (1975) and as the Shrieve Captain in The Ribos Operation (1978).

Broadcast and reception
The serial was repeated on BBC One on Friday evenings between 5 November and 17 December 1993, as part of "Doctor Who and the Daleks", celebrating 30 years of Doctor Who. Each episode was preceded by a specially made 5 min vignette, which were 'Bigger on the Inside', 'The Antique Doctor Who Roadshow', 'Missing in Action', 'I Was That Monster', 'The Master' and 'U.N.I.T. Recruitment Film'. The repeat of Episode 3 of Planet of the Daleks on 19 November 1993 was shown in black and white, the only time since June 1969 that a Doctor Who episode has been broadcast in black and white on BBC One. The ratings achieved were 3.6, 4.0, 3.9, 3.3, 3.3 and 3.5 million viewers, respectively.

Paul Cornell, Martin Day, and Keith Topping gave an unfavourable review of the serial in The Discontinuity Guide (1995), writing that it was "a typical coincidence-based Dalek story of hammy deaths and ridiculous escapes. A reworking of the themes and set pieces of The Daleks, with pacifism and an anti-nuclear stance becoming weak monologues on bravery and caution." In 2010, Mark Braxton of Radio Times awarded it three stars out of five, describing Planet of the Daleks as "an exciting story, but a tawdry spectacle" with it being "continually compromised" in production values. While he found that some elements of the story were enjoyable, he felt that it lacked emotional continuity and the Daleks did not impress. DVD Talk's John Sinnott found the story more enjoyable than Frontier in Space, praising the way Nation "filled the plot with creative other-worldly creatures and devices and used them nicely to move the story". In the book Doctor Who: The Episode Guide, Mark Campbell also rated it as better than Frontier in Space, awarding it eight out of ten, concluding "a believable jungle setting and ambitious (if unoriginal) ideas make this live-action comic strip romp breeze along in fine style."

In print
A novelisation of this serial, written by Terrance Dicks, was published by Target Books in October 1976. The novelisation opens with the cliffhanger from Frontier in Space of a comatose Doctor pursuing the Daleks through space, even though this was removed from the Space War novelisation. A German translation was published in 1980.

In 1995 an abridged version of the novel was issued by BBC Audio as an audio book, read by Jon Pertwee. It was later reissued on the MP3-CD release Tales from the TARDIS Volume 2. An unedited audio book version was released in June 2013, narrated by actor and writer Mark Gatiss, with Dalek voices performed by Nicholas Briggs.

Home media
This story, together with Revelation of the Daleks was released on VHS in a special Dalek tin set in 1999, with episode 3 in black and white. The stories were released on VHS individually in North America. It was released on DVD alongside the previous story, Frontier in Space, in the box set "Dalek War" on 5 October 2009, with episode 3 now restored to full colour using the pioneering chroma dot recovery process and some more traditional colourisation techniques. In July 2019 the story was released for the first time on Blu-ray as part of the Season 10 boxset. It featured optional updated visual effects and 5.1 Surround Sound. In November 2020, it was released as part of the Time Lord Victorious: Road to the Dark Times blu-ray set along with Genesis of the Daleks, The Deadly Assassin. State of Decay, The Curse of Fenric, The Runaway Bride and The Waters of Mars.

title: Planet of the Daleks


text:
Talk:Evolution of sexual reproduction

Paragraph in section 5.2 needs fixup
This paragraph in section 5.2 needs to be fixed up, because it doesn't make sense at the moment.

 * There has been much criticism of Kondrashov's theory. First, it requires a very high mutation rate – one mutation per generation, which there is some empirical evidence for it (for example in Drosophila[14] and E. coli[15]). Second, it also requires deleterious mutations to act in a synergistic way. While there is some evidence for this kind of mutation – fitness relation – there is also the same amount of evidence that mutations do not act synergistically. Instead, there may be no epistatis (one mutation does not influence another) or antagonistic interaction (each additional mutation has a disproportionally small effect).

The second sentence doesn't make sense. I'm not going to touch it because I don't know what it's trying to say, but someone more versed in the matter might be able to fix it up. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I've modified the paragraph a little. Might make more sense now. Although might still not be perfect. suggestions are welcomed if it is still unclear. --Seb951 21:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Need editing assistance
at Evolutionary theory of sex--Filll 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

distinguishing sex as a special case of recombination
This is a worthy article. However, it confuses the evolution of sex and the evolution of recombination. I would be happy to help edit the article, but wanted to get some agreement on how to proceed. This article is mostly about the advantages of recombination and the disdvantages of sex, both of interest, but somewhat conflated. More careful parsing of the effects of recombination (two parents) and sex (males and females) is in order. Worth noting, a proper accounting of the dis/advantages makes explaining sex more difficult.

Shall I have a go at it or is more coordination required?

 * By all means have a go. As a note, this article needs more high-quality citations, so your help there would also be appreciated. This tool lets you paste in a PMID and gives you a formatted reference. You might find it useful. All the best Tim Vickers 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Recombination does not imply two parents - frequently a hermaphrodite is capable of reproducing sexually with itself, bacteria conjugate (recombine their DNA) without reproducing.
 * Perhaps this article needs to be moved to Evolution of sexual reproduction, since it is about sexual reproduction, not about the definition presented at sex (although that alternative definition is included in the "sexual reproduction" definition). LyrlTalk C 13:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Crucial importance of sexual selection dynamics forgotten here.
Here it is again. A discussion of “why sex?” that covers every base except what is probably the most important: sexual selection. Just about every lay introduction to natural selection will utilize as prime examples traits such as opposable thumbs and beak shapes. I would argue that sexual selection is of crucial importance to evolution and over the last 100 thousand years has been of far greater importance than traits developed through interaction with purely physical forces such as heat, cold, and resistance to bacteriological elements. In sexual selection, the woman will typically prefer men with a good balance of strength and gentleness, being cognisant that she expects him to help rear their children. As a result, women characteristically are attracted to strength, but not to sadism, to affluence, but not to meanness, to a sense of humour, because a man with a sense of humour will be more likely to be charmed by the activities of their children, and so on. In an oral society, a well-spoken man will receive preferential treatment when compared to one who is tongue-tied. A man who has “people-skills” and can handle and lead people will attain personal power that others will not. Traditionally, people who attain privileged positions have greater choices available to them, in terms of who they marry, in terms of provision for their children. In this way, such behavioural and personality traits can become fixed in a community through the simple functioning of selection pressure via sexual and cultural selection. Yet these mechanisms are given short shrift in the literature of evolution. Sexual attraction between the genders is the next best thing to direct phenome to genome transfer. In effect, a strong, intelligent man is given his procreational advantages on credit, as it were, just as a fertile, intelligent woman is given hers. I often wonder why these HUGE affects are forgotten by writers, in favour of such piddling ones as resistance to parasites. Is it because evolutionary pressure from within society sounds less “scientific”? Myles325a 05:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is about the evolution of sexual reproduction. Multitudes of very simple organisms (e.g. ants, who do not express mate preference) or solitary organisms (e.g. lizards) reproduce sexually, and the fact that they continue to reproduce sexual rather than developing asexual reproductive mechanisms is what this article is focused on.  Sexual selection is a completely separate article. LyrlTalk C 21:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

New Scientist article: Has the mystery of sex been explained at last?
Has the mystery of sex been explained at last? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227121.600-has-the-mystery-of-sex-been-explained-at-last.html?full=true Stikko (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cost of sex
There are fallacies in the picture as well as in the description:

 * "If each individual were to contribute to the same number of offspring (two), (a) the sexual population remains the same size each generation, where the (b) asexual population doubles in size each generation."

Well, doh. If each individual were to contribute to double the number, the sexual population also doubles in size. They can do that because they are twice as many individuals, sharing the cost.

 * "This implies that an asexual population has an intrinsic capacity to grow more rapidly each generation."

No, it doesn't.

Note that I don't comment on whether or not the basic premise is true, just that the explanations are fallacious. --91.55.208.202 (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This should probably be reworded to something along the lines of "each individual/pair contributing to the next generation". Within sexual reproduction you obviously need two individuals. If this pair then to produce two offspring then they each produce a single "replacement", as it were. Within asexual reproduction, the individual merely divides creating two "offspring", in essence creating one "replacement" and a second offspring which adds to the next generation. So we have sexual reproduction as 1+1(2)>2, number of offspring=number of breeding individuals vs. assexual reproduction as 1>1+1(2), number of offspring=2*(number of breeding individuals). The initial statement could easily be misread and does need to be made clearer. - Wikim3 04:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.186.67 (talk)

 * Well, what also struck me was the fact that hermaphrodites are mentioned briefly but then not talked about at all. The cost is not so much about sexual reproduction but about half of the individuals not being able to put energy into eggs/pregnancy and for some species not even into raising the young. Hermaphrodites do not exhibit this disadvantage and it is therefore not so much a puzzle to me why sexual reproduction developed but why it didn't generally develop into a hermaphroditic form. The actual number of offspring could then still be reduced for species that need more effort to be put into each of their young. --78.94.216.65 (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of produced offspring is irrelevant
Fallacies I see in "Cost of sex": The long term replacement rate for every species on Earth is one. Because if not, you would get exponential growth and earth couldn’t support this. Beside this the number of offspring, who reach the phase of adulthood, is more dependent on the resources and perils of the environment. And not on the number of offspring produced by the parents.

The only disadvantage I see for sexual reproduction is, that a pair of individuals has to meet each other to reproduce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.82.62 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Responce to Number of produced offspring is irrevelent
Although your premise that one would get exponential growth if the long-term replacement rate is not one, your conclusion is invalid. This is because having one child (if you are asexual) or two (if you are sexual) does not gaurantee that in the long-term, your genes will be preserved, albeit in different organisms in case of sexual reproduction. The individual with the largest number of healthy, fertile offspring has the largest chance of being represented in the gene-pool in the long-run. To make this clear, it has been found that 1 in 200 men are direct descendents of Genghis Khan, who lived about a 1000 years ago. Your conclusion would make sense only if there were only 200 men at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.151.208.163 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Two-fold cost of sex vs. cost of males
This section does have several weaknesses, already noted. I think one basic issue is that the term "two-fold cost of sex" is misleading, albeit popular in the literature. I prefer the original term, which is the cost of males - it more precisely identifies the problem as the presence of a significant proportion of the adult population that is required for reproduction to occur, but does not itself reproduce; although Maynard Smith did show that this advantage is two-fold under the assumptions of his example, it can safely be assumed that this cost will vary depending upon a number of factors, such as mating system specifics, presence of hermaphroditism, prevalence of sex in the life cycle (i.e. if it is not obligate), etc.

And on that note, the combination of the reference to Maynard Smith being the first to mathematically describe the cost of males is juxtaposed with a nonsense graphic that, first of all, bears no resemblance at all to the schematic that accompanied his mathematical description, and second of all, erroneously gives the impression that a sexual population does not increase in size at all! "Two-fold" implies that the rate of increase is twice as great for the asexuals; the figure does not illustrate this. Maynard Smith's own diagram can be found in his book, which is in any decent science library.

Sexual selection is completely out of place in this section; the costs of sexual selection are completely irrelevant to the specifics of the two-fold cost of sex/cost of males. Sexual selection is worthy of attention, but it is a separate matter. Changing the section title to "Disadvantages/Costs of Sex" would make the inclusion more appropriate, along with the other disadvantages.

The paragraph claiming that evidence that the cost of sex can be overcome comes from George C. Williams makes no sense; the evidence that the sex can be overcome is that sex is utterly dominant as a reproductive mechanism in multicellular eukaryotes. One of Maynard Smith's major points in describing the cost of males was in contrasting the ubiquity and obvious success of sex, which evolutionary biologists had heretofore taken largely for granted, with the fact that it simply does not work according to standard population genetics. The paragraph describes a specific hypothetical advantage to sexual reproduction, which is often referred to as the "lottery ticket argument," since that was the analogy Williams used to make the point.

I apologize, because these points will seem "old-fogeyish," though I wish to return to make these edits, if someone does not beat me to it.

-colbyg 98.87.122.104 (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Maynard Smith's 'twofold cost of sex' argument assumes that an unmated parthenogetic female can produce (on average) as many surviving offspring as the female in a male-female pair reproducing sexually. If this is the case, then a gene mutation which causes a female to reproduce parthenogenetically, in an otherwise sexually reproducing population, will initially have twice as many replicas in the next generation as its 'sexual' competitors, and will therefore rapidly replace them.  The underlying assumption is valid if, other things being equal, the males in a sexually reproducing pair contribute nothing other than genetic material to their offspring.  Maynard Smith made this assumption because in a large majority of species it is true:  in all plants (I can't offhand think of any exceptions) and most animals.  The assumption fails in cases where the male provides significant resources either to the female before reproduction or in parental care to the offspring.  Parental care by the male parent is comparatively rare except among birds and some mammals, including humans.  Our human bias may lead us to overestimate the importance of paternal care among organisms generally. Maynard Smith was quite explicit about all this.2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:6476:F527:DF75:76B2 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

why/how
This article needs restructuring. I came here looking for how sex evolved, but that part is hidden away at the end in sections 7-8. It's also very short. Most of the article talks about possible explanations why sex evolved (or what for) and historical perspectives on that. The introduction doesn't talk about the how at all. IMO an article entitled "Evolution of sexual reproduction" should first describe what we know about how it happened, and then go on to speculate about why sex is an evolutionary gain.--87.162.34.180 (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The disadvantage of haploid versus diploid gametes
Good article. One of the main costs of sexual reproduction according to Matt Ridley in his book "The Red Queen", is that of sacrificing the passage of half of your genes into the next generation. I was expecting to find this fact noted in this piece but as I couldn't find it I added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardAndrewNevin (talk • contribs) 13:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fig 3 legend (epistasis) is wrong
I believe the legend to Fig 3 is seriously wrong: the red convex line is the synergistic epistasis case (required for Kondrashov's theory), since here 2 mutations have bigger effects than the sum of the effects of each individually. The concave blue line shows antagonistic epistasis. See Ridley's "Mendel's Demon" book.Paulhummerman (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have another Ridley book, Evolution, 3rd edition; it agrees (well, it would)... I take it he knows what he's talking about. Evercat (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also Charlesworth and Charlesworth, Elements of Evolutionary Genetics. I think it should really be log(fitness) on the y axis. Evercat (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact yes, I very strongly believe it needs to be log(fitness) on the y axis... Evercat (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Introduction is mostly irrelevant to the subject
This article's subject is the evolution of sexual reproduction. 1. The introduction claims (correctly) that there is no consensus and then proceeds to ignore the evolution to speak about the maintenance of sexual reproduction. I should NOT have to delve into the rest of the article to learn about the theories/hypotheses, should I ?? 2. The introduction claims that all eukaryotes which reproduce sexually have a common ancestor. How is that reconciled with the species that reproduce both asexually and sexually? Are we sure that sex only evolved once? Given that most of the intro makes a strong case for its reproductive value, then either it must be linked to the cell wall (definition of Eukaryotes) or did not just evolve once. Have all asexually reproducing eukaryotes been shown to have sexual ancestors? {I am not well informed on this issue, please take my comments to indicate areas where the introduction fails to inform the average reader}. Is this well established (fact) or a working hypothesis/ assumption? What about the sexual prokaryotes? 3. The introduction should define what sexual reproduction is, to start out. It doesn't even mention the fact that it is between two (or more) individuals, that the sex of an individual may vary over its lifetime, and that its sex may be environmentally determined. It also doesn't mention the fact that the number of sexes ranges between 2 and ?? (I'm not sure, at least 3) 4. DNA is barely mentioned, and only in the context of repair. 5. If you threw out the "maintenance of sexual reproduction" part of the introduction, there would be almost nothing left. In my opinion, most people will come here NOT to learn about how sexual reproduction is evolving or contributing to the evolution of a species, but to learn about how it developed to begin with. Logically, origin should precede maintenance/continuing development processes. 6. I recommend a rewrite, focusing on the basics: What, who, when, why, and how. Overview (What is sex, who has it (which Domains & Kingdoms?) History when did it evolve? (NOT to be confused with the history of the study of it) Why and how did it evolve? If you really can't speak clearly to its causal origin, then you should speak in terms of it surviving originally because of utility.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.75.207 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

May be of interest
"Copulation in antiarch placoderms and the origin of gnathostome internal fertilization". With a related simplified article. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The twofold cost of sex: Studies that question the original approach
There is at least one published paper that questions the twofold cost of sex or the cost of males (as preferred): The False Problem of the Maintenance of Sex (Review of the Original Approach) --J. M. Mancebo Quintana (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Evolutionary Theory of Sex (ETS)
The article at Evolutionary theory of sex (ETS) was a very dodgy essay. Not at all encyclopedic, and with very little worth merging here. I've simply made it a redirect. It seems to me that someone has been trying to push Trofimova's views into any articles that they could, and giving them plenty of undue weight. --Slashme (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

From the user KaiStr: I disagree with the merge of this page and with Slashme devaluation of this page. This ETS theory existed since the 1960s, within a rather strong evolutionary school (Russians evolutionary biologists), and the author of the ETS is a completely different person (Geodakyan). Trofimova only adopted this ETS theory to psychology but she wasn't the author of the original theory. The page was encyclopedic as it had definitions and illustrations - borrowed from Trofimova for simplicity. Please don't bring your prejudice and ignorance to wikipedia, let public see all opinions and theories offered within different (an not just yours) schools. KaiStr (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The undue weight would be to merge. Making redirects from pages with non-standard titles is not good idea. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex
Please check out this new article, Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex EXPERTS WHERE are YOU? HELOOOOO!
Help required with Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex desperately: the article of apparently fringe theory is based almost exclusively on primary sources and edited by a people with strong connection to the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

 * You're probably right that an expert in the domain is needed, and it seems none is to hand. However, perhaps the rest of us can make a few pertinent remarks. Firstly, Geodakyan's published articles on the evolution of sex go back a very long way, one paper being from 1968 (if that's not a typo) with a dissertation in 1987. Secondly, these publications have mostly been cited by very few others; his 1991 Evolutionary theory of sex had as many as 17, but all of these were by Russian authors, 3 of them by someone named Geodakyan (him or his wife, perhaps), so it seems acceptance of his views by scientists in the west is very limited. Thirdly, he self-published (lulu.com/gb/en/shop/sergey-geodakyan/the-evolutionary-theory-of-sex/ebook/product-15633425.html) The Evolutionary Theory of Sex on Lulu, an unusual publicity move for a scientific paper published long before. The overall picture does hint at WP:FRINGE, though since his ideas look as though they are falsifiable, they are not necessarily unscientific.

 * On the article itself, it looks as if it's been edited by someone who is not a native speaker of English, maybe a colleague or friend of Geodakyan (d 2012), who knows.

 * Is it notable as a theory? I'd say it was borderline; at an AfD, I think I'd vote to merge the article with Evolution of sexual reproduction, where I'd give it a sentence or two. Just my tuppence worth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, but I am interested in someone helping with maintaining the article. I don't mind keeping it, since I find it interesting and the author did have visibility in Soviet times and places, but I want it to be free of undue promotion and further original research. Unfortunately the "page owners" are extremely uncooperative and impolite, to put it mildly, although I keep ignoring their attacks. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Yes it dates from 1960s; as for Lulu, it seems it was published by his son. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

What does this even mean?
Males adopt strategies with lower investment in individual gametes and may present a higher mutation rate,[citation needed] while females may invest more resources and serve to conserve better-adapted solutions.[citation needed]

Apart from being completely citation needed it mixes together nursing strategies and mutation rates. How are they related? And what are the benefits of high/low mutation rates? I don't understand at all what this section is trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.227.23.210 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 * An individual can employ different strategies in order to maximize reproduction. Either you can make lots of babies at a small cost for each baby, or you can make fewer babies and invest more in trying to make each offspring survive, see Life history theory and R/K_selection_theory. In at least some species males have higher mutation rates than females. The reason why it may be beneficial for males to have a higher mutation rate is that each male is worth less for the survival of the species than each female. If one male dies from a bad mutation, this doesn't matter as much, since other males can easily compensate by producing more offspring. Conversely, a beneficial mutation in a male will spread quicker than a in a female. Koyos (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Recentism?
The following was recently removed as recentism :

""However, research published in 2015 indicates that sexual selection can explain the persistence of sexual reproduction in animals. ""

While I agree that 2015 is rather recent, and that the wording may possibly have been in undue weight or misplaced, after reading the source I found nothing particularily questionable. While research is of course still ongoing, it seems to already have been common knowledge to me that there can be advantages of sexual selection. The text which follows also appears to reflect this. I therefore don't see this as being recentism, but among the plausible hypotheses related to sexual selection. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  - 22:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Adi Livnat's "interaction-based evolution" theory makes most of this Wikipedia article obsolete
The long article: "Interaction-based evolution: how natural selection and nonrandom mutation work together" by Adi Livnat https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4231362/ (which amazingly is not behind a paywall) presents a new theory that addresses all the traditional problems about sexual evolution, and evolution in general. He wrote this in 2013. While it may be too early to present it as settled science, it is deeply profound and comprehensive and is the first big step forward in evolutionary theory since the discovery of DNA (in my opinion). He dispatches the question of how sexual reproduction arose and still survives when asexual reproduction is so much more efficient by explaining why evolution can't proceed from asexual reproduction and never has. All organisms evolved entirely via sexual evolution, except for small tweaks in asexual organisms since the time they lost the ability to reproduce sexually. Losing the ability may introduce beneficial efficiencies, but is an evolutionary dead-end. This means that sexual reproduction predates asexual reproduction and is the original mode of reproduction. Nearly all creatures bear the "cost" of sex because it is the only way to evolve. He explains some about how multiple alleles are necessary at the population level for new functionality to converge. But he also presents many other reasons; this is just the tip of the iceberg of Livnat's theory, which is really about the writing phenotype, which is the concept that much of our genome is focused on long-term evolution that takes millions of years to yield results. Organisms have complex DNA-editing mechanisms that piece new de novo genes together from parts with no benefit to the individual until many generations have passed, and the pieces used to build these new genes come from other genes and the 80% of the genome currently labeled "junk DNA". This theory stipulates that although evolution is ultimately blind, it has been gathering tricks to maximize the use of collected information and the chances of building useful genes by elevating the building blocks of mutation from single base-pairs to large pre-built "erector set" sections that give preference to the most successful sections and take many lives to yield results. Junk genes and DNA that do nothing yet are in fact being selected for over a longer time frame, and evolution is patient for that result only because these long-term strategies evolved and outcompeted much less effective point-mutation strategies back at the dawn of life. And he explains how males and sperm are largely the instruments of the writing phenotype, and much more. It really needs to be turned into a best-selling book!

I would appreciate it if someone qualified would review Livnat's article and include a summary in this Wikipedia page, referencing the summary from the opening paragraph. I could do it, but I am reluctant to proceed in an area I haven't formally studied for 35 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.153.89 (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting and the importance of sexual selection is also understood in mainstream biology. If you can find secondary or tertiary sources discussing that material, we could use those.  Primary sources are discouraged and Wikipedia is not the place to promote papers or books, of course.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Origin or Evolution?
This article does not actually provide what the title suggests, namely: a description of the evolution of sexual reproduction.

It remains stuck in pro's and cons of sexual reproduction, hypothesises of why it even originated.

What remains left out is any information on for example the transition from external to internal fertilisation (https://www.nature.com/news/fossils-rewrite-history-of-penetrative-sex-1.16173) i.e. the origins of penetrative sex.

Neither does it address the plain fact that sexuality refers to a division in two sexes, and the entire evolutionary consequences of the existence of two sexes, or what is specific to the one sex and what to the other.

I would suggest renaming this article "origins of sexual reproduction", and creating a new one named "Evolution of sexual reproduction", where the relevant themes such as the splitting in two sexes and implications of that are explained, as well as the evolutionary steps from the origins until the present state of sexual reproduction.

Lastly, I see it as a possibility that the lacking information is related to the fact that above mentioned topics are partly still taboo, even in the scientific world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreieFF (talk • contribs) 12:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

LECA < Not true
This statement is not accurate: "In eukaryotes, true sex is thought to have arisen in the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA)..."

The accurate version is THIS: "In eukaryotes, true sex is thought to have arisen in the First Eukaryotic Common Ancestor."

This is basic reasoning. Sex did not arise with LECA. It happened with the first of its kind, not the last. The "FECA", if you will. This needs to be fixed. --Concord19 (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 * The above should be corrected. And this needs a good reference to be added into the mainspace.  My expectation is that there is a distinct "FSCA".  The First Sexual Common Ancestor.  And that this need not necessarily be the "FECA".  (In either case, it seems clear that it was not the LECA.) --Concord19 (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends whether you take LECA to refer to a species, population or an individual. This is still being discussed:
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0796-3
 * I would suggest until you have gene exchange (ie sex) you have only individuals.
 * Sex can't have arisen in the FIRST CA, cos it's parent would also have been an ECA but it didn't have sex.
 * If sex arose in the LECA then at least two of its children must have survived and given rise to separate gene lines for it to be the LAST COMMON A.
 * But actually there may have been several generations of sex before divergence so it wasn't the first but it may not have been the last.
 * Of course by this point we have a population, so it's valid to think of LECA as the last population that gave rise to all others and then it's also the first population so both are equally correct. BioImages2000 (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The questions section
The questions section seems odd and not needed. Also I have read some of those sources, it aren’t really asking questions. So that section is technically original research.CycoMa (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Mitochondria not included
It seems to me that little is made of the fundamental asymmetry between the sexes in that females contribute the mitochondria without recombination. In fact it could be said that all sexual reproduction includes asexual reproduction of the mitochondria.

We have a natural experiment going on in comparing the evolution of both genomes so surely this is worth at least a mention. Francishayden (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Extremely verbose without saying anything relevant or valuable.
About 90% of this article is verbose word spaghetti about the potential benefits of sexual reproduction, which is irrelevant to how sexual reproduction could develop step-by-step through mutation (it can't)

You'd think you could be more humble and upfront that it's an unanswered mystery to the scientific community, rather than hiding behind verbose word vomit that starts with the assumption that your favorite religion Darwinism is true. 174.57.221.108 (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hymenoptera
In Hymenoptera the males are haploid, so there can be no hidden deleterious mutations, yet the order is the most diverse among the insects. Consequently Hymenoptera are not at risk from inbreeding depression. This makes it easy for a single female to establish a population outside its range. I suspect this also allows social insects to evolve large colonies. BioImages2000 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Evolution of sexual reproduction


text:
Archbishop of Cologne

[[Image:Balduineum Wahl Heinrich VII.jpg|thumb|

The "Seven Prince Electors" electing Henry, Count of Luxembourg as Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor at Frankfurt on 27 November 1308. At far left is Heinrich II of Virneburg, Archbishop of Cologne. Codex Balduini Trevirorum, c. 1340)]]

The archbishop of Cologne governs the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne in western North Rhine-Westphalia. Historically the archbishop ruled a state of the Holy Roman Empire and was ex officio one of the prince-electors, the elector of Cologne, from 1356 to 1801.

Since the early days of the Catholic Church, there have been ninety-four bishops and archbishops of Cologne. Seven of these ninety-four retired by resignation, including four resignations which were in response to impeachment. Eight of the bishops and archbishops were coadjutor bishops before they took office. Seven individuals were appointed as coadjutors freely by the pope. One of the ninety-four moved to the Curia, where he became a cardinal. Additionally, six of the archbishops of Cologne were chairmen of the German Bishops' Conference.

Cardinal Rainer Woelki has been the archbishop of Cologne since his 2014 transfer from Berlin, where he was also cardinal archbishop.

Bishops of Colonia Agrippina, 88–784
All names before Maternus II are to be approached with considerable skepticism, as little contemporary evidence is available. Maternus was present at a council in Rome in 313. The bishops between Severinus and Charentius are also apocryphal. Domitianus was the Bishop of Maastricht (Mosa Traiectum). The given dates of office before Gunther are also conjectural, at best.

 * Maternus I c. 88–128
 * Paulinus
 * Marcellinus
 * Aquilinus
 * Levoldus c. 248–285
 * Maternus II c. 285–315
 * Euphrates c. 315–348
 * Severinus c. 348–403
 * Ebergisil I ? c. 403–440
 * Solatius c. 440–470
 * Sunnovaeus c. 470–500
 * Domitianus fl. c. 535
 * Charentinus fl. c. 570
 * Eberigisil II ? c. 580–600 ?
 * Remedius c. 600 ? –611 ?
 * Solatius c. 611 ? –622
 * Cunibert c. 623–663
 * Bodatus c. 663–674
 * Stephen 674–680
 * Adelwin 680–695
 * Giso 695–708
 * Anno I 708–710
 * Faramund 710–713
 * Agilolf 713–717
 * Reginfried 718–747
 * Hildegar 750–753
 * Bertholm 753–763
 * Rikulf 763–784

Archbishops of Cologne, 784–1238

 * Hildebold 784–818
 * Hadbold 818–842
 * Hilduin (archbishop of Cologne) 842–849
 * Günther 850–864
 * Hugo Welf 864
 * Wilbert 870–889
 * Hermann I 890–924
 * Wigfried 924–953
 * Bruno I 953–965
 * Volkmar 965–969
 * Gero 969–976
 * Warin 976–984
 * Ebergar 984–999
 * Heribert 999–1021
 * Pilgrim 1021–1036
 * Hermann II 1036–1056
 * Anno II 1056–1075
 * Hildholf 1076–1078
 * Sigwin 1078–1089
 * Hermann III 1089–1099
 * Friedrich I 1100–1131
 * Bruno II von Berg 1131–1137
 * Hugo von Sponheim 1137
 * Arnold I 1138–1151
 * Arnold II von Wied 1152–1156
 * Friedrich II von Berg 1156–1158, nephew of Bruno II von Berg above
 * Rainald of Dassel 1159–1167
 * Philipp von Heinsberg 1167–1191, he gained the title of Duke of Westphalia and Angria in 1180, from then on held in personal union by all incumbents of the Cologne see until 1803.
 * Bruno III von Berg 1191–1192, brother of Friedrich II above
 * Adolf I von Berg 1192–1205, nephew of Bruno III above
 * Bruno IV von Sayn 1205–1208 (in opposition)
 * Dietrich I von Hengebach 1208–1215 (in opposition)
 * Engelbert II von Berg 1216–1225, nephew of Bruno III above
 * Heinrich I von Mulnarken 1225–1237

Modern archbishops of Cologne: 1824 to date

 * Ferdinand August von Spiegel 1824–1835
 * Clemens August II Droste zu Fischering 1835–1845
 * Cardinal Johannes von Geissel 1845–1864
 * Cardinal Paul Melchers 1866–1885
 * Cardinal Philipp Krementz 1885–1899
 * Hubert Theophil Simar 1899-1902
 * Cardinal Anton Hubert Fischer 1902–1912
 * Cardinal Felix von Hartmann 1912–1919
 * Cardinal Karl Joseph Schulte 1920–1941
 * Cardinal Josef Frings 1942–1969
 * Cardinal Joseph Höffner 1969–1987
 * Cardinal Joachim Meisner 1988–2014
 * Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki since 2014

Auxiliary bishops
• Johannes Schleeter, O.F.M. (1434–1457)

• Hilger de Burgis, O. Carm. (1446–1452)

• Heinrich Unkel, O.F.M. (1481–1482)

• Johann Spenner (Spender), O.F.M. (1482–1503)

• Théodore Wichwael, O.S.A. (1504–1519)

• Jean Bourgeois (1506–?)

• Arnald de Arceto, O.S.A. (1517–?)

• Quirin Op dem Veld von Willich (1521–1537)

• Johann Nopel der Ältere (1539–1556)

• Johann Pennarius, O.F.M. (1557–1563)

• Theobald Craschel (1574–1587)

• Laurentius Fabritius (1588–1600)

• Johann Nopel der Jüngere (1601–1605)

• Theodor Riphaen (1606–1616)

• Gereon Otto von Gutmann zu Sobernheim (1616–1638)

• Georgius Pauli-Stravius (1640–1661)

• Richard Paul Stravius (1641–1654)

• Adrian Walenburch (1661–1669)

• Peter Walenburch (1670–1675)

• Paul Aussem (1676–1679)

• Johann Heinrich von Anethan (1680–1693)

• Johann Peter Burmann (1694–1696)

• Godefroid-Udalric de La Margelle (1696–1703)

• Johannes Werner von Veyder (1703–1723)

• Franz Kaspar von Franken-Siersdorf (1724–1770)

• Karl Aloys von Königsegg und Rothenfels (1770–1796)

• Klemens August Maria von Merle (1797–1810)

• Karl Adalbert von Beyer, O. Praem. (1826–1842)

• Anton Gottfried Claessen (1844–1847)

• Johann Anton Friedrich Baudri (1849–1893)

• Hermann Joseph Schmitz (1893–1899)

• Anton Hubert Fischer (1889–1903, Appointed Archbishop of Cologne)

• Joseph Müller (1903–1921)

• Peter Joseph Lausberg (1914–1922)

• Franz Rudolf Bornewasser (1921–1922)

• Josef Stoffels (1922–1923)

• Hermann Joseph Sträter (1922–1931)

• Josef Hammels (1924–1944)

• Wilhelm Stockums (1932–1956)

• Wilhelm Cleven (1950–1983)

• Joseph Ferche (1947–1965)

• Augustinus Frotz (1962–1983)

• Hubert Luthe (1969–1991)

• Peter Nettekoven (1975–1975)

• Josef Plöger (1975–1991)

• Klaus Dick (1975–2003)

• Rainer Maria Woelki (2003–2011; Appointed Archbishop of Berlin)

• Walter Theodor Jansen (1983–1994)

• Norbert Trelle (1992–2005)

• Friedhelm Hofmann (1992–2004)

• Manfred Melzer (1995–2015)

• Heiner Koch (2006–2013)

• Dominik Schwaderlapp (2012–)

• Ansgar Puff (2013–)

• Rolf Steinhäuser (2015–)

title: Archbishop of Cologne


text:
Ætheling

Ætheling (also spelt aetheling, atheling or etheling) was an Old English term (æþeling) used in Anglo-Saxon England to designate princes of the royal dynasty who were eligible for the kingship.

The term is an Old English and Old Saxon compound of aethele, æþele or (a)ethel, meaning "noble family", and -ing, which means "belonging to". It was usually rendered in Latin as filius regis (king's son) or the Anglo-Latin neologism clito.

Ætheling can be found in the Suffolk toponym of Athelington.

Meaning and use in Anglo-Saxon England
During the earliest years of the Anglo-Saxon rule in England, the word ætheling was probably used to denote any person of noble birth. Its use was soon restricted to members of a royal family. The prefix æþel- formed part of the name of several Anglo-Saxon kings, for instance Æthelberht of Kent, Æthelwulf of Wessex and Æthelred of Wessex, and was used to indicate their noble birth. According to a document which probably dates from the 10th century, the weregild of an ætheling was fixed at 15,000 thrymsas, or 11,250 shillings, which was equal to that of an archbishop and one-half of that of a king. The annal for 728 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle referred to a certain Oswald as an ætheling, due to his great-great-grandfather having been King of Wessex. From the 9th century, the term was used in a much narrower context and came to refer exclusively to members of the house of Cerdic of Wessex, the ruling dynasty of Wessex, most particularly the sons or brothers of the reigning king. According to historian Richard Abels, "King Alfred transformed the very principle of royal succession. Before Alfred, any nobleman who could claim royal descent, no matter how distant, could strive for the throne. After him, throne-worthiness would be limited to the sons and brothers of the reigning king." In the reign of Edward the Confessor, Edgar the Ætheling received the appellation as the grandson of Edmund Ironside, but that was at a time when for the first time in 250 years there was no living ætheling according to the strict definition.

Ætheling was also used in a poetic sense to mean "a good and noble man". Old English verse often used ætheling to describe Christ, as well as various prophets and saints. The hero of the 8th century Beowulf is introduced as an ætheling, possibly in the sense of a relative of the King of the Geats, though some translators render ætheling as "retainer". Since many early Scandinavian kings were chosen by competition or election, rather than primogeniture, the term may have been reserved for a person qualified to compete for the kingship.

Other uses and variations
The term was occasionally used after the Norman conquest of England and then only to designate members of the royal family. The Latinised Germanic form, Adelin(us) was used in the name of the only legitimate son and heir of Henry I of England, William Adelin, who drowned in the White Ship disaster of 1120.

It was also sometimes translated into Latin as clito, as in the name of William Clito. It may have been derived from the Latin inclitus/inclutus, "celebrated".

The historian Dáibhí Ó Cróinín has proposed that the idea of the rígdomna in early medieval Ireland was adopted from the Anglo-Saxon, specifically Northumbrian, concept of the ætheling. The earliest use of tanaíste ríg was in reference to an Anglo-Saxon prince in about 628. Many subsequent uses related to non-Irish rulers, before the term was attached to Irish kings-in-waiting.

In Wales, the variant edling was used to signify the son chosen to be the heir apparent.

title: Ætheling


text:
Herbert Coleridge

Herbert "Herbie" Coleridge (7 October 1830 – 23 April 1861) was an English philologist, technically the first editor of what ultimately became the Oxford English Dictionary. He was a grandson of the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Biography
He was the son of Sara and Henry Nelson Coleridge. He earned a double first in Classics and Mathematics at Balliol College, Oxford. After graduation, he became a barrister, but, living off a small annuity, devoted most of his time and energy to linguistic studies. At age 27, as a member of the Philological Society, he formed a committee with Richard Chenevix Trench and Frederick Furnivall to identify and research words unlisted and undefined in English dictionaries of the period. The efforts of this committee eventually led to the development of the Oxford English Dictionary. A dedicated editor, he died of tuberculosis at age 30 after completing some fundamental work for the project.

He died on 23 April 1861 at Chester Place, Regents Park and is buried, with his parents and grandparents, in the crypt of St Michael's, Highgate. The coffins were moved in 1961 from the Highgate School Chapel.

Works

 * A Glossarial Index to the Printed English Literature of the Thirteenth Century. London: Trubner & Co., 1859.
 * A Dictionary of the First, or Oldest Words in the English Language: from the Semi Saxon Period of A.D. 1250 to 1300. Consisting of An Alphabetical Inventory of Every Word Found in the Printed English Literature of the 13TH Century. London: John Camden Hotten, 1863.

title: Herbert Coleridge


text:
Arlington Cemetery station

Arlington Cemetery station is a side platformed Washington Metro station in Arlington, Virginia, United States. The station was opened on July 1, 1977, and is operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). The station provides service for only the Blue Line, and is located at the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery, underneath Memorial Drive. There is no public parking near the station except at the cemetery, which is reserved for cemetery visitors. It is the only station that closes earlier than the rest of the system, closing at 7 PM from October to March, and 10 PM from April to September.

The station is the only one of three stations to be exclusively serviced by the Blue Line. The rest of the Blue Line's stations are shared with the Yellow Line to the south (except for two of the southernmost stations), and with the Orange Line and Silver Line to the north.

History
The station opened on July 1, 1977. Its opening coincided with the completion of 11.8 mi of rail between National Airport and RFK Stadium and the opening of the Capitol South, Crystal City, Eastern Market, Farragut West, Federal Center SW, Federal Triangle, Foggy Bottom–GWU, L'Enfant Plaza, McPherson Square, National Airport, Pentagon, Pentagon City, Potomac Avenue, Rosslyn, Smithsonian, and Stadium–Armory stations.

In May 2018, Metro announced an extensive renovation of platforms at twenty stations across the system. The platforms at the Arlington Cemetery station were rebuilt from February 13 to May 23, 2021.

On March 19, 2020, this station closed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The station reopened on August 23, 2020.

Between January 15 to January 21, 2021, this station was closed because of security concerns related to the 2021 Inauguration.

Station layout
Arlington Cemetery is unique in its design, located just below ground level and only covered by a bridge carrying Memorial Drive. It is also one of two stations with three levels (the other being Fort Totten). Escalators from Memorial Drive go down two levels to the mezzanine, where customers may purchase SmarTrip cards at vending machines and pass through fare control. Escalators on the other side of fare control then go up to the side platforms. Elevators go directly to the platforms with one fare gate for each elevator at platform level.

Notable places nearby

 * Arlington House (also known as the Custis-Lee Mansion)
 * Arlington Memorial Bridge
 * Arlington National Cemetery
 * Lincoln Memorial
 * Tomb of the Unknown Soldier
 * Women in Military Service for America Memorial

title: Arlington Cemetery station


text:
Larry McCormick (Canadian politician)

Larry McCormick (January 4, 1940 – May 3, 2011) was a Canadian politician. He was born in Enterprise, Ontario.

McCormick was a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the House of Commons of Canada, representing the riding Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington from 1993 to 2004. Benefiting from vote-splitting between the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party, he was the first Liberal since 1935 to win a seat in this area in the House of Commons. McCormick was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

McCormick's seat was merged with parts of the former riding of Lanark—Carleton, forcing him into a contest with that riding's Conservative incumbent, Scott Reid in the 2004 election. With the end of vote-splitting on the right, Reid won the seat by over 10,000 votes.

Before serving in Ottawa, McCormick owned and operated McCormick's Country Store on County Road 4 in Camden East. He was married to wife Reta and had one child, a daughter, Kayla.

title: Larry McCormick (Canadian politician)


text:
Columbine

Columbine may refer to:

Places

 * Columbine, Colorado, a census-designate place in Jefferson and Arapahoe counties in Colorado, United States
 * Columbine High School, a high school in Columbine, Colorado, United States
 * Columbine Memorial, a memorial in Columbine, Colorado, United States, commemorating the Columbine High School massacre
 * Columbine, Routt County, Colorado, an unincorporated community and historic district in Routt County, Colorado, United States
 * Columbine Peak, a mountain in California

Massacres

 * Columbine High School massacre, a 1999 school shooting in Columbine, Colorado
 * Columbine Mine massacre, occurring during a 1927 strike by coal miners

Fictitious characters

 * Columbine (the commedia dell'arte) or Columbina, a stock character in the Commedia dell'arte
 * Columbine, a stock character in Harlequinade

Other uses in arts, entertainment, and media

 * Columbine (album), an album by Aura Dione
 * Columbine (book), a 2009 book about the school shooting
 * Columbine, a 1950 painting by Max Beckmann
 * Bowling for Columbine, a 2002 film about the school shooting
 * Columbine (band), a French hip-hop band

Biology

 * Columbine (plant) or Aquilegia, a genus of flowers
 * Stiboges nymphidia or columbine, a metalmark butterfly
 * Columbine, pertaining to birds of the family Columbidae (doves and pigeons)

People

 * Edward H. Columbine, Naval Officer

Transportation

 * Columbine, a locomotive of the Grand Junction Railway
 * Columbine, a former passenger service operated by Union Pacific Railroad
 * Columbine II and Columbine III, the Lockheed Constellation presidential aircraft used by US president Dwight D. Eisenhower
 * HMS Columbine, a list of ships of the Royal Navy
 * HMS Columbine (1806), an 18-gun Cruizer-class brig-sloop
 * HMS Wild Swan (1876) or HMS Columbine, an Osprey-class screw sloop

Other uses

 * Columbine, a racehorse in the 1842 Grand National

title: Columbine


text:
Amenable

Amenable may refer to:

 * Amenable group
 * Amenable species
 * Amenable number
 * Amenable set

title: Amenable


text:
Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)

Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) is a British private detective television series, starring Mike Pratt and Kenneth Cope respectively as the private detectives Jeff Randall and Marty Hopkirk. The series was created by Dennis Spooner and produced by Monty Berman, and was first broadcast in 1969 and 1970. In the United States, it was given the title My Partner the Ghost.

ITC Entertainment produced a single series of 26 episodes in 1968 and 1969, which was aired from September 1969 to March 1970. The pilot episode was first broadcast in the United Kingdom on 19 September 1969 by ATV in the Midlands. London Weekend Television broadcast the pilot two days later on 21 September 1969.

The series was remade in 2000, starring Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer.

Plot
In the initial episode, Marty Hopkirk is murdered during an investigation but returns as a ghost. Jeff Randall is the only main character able to see or hear him, though certain minor characters are also able to do so in various circumstances throughout the series, such as mediums, drunks, or those under hypnosis.

Conception
The idea for the series was conceived by Dennis Spooner, who had an office adjoining producer Monty Berman at Elstree Studios. They had already collaborated on The Champions. In March 1968, the pair conceived Department S. Spooner's interest in the paranormal, inspired by several feature films, contemplated the possibility of a television series featuring a ghost, and he thought a detective series would offer greater scope for storylines.

The idea was put to Head of ATV Lew Grade but he was not enthusiastic as the series lacked a leading American, which he felt would inhibit overseas sales. However, the synopsis caught the eye of Ralph Smart, who had worked on The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Invisible Man, and Danger Man and he wanted to write the pilot. This convinced Lew Grade to green-light the series.

Casting
The role of Jeff Randall, originally named Steven Randall, was considered for the comedian Dave Allen who had made Tonight with Dave Allen for Lew Grade's ATV. When Dave Allen signed for the BBC, attention turned to Mike Pratt, who had appeared in a number of episodes of various ITC series, and he was deemed to be right for the part by the production team, including Cyril Frankel, creative consultant on the series.

Marty Hopkirk proved to be more difficult to cast, and several actors were considered after the creators scoured the pages of casting resources Spotlight. Cyril Frankel was at a new Italian restaurant in Soho, London and sitting at the next table was Kenneth Cope, with his wife, and Cyril Frankel thought he would be right for the part. Cyril Frankel told Monty Berman, and then directed a screen test, and Kenneth Cope got the part.

Jean Hopkirk, not in the original concept, is portrayed by Australian actress Annette Andre. She was well known to the production team, having appeared in six episodes of The Saint as well as The Baron. She had been short listed for one of the lead roles in The Champions, but lost to Alexandra Bastedo, reportedly at the whim of an American CBS executive.

Filming and locations
Filming commenced with the pilot in May 1968 with the aim to shoot a 48-minute episode over a fortnight working Monday to Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm with some filming on alternate Sundays. The bulk of filming with the main cast was on two sound stages at ABC Elstree in Borehamwood where Department S and other series were also in production. Establishing shots would use library footage. Location sequences were usually filmed by a second unit using stand-ins or the guest cast who were only needed for one episode filmed by one director while the main cast were completing the previous episode with another director. To keep costs down, a simple jump cut was used to make Marty Hopkirk disappear and reappear. Walking through walls was costly and time consuming using an image reflected on plain glass at an angle in front of the camera often used in the theatre called Pepper's ghost.

The exterior of the Randall & Hopkirk's office was a doorway at the side of Adam's Furniture Fabric on the corner of Kymberly Road and Springfield Road in Harrow, now completely redeveloped as St George's Shopping Centre. Jeff Randall's flat was located at Hanover House, close to the corner of St John's Wood High Street, and Jean Hopkirk's flat was on Lauderdale Road, Maida Vale, London.

Numerous country houses in the northern Greater London and Hertfordshire area were used for the external shots of the many mansions featured in the series. In the episode "For the Girl Who Has Everything", the exterior of Hilfield Castle in Aldenham was used for Kim Wentworth's (Lois Maxwell's) home. The Tudor-looking Edgwarebury Hotel on Barnet Lane in Elstree, now The Manor Elstree, was used in the episodes "Who Killed Cock Robin?" and "The House on Haunted Hill" and a plethora of other ITC series. The exterior of the Lambert Clinic in the comical episode "A Disturbing Case", written by Mike Pratt himself, is now the Institute of Grocery Distribution in Letchmore Heath, Hertfordshire. The Seaton Residence, a large white house with Doric columns at the front used in "The Smile Behind the Veil" episode is the Dyrham Park Country Club, the club house of a golf club in Galley Lane, Barnet. Woburn Abbey in Woburn, Bedfordshire, is featured in the episode "The Man from Nowhere" and is visited by Jeannie and a Marty imposter.

Cars
The car Jeff Randall drove was a white Vauxhall Victor, with the registration number RXD 996F. It was also used in two episodes of Department S; in that series Joel Fabiani's character Stewart Sullivan drove a white Vauxhall Ventora with the registration RXD 997F. The red Mini used by Jean Hopkirk was registered in May 1964 and had been used in an episode of The Saint (1968), an episode of Department S (1969) and driven by Tony Curtis's character Danny Wilde in an episode of The Persuaders! (1970).

Music
The theme music was composed by Edwin Astley, who in the previous years had composed many themes and incidental music for film series produced and distributed by ITC and its forerunners. Astley used the harpsichord because of its distinctive sound and used the C minor key because of the "death" part in it. In all Astley composed 188 numbered cues used throughout the series. Music composed by Astley from The Champions was briefly used, as was music by Albert Elms from the same series. Music was also used by Astley from his own library of music, the Chappell library, and other music composed by Robert Farnon, Johnny Hawksworth, Sidney Torch, Vivaldi.

Characters and cast

 * Mike Pratt as Jeff Randall, a successful (albeit "slightly seedy" and often morally ambiguous) private detective whose success in solving mysteries becomes inevitably greater once he has the benefits and paranormal abilities of his deceased friend and partner Marty Hopkirk. Randall is short-tempered, becoming particularly irritated with certain situations and people, particularly the ghost of Marty.
 * Kenneth Cope as Marty Hopkirk, a private detective and Jeff's partner, who is murdered in the line of duty after being run down by a car travelling at high speed. Marty dies instantly, but returns to help Jeff Randall (the only living person who can see him) bring his killer to justice. Marty remains with Jeff throughout the entire series, a cynical, often perturbed character who torments Jeff as much as helps him.
 * Annette Andre as Jean (Jeannie) Hopkirk, secretary at the Randall and Hopkirk private investigation office. She is the widow of Marty. Though resourceful, she can be very naive and vulnerable, putting her own life in danger on many occasions.
 * Ivor Dean as Inspector Large (5 episodes), a lugubrious police inspector, always suspicious of Randall and looking to arrest him. Their relationship is highly adversarial, though Randall eventually helps the inspector bring the real culprits to justice.
 * Richard Kerley as Sergeant Hinds (3 episodes), Inspector Large's subordinate.
 * Judith Arthy as Jennifer (2 episodes), the sister of Jeannie, who comes to London to visit her sister.
 * Garfield Morgan (2 episodes) in different roles in each
 * Michael Griffiths as Inspector Nelson (2 episodes), a police inspector who, much like Inspector Dean, treats Randall as a criminal and the first suspect for various crimes.

A

 * Raymond Adamson
 * Neal Arden
 * Graham Armitage
 * John Arnatt
 * Robin Askwith
 * Roger Avon
 * Felix Aylmer

B

 * Anthony Baird
 * Simon Barnes
 * Patrick Barr
 * Keith Barron
 * Alexandra Bastedo
 * David Bauer
 * Norman Beaton
 * Bruce Beeby
 * Michael Beint
 * James Belchamber
 * Francis Bennett
 * Dick Bentley
 * Harold Berens
 * Paul Bertoya
 * Michael Bird
 * Norman Bird
 * Caroline Blakiston
 * Joby Blanshard
 * Brian Blessed
 * John Bott
 * Tom Bowman
 * John Boxer
 * Penny Brahms
 * Edward Brayshaw
 * James Bree
 * Susan Broderick
 * Ray Brooks
 * Arthur Brough
 * A. J. Brown
 * Gabrielle Brune
 * John Bryans
 * Denise Buckley
 * Keith Buckley
 * Alfred Burke
 * Jeremy Burnham
 * Ian Butler

C

 * Edward Caddick
 * Richard Caldicot
 * Joyce Carey
 * David Cargill
 * Veronica Carlson
 * Martin Carrol
 * Dave Carter
 * Ann Castle
 * John Cazabon
 * Clive Cazes
 * Peter Cellier
 * Nicolas Chagrin
 * Tricia Chapman
 * Tom Chatto
 * Basil Clarke
 * Carol Cleveland
 * Linda Cole
 * Michael Coles
 * John Collin
 * Patrick Connor
 * George A. Cooper
 * Billy Cornelius
 * Adrienne Corri
 * Nicholas Courtney
 * Clifford Cox
 * Tracey Crisp
 * Roger Croucher
 * James Culliford
 * Roland Curran

D

 * Henry Davies
 * Noel Davis
 * Anne De Vigier
 * Hans De Vries
 * Roger Delgado
 * Roy Desmond
 * Arnold Diamond
 * Basil Dignam
 * Carol Dilworth
 * Eric Dodson
 * James Donnelly
 * Rosemary Donnelly
 * David Downer
 * Terry Duggan
 * William Dysart

E

 * Clifford Earl
 * Meredith Edwards
 * Christopher Eedy
 * Peter Jay Elliott
 * Eva Enger
 * Norman Eshley
 * Clifford Evans
 * Tenniel Evans

F

 * Max Faulkner
 * Gerald Flood
 * David Forbes
 * Michael Forrest
 * Dudley Foster
 * Grazina Frame
 * John Fraser
 * Liz Fraser

G

 * Chris Gannon
 * John Garvin
 * Sue Gerrard
 * Alan Gifford
 * Michael Goldie
 * Michael Goodliffe
 * Howard Goorney
 * Romo Gorrara
 * Michael Gothard
 * Michael Gover
 * Michael Graham
 * Danny Green
 * Earl Green
 * Keith Grenville
 * Michael Gwynn

H

 * Patricia Haines
 * John Hallam
 * Olivia Hamnett
 * Doris Hare
 * Juliet Harmer
 * John Harvey
 * Robin Hawdon
 * David Healy
 * Thomas Heathcote
 * Maurice Hedley
 * Drewe Henley
 * Patrick Holt
 * George Howe
 * Stuart Hoyle
 * John Hughes
 * Geoffrey Hughes
 * Peter Hughes
 * Harry Hutchinson

I

 * Barrie Ingham
 * Harold Innocent

J

 * Freda Jackson
 * Philip James
 * David Jason
 * Clare Jenkins
 * Peter Jesson
 * Robin John
 * Dudley Jones
 * John Glyn-Jones
 * Peter Jones
 * Patrick Jordan

K

 * Bernard Kay
 * Dermot Kelly
 * William Kendall
 * John Kidd
 * Geoff King

L

 * Ronald Lacey
 * Charles Lamb
 * Jack Lambert
 * Duncan Lamont
 * Peter Lawrence
 * George Lee
 * Phillip Lennard
 * Valerie Leon
 * Sue Lloyd
 * Charles Lloyd-Pack
 * Harry Locke
 * David Lodge
 * Maggie London
 * Bessie Love
 * Olga Lowe
 * Cyril Luckham
 * Reg Lye

M

 * Victor Maddern
 * Philip Madoc
 * Marne Maitland
 * Marie Makino
 * Dolores Mantez
 * Anthony Marlowe
 * Makki Marseilles
 * Reginald Marsh
 * Lois Maxwell
 * Paul Maxwell
 * Jack MacGowran
 * Alan MacNaughtan
 * Neil McCallum
 * Neil McCarthy
 * Stanley Meadows
 * Mary Merrall
 * Jane Merrow
 * William Mervyn
 * Billy Milton
 * Kieron Moore
 * Charles Morgan
 * Donald Morley
 * George Murcell

N

 * Gwen Nelson
 * Patrick Newell

O

 * Brian Oulton
 * Richard Owens

P

 * Ron Pember
 * Richard Pescud
 * Terence Plummer
 * Nosher Powell

R

 * Carol Rachelle
 * Ronald Radd
 * Michael Radford
 * John Rae
 * Michael Rathborne
 * Bill Reed
 * Geoffrey Reed
 * Cyril Renison
 * Marjorie Rhodes
 * John Richmond
 * Michael Ripper
 * Colin Rix
 * Anton Rodgers
 * Edina Ronay
 * Adrian Ropes
 * Jan Rossini
 * Robert Russell
 * Madge Ryan
 * Paddy Ryan

S

 * Andrew Sachs
 * Anthony Sagar
 * Leslie Schofield
 * Alex Scott
 * George Sewell
 * Cyril Shaps
 * Ann Sharp
 * John Sharp
 * Michael Sheard
 * David Sinclair
 * Kevin Smith
 * Walter Sparrow
 * William Squire
 * Tony Steedman
 * Peter Stephens
 * David Stoll
 * John Styles
 * Dudley Sutton
 * Ingrid Sylvester

T

 * Larry Taylor
 * Nigel Terry
 * Tony Thawnton
 * Hilary Tindall
 * John A. Tinn
 * Frederick Treves

V

 * Colin Vancao
 * Peter Vaughan
 * Sue Vaughan
 * Don Vernon

W

 * John Walker
 * Gary Watson
 * Kenneth Watson
 * David Webb
 * Timothy West
 * Phillip Weston
 * Les White
 * Frank Windsor
 * Beverly Winn
 * Hilary Wontner
 * Betty Woolfe
 * Jack Woolgar
 * Katya Wyeth

Y

 * Jeremy Young
 * Raymond Young

Z

 * Nik Zaran

Episodes
Airdates given here are for London Weekend Television. It was the only ITV region to screen all 26 episodes without breaks in transmission. Other ITV regions varied airdates and transmission order.

Filming took place between May 1968 and July 1969.

Broadcast
The 26 episodes were broadcast in the UK between 26 September 1969 and 31 July 1971; ATV dropped the show after 20 odd episodes had been transmitted. In the United States it was syndicated from 1974 to 1983 under the title My Partner the Ghost. The series has been shown in 2020 in the UK on the Sony Channel, and again in 2022 on the channel Great! TV. As of January 2023, all episodes are available on ITV's free-to-air on-demand service ITVX, and Britbox Britbox.

Home media
On October 2, 2017, the complete series of Randall And Hopkirk (Deceased) was released on Blu-ray in the UK by a company called Network. It was newly remastered to HD from the original 35mm element prints. Though listed as Region B, the discs are actually Region A/B/C or Region Free, meaning they will also play in American Blu-ray players. The episodes on the discs are listed in production order instead of the air date order.

Remakes

In 2000–2001, the series was remade by Working Title Films for the BBC with a more elaborate storyline, starring Vic Reeves as Hopkirk (once again in a white suit) and Bob Mortimer as Randall, with Emilia Fox as Jeannie. Two series were made. The show was produced and primarily written by Charlie Higson, who also directed some episodes, and featured numerous writers including Gareth Roberts, Mark Gatiss, Paul Whitehouse and Jeremy Dyson. The premise of the show was the same, but the circumstances of Hopkirk's death were changed.

On 10 May 2010, the SyFy Channel announced that it had secured the rights to Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) and were looking to develop a pilot, and in January 2011, Entertainment Weekly announced that Jane Espenson and Drew Z. Greenberg would be writing a pilot for SyFy. Espenson told io9 that "The version we're proposing is quite different in tone and content from the original." She added, "We took the basic premise of a Ghost Detective and his still-living partner and invented our own take on it."

title: Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)


text:
Talk:Von Neumann conjecture

Recent work
Details of the recent work, please! Charles Matthews 06:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

 * So I have found that Sapir and Olshanskii in 2000 constructed a first finitely-presented counterexample. But the first counterexample might be much older (Olshanskii 1980)? Charles Matthews 07:02, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You are quite correct - the first counterexample (Tarski monster) was indeed due to Ol'shanskii in 1980, and it is only the fp weakening of the conjecture that is "recent". I've added something on the history, and corrected the misleading impression I gave in Thompson groups. Best wishes, Cambyses 20:08, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Slightly confusing/ungrammatical passage
I find myself unable to improve the poorly written passage because I don't know enough about the subject. Would an expert kindly explain the following to me, and/or make an adjustment to the article?: "Although his name is popularly attached to the conjecture, it does not seem that he believed the converse to be true. Rather, this suggestion was made by a number of different authors in the 1950s and 1960s; for example a statement attributed to M. Day from 1957." Which "suggestion"--that von Neumann's name be attached to the conjecture, or that von Neumann believed the conjecture's converse to be true? The clause following the semicolon does not possess both a subject and a verb and therefore cannot stand apart from the previous separated by a semicolon. (One solution may be to add a verb and quote a relevant passage from M. Day.) Robert K S (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The conjecture is that two properties "not amenable" and "containing a non-cyclic free group" are equivalent. Such conjectures are often proven in a mechanical process (which young mathematicians learn by rote in early courses).  One first shows that every thing with property A has property B, and then shows that every thing with property B has property A.  One of these steps was carried out by von Neumann.  The point of the passage was that von Neumann himself probably did not intend to suggest that the other step would succeed, even though the popular belief that it might succeed was named after him, the "von Neumann conjecture".
 * I tried to separate the A -> B and B -> A a little, but had to insert some verbiage to make it read well at all. Future editors feel free to improve/remove the superficial similarity comment, as long as the paragraph remains clear.  It was simply the first thing that came to mind when I read the article. "Oh, I guess that's a little like Tits alternative, so I can see why someone might think it is true." JackSchmidt (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Jack, your edit clears up the issue considerably. I altered it a bit to remove the posing of a question, more suited to a mathematics lecture than an encyclopedia.  I also added a fact tag to the sentence that contained the word "seems".  Whenever that word is in an encyclopedia, it suggests the uncertainty of conjecture/supposition/speculation, which should always be attributed (i.e., who did the seeming?).  Thanks again, Robert K S (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Planned change: move references inline
Standard Wikipedia behaviour is to place references inline, that is, as close as practical to the point they support. This article is already informative, but would be even better if the references it gives were moved into the body of the text in the standard way.

Supposing I can make time to do so, I will make these changes. However, if at least two weeks have gone by since I posted this note, don't let my good intentions stop you from doing it anyway! yoyo (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Von Neumann conjecture