text:
If a question has no scientific findings available for answering, is it okay to give a general opinion?
This question is in regards to this post, and more specifically, the answer provided by @Remi.b. I'm not quite sure where to begin (this is my first post in a meta.*.SE site), so I'll just start by expressing my perspective of the question/answer, and then I'll explicitly state my concern/curiosity afterwards...
So, the OP begins by pretensing their question with, what comes off to me as, a seemingly narrow assessment of how much cats do/don't like water, based off their personal experiences with their own two cats. Yes, it is a commonly accepted belief that cats aren't too fond of water, but, for all anyone knows, this could really just be a fallacy (like so many other common beliefs are). That being said, the question doesn't seem to be based on anything definitive, scientific or research-based, and really could just be birthed from perpetual confirmation bias. The OP also asks for "interesting theories" instead of hard science, but that's more of a side note (but may still suggest that the OP knows there is no hard science to make any kind of conclusive statement, and decided to ask anyway).
In an attempt to answer this question, I initially performed a few searches and came across this page, which seemed to directly address the OP's concern. The problem with the page though is that there is literally no scientific basis for their statements; nothing, at all. It's all personal opinion, and has no reliable basis whatsoever. Because of this, I chose to keep searching for other, more credible sources, but I had no luck and decided that someone else may be able to produce better sources in their answering.
Now, when considering Remi.b's answer, it is almost exactly the same as what was stated on the page I just mentioned (here), however, Remi.b claims that their answer is acceptable because they're presenting it in the context of it being a "hypothesis", and because this question is asked so often that it can be answered without supporting evidence. My issue with Remi.b's answer is the following:

There is literally zero scientific evidence for their proposed "hypotheses".
The hypotheses aren't of their own, but in fact are almost verbatim of what the forementioned site contains.
The answer does not provide a link to any of the sources from which they copied so much (claiming that they gathered their hypotheses from three sites).
There is no originality in the answer, since the hypotheses were truly the ideas of the author from the other site (Jet Perreault), of whom has also authored articles such as, "Best Grooming Tables for Small Dogs", and, "Renaming a Pet After Adoption: Good or Bad?" (which clearly isn't scientifically related).

With all of this in mind, I ask the following:

If there are no scientific findings available that address the concern(s) of an OP, is it okay to then provide nothing but opinion based answers?
If a source is (heavily) used and not directly quoted, shouldn't a link be provided?
Is it acceptable to "bend" the guidelines of Biology.SE if a question can't be answered with a scientific basis, just because a specific question is asked quite frequently?

Lastly, I will say.. I know that a great majority of the answers that are provided are in fact basically copy/pastes from credible sources, however, these kinds of formatted answers generally contain sources that are much more technical than the actual answer provided, and so, it seems to me that the function of the "answeree" is to translate the technical information into a more understandable format and verbage, but then making sure to provide a link to the study/article/research. However, in this case, there was no technical information, and the answeree didn't need to "dumb down" anything.
Collectively, these are my concerns, and I am posting this in attempts of getting a better idea of what is or isn't acceptable when providing an answer that can not be supported by scientific evidence, since there just isn't any available, and, at what point is an answer considered to be plagiarized (to the point that it's not an acceptable answer).
Thanks in advance.

If there are no scientific findings available that address the concern(s) of an OP, is it okay to then provide nothing but opinion based answers?
I personally have no problem with people providing opinion-based answers. In this community, their quality is supposed to be judged by voting (there are inherent problems with this too, but that's the system). You are also free to comment on answers and explain why you think they are incorrect or poor quality.
That said, questions that can only be answered by opinion are explicitly off-topic and should be closed.

If a source is (heavily) used and not directly quoted, shouldn't a link be provided?
Yes, absolutely. Doing otherwise is plagiarism and the answer should be deleted. This also includes images.

Is it acceptable to "bend" the guidelines of Biology.SE if a question can't be answered with a scientific basis, just because a specific question is asked quite frequently?
If a question cannot be answered, it should be closed as opinion-based. However, there is a distinction between questions that cannot be answered scientifically and those that have not been answered scientifically. I think the former would be off-topic and the latter allowed.
As for poor, opinion-based questions asked frequently, the following example comes to mind on this site. We get a lot of questions along the lines of Why do some bad traits evolve, and good ones don't? The solution was to create a single question that all similar questions could be closed as a duplicate of.

Thank you for responding and directly addressing my concerns. After reading your answer, I totally agree with your perspective. I suppose my concern stemmed from the fact that (with respect to opinion/science based statements) I was muddling the standards for questions with that of the standards for answers. And yes, I most definitely see value in providing a single post that addresses a question that's quite frequently asked, yet doesn't have such a scientifically supported answer available. Even from just the last month, I've seen that question (you mentioned) asked 3 or 4 times. TY again.

You're welcome!

"If a question cannot be answered, it should be closed as opinion-based." I strongly disagree. The fact that P/NP problem or some of the mysteries of human brain are not currently resolved questions and cannot be answered does not mean they are purely subject of opinion.

@TomášZato Well those would be examples of questions that can be answered…

@TomášZato I think the distinction is that we believe those questions have an objective answer, we just don't know what it is yet :)

@arboviral He said "cannot be answered" not "does not have an answer". If you ask me why smoking causes cancer, I cannot answer. Yet, the question has an answer. Same goes for questions with no known answer at this moment.

@TomášZato I'm pretty sure we're trying to make the same point.

@TomášZato I'm not sure why you're arguing about this. Perhaps the meaning was ambiguous, but I think arboviral clarified it well. If you want, I can edit the post to make it clearer.

Feels like I have to take a chance at answering to this meta post! I will just go through your bullet points to address my opinion and my understanding of our rules.

There is literally zero scientific evidence for their proposed "hypotheses".

When we specifically refer to a claim as a hypothesis, it generally means that there is little to not evidence for or against this hypothesis. It may result from a logical deduction or a vague intuition (which themselves can result from other findings.

The hypotheses aren't of their own, but in fact are almost verbatim of what the forementioned site contains.

Yes, I liked the terms skittish and waterlogged which I did not know before (I am an ESL), so I reused them!

The answer does not provide a link to any of the sources from which they copied so much (claiming that they gathered their hypotheses from three sites).

You're right. Mainly because I closed the windows and was lazy to get back to them. I should provide the links, I agree with you. I have now added three links to avoid being called for plagiarism.

There is no originality in the answer, since the hypotheses were truly the ideas of the author from the other site (Jet Perreault), of whom has also authored articles such as, "Best Grooming Tables for Small Dogs", and, "Renaming a Pet After Adoption: Good or Bad?" (which clearly isn't scientifically related).

There is no need for an answer to be original. We are not requested to be creative, only to be helpful.

If there are no scientific findings available that address the concern(s) of an OP, is it okay to then provide nothing but opinion based answers?

By the term opinion-based, we usually refer to a claim that lack evidence. My claim is only that some people have formulated hypotheses. I do not claim them to be true. Just like I did in this post which was well accepted.

If a source is (heavily) used and not directly quoted, shouldn't a link be provided?

Yes, I think so. Otherwise that would count as plagiarism.

Is it acceptable to "bend" the guidelines of Biology.SE if a question can't be answered with a scientific basis, just because a specific question is asked quite frequently?

I don't think I bent the guidelines. Repeating other people's hypotheses (whether these people are recognize scientists or not) is acceptable and is actually a big part of the interest that people get from our website.
Misrepresenting the readers by letting them think a hypothesis is supported by evidence while it is not would be wrong but this is not what the answer is doing.

That being said.... I am not necessarily very proud of my answer. I think it is a simple answer of little interest but I think that no one can really provide a much better answer due to a lack of research on the subject (or a perceived lack of research from me). Also, reading this meta post makes me realize that my answer lacks the non-peer reviewed sources I found and that have formulated these hypotheses before me. They have now been added.

The fact that you responded to my post, where in fact it pertains to an answer you provided, seems to have had the effect of people "taking sides", which is ultimately preventing me from getting opinions from other people. I posted on here to get feedback from the community, not to have you further emphasize your point that was already declared in the comments from the question in focus.. so thanks.

Oh come on Charles! Users reading these meta posts are clever enough to think for their own. But anyway.... What do you suggest? I doubt I should delete my answer here. You can write your own answer to your own question. That would be fine

I have already disagreed with most people from the community before twice (here and there). It is frustrating but this is part of being part of a community. Just keep up the good work.You already have numerous very good answers good such a young user. If this kind of problem repeat, you may want to come back to it later on. Btw, I did not down vote your post.

I mean, it's really not a big deal.. I just wanted to hear other peoples perspective on the matter. The fact that they can read my post, then immediately read your position and why you answered the way you did, allows for them to "choose" who they think is "right", when in fact all I'm  really looking for is clarification from other mods as to what's an acceptable answer when studies/research isn't available. Good to know you didn't downvote. thumb up

I disagree thoroughly with:
"When we specifically refer to a claim as a hypothesis, it generally means that there is little to not evidence for or against this hypothesis"
That's not what a scientific hypothesis is at all. A hypothesis is at least an educated guess, which intrinisically means there is some evidence in one direction...

@JoeHealey Well, you based your hypothesis based on previous finding, on intuition and on whatever you want but it still remain that when we refer to a concept as being a hypothesis, most of the time we are referring to a concept for which little to no evidence exist (even if technically, a supported hypothesis remains a hypothesis, it is only supported by evidence). But anyway, I do not think this philosophical issue matter much for our discussion here. I don't know whether you see your point as purely philosophic or whether you think it matters for the current post.

@Remi.b Thanks for updating your answer is that other thread, and for explaining more thoroughly your reasoning behind why you answered the way you did.


text:
Are medical terminology definitions considered off-topic?
This is the post in question. It's the first that I've seen a post of this kind since I've been active on Biology.SE, and I'm wondering: if the OP literally only asks for the meaning/origin of a medically related word (no example, no elaboration, nothing), is that still considered on-topic?
Wouldn't that kind of question be just as suited, if not better, in, perhaps, an English/Language/Literature site of SE?

I think that should be off-topic since it really has nothing to do with biology.

That was my initial thought too. And a few hours later, I'm still thinking the same.

I've added the terminology tag. The question lacks prior research effort I suppose, so it could be closed on that term perhaps.

Similar type of question, which however leads to some biological connections in the answer.

@fileunderwater I find your linked post slightly different than what I'm putting under scrutiny. In the post you link to, the OP is asking for differences between the terms and how they're used. In the case of my provided post, the user is actually asking the etymology of the words, which is quite different.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
How to handle species identification questions that have really bad image quality?
Should I VTC on species ID questions that have really bad image quality? For example, this post (no offense to the user who posted the question).
I'm aware that I should first comment and suggest that they try to provide images with better quality, but if they fail to do so [since perhaps most of the time the OP can't so easily, or at all, revisit the organism] then should the question be considered unanswerable, at which point would govern a VTC?
If so, what would be a reasonable, but not excessive, amount of time to wait before VTC? And if not, can you please explain why, since I myself would tend to think a VTC is permissible in this case. Thanks for your thoughts. :)

Vote to close is fine - questions can be re-opened after editing. Better, though, imo, is commenting (ask for a better quality image) and downvote. Close-voting should be reserved for really bad posts. In general, people seem quite reluctant to downvote. I don't know why.

It seems moderation has taken the place of downvoting on this site.

@canadianer Why do you say that? Just because I didn't mention DVing in this post, doesn't mean I'm not exercising that ability. In fact, I did DV the question I reference. I would generally do this a bit after commenting to provide better quality images. Instead though, this post is assuming that due measurements have already been taken, and the OP still can't provide a dependable image. Your statement may still be valid, but please don't let it be motivated by this post. :)

@Charles That was directed at AliceD's comment "...people seem quite reluctant to downvote." To answer your question, I would vote to close if you think an ID cannot be made.

@canadianer Oh, hah.. my mistake. And thanks for your opinion on the matter.

I think if the images are poor but a description and list of requested details (e.g., location, size, etc.) are included, then the post should be left open. More generally, a close vote would only be valid in this instance if you could select "unclear what you're asking." The OP can be clear in what they're asking without providing good pictures. Pictures are strongly preferred for species ID questions but not required. In instances with bad photos that otherwise are detailed, I think it's up to each user to downvote (and preferably comment why they did so) the question, not VTC.

The SE guidelines say to vote early and vote often*.
If the important image for an identification question is "unclear", then the question is probably "unclear" as well, unless of course the OP acknowledges that there is not much they can do about the image and they instead give a detailed description of what they saw.
So, I'd expect an "unclear" question to be closed as "unclear" so as to prevent answers based on pure assumptions. We don't want it to become a guessing game, I suppose.
And naturally, if a question or answer, in it's current state, is "not useful", then as the tooltip for the downvote button suggests, do downvote it.
*For a beta site, there may be some exceptions, per-site, chosen by the community.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What to do when another user copies your answer?
I tried to answer a question, and after a while another user gives almost exactly the same answer. What is the purpose of this? Why do other users replicate an answer? Is it normal that every question is answered multiple times with the same answer? Isn't that redundancy?
According to SE policy, posts should be improved by comments or edits, not by copying? On other SE sites I have never seen this.
Gene density percentage

The whole idea behind the stack network is to generate multiple answers such that the best is voted to the top.
Having said that, Remi.b's answer is indeed somewhat of a duplicate answer. But in this case, given the question is kind of a facts question, generating a second answer can only be realized by duping prior ones, as the only correct answer is 85% = ORF = protein -- 15% = regulatory. If another users wishes to add another answer, it can't be left out or substituted because then the answer is incorrect. The only thing that can be added are additional sources (that's what Remi.b did) or add additional information, backgrounds or images.
In all, I think the answer is kind of a dupe, but reasonable given the type of question.
Of course they could have opted to comment below yours to generate a better answer out of yours, but that's not a hard rule.

de novo? Are you serious? Even my examples are copied literally in same order (regulatory, repeats, or other). Well, it seems a bit political here on this SE site, maybe I should start a question here asking how to get out of a waps nest...

@b.nota why did you delete your answer? With an added source I'm happy to upvote it and remove that banner. Multiple answers are encouraged. It's not a matter of the best one survives you know.

The "source" given in Remi's answer actually has nothing to do with the answer to the question. Additionally, it is not a reference to scientific literature or even a text book but rather is a video by someone of indeterminate knowledge. I really don't in understand the logic behind saying b.nota's answer requires sources whereas Remi's does not.

@canadianer wow big oops there. Thanks. I've adapted my answer here. I'll check those links the next time. Thanks for your feedback

Thanks @canadianer, I didn't understand either why a link to central dogma would help OP. As if someone that asks how to calculate % of genic in genome doesn't now what central dogma is...

I deleted my answer, because I don't think duplicate answers are helpful. If Remi.D wants more rep. its all his.

@b.nota I see where you are heading at. The problem is that your answer is not the suspected dupe, but Remi's is. I'd rather see your answer out there. FWIW,  Given Canadianer's comment I've removed my upvote for remi.

For me it's not about votes, I just wanted to give the OP an answer. And I am not upset, I am FURIOUS. And now I'm joking. Just leave it, I just couldn't understand why a top user is showing this behavior, that's all.

@b.nota yeah I'm sorry about all this, but I'm still happy we are having this discussion. Honestly, I wouldn't have added another answer and I would like to see your answer back up. As a mod I can do that, but I'll leave it up to you.

Haha, since this message here on meta, I recieve a -1 vote for every answer I post. There most be a lot of high school teen agers around here?

What is all this about? There is only one answer when I follow the link, which is RemiB's. I have just downvoted it for the reasons I give in my comment. If it is a copy of b.nota's he should be glad of that.

@David - OP deleted their own answer. Here is the permalink - I am curious if it will work on your end.

@AliceD — No. It doesn't work for me. Water under the bridge anyway. Got involved in a "polite discussion" on SE English Language & Usage recently over what a mod implied was plagiarism by another poster. Area in which to tread carefully, I think.

@David - yes this one post was a minefield too and I was actually politely reprimanded by another mod. Things can turn quickly for the worse, even with the best intentions.


text:
Scientific names in the titles of questions — what to do?
We all know that scientific names must be italicised. However, Stack Exchange does not support markdown for question's title.
This can create a problem in questions like this one, in which I edited the genus and species names in the body of the question, but obviously I couldn't do the same in the title of the question. Technically speaking the title is wrong the way it is now (italicising the name is not optional: we must italicise it).
So, we can do two things regarding scientific names (and also genus names) in the question's title:

Nothing. Leave them the way they are now.
Propose an alternative to highlight the name.

I wrote highlight above because old people here (like me) will remember that, in the time of typewriters and before personal computers became popular, the rule was not italicising the name, but highlighting it somehow, and the most common way those days was using an underline (like B̲o̲s̲ t̲a̲u̲r̲u̲s̲).
Underlines as such were deprecated in HTML5 and don't work with markdown... even if they did we would face the same problem of using markdown in the title.
So, my suggestion is using quotation marks (") for highlighting scientific names in question's title.
That way, instead of something like this is the title:

How many teeth does Canis lupus have?

We would have:

How many teeth does "Canis lupus" have?

This suggestion, if agreed upon, is not for (normally new) users writing the questions, but for people editing them.
Edit in 10/12/2017
So far we have two nice answers (one using LaTeX and other using Unicode). I like both, and we could reach a consensus. However, both of them have drawbacks, not working on all user agents (aka browsers) and OS.
Therefore, it seems to me that the solution will end up being doing "nothing", that is, leaving those titles the way they are now.
Edit in 12/12/2017
Unfortunately, Unicode is out: read this comment. This leaves us with LaTeX or "nothing", which increasingly seems to be the better option.

I understand the problem, and would like to see that italics would be used for latin names, also in titles. However, if that is not possible, I think making up our own rules of marking down would be impossible and maybe even be frustrating for new users that are not aware of these local rules.

How about we don't use species names in titles, i.e. edit them out, if necessary? The subject can be introduced by the colloquial name in the title and the exact species will be...specified in the question's body. So how about: "How many teeth do dogs have?" "I know that dogs (Canis lupus) have very sharp fangs, but how many teeth do they have in total?" If the exact species matters a lot for the question we could say in the title: "a species of X" and then give the species name in the body.

Alternatively, I believe we can have MathJax in titles, so how about $Canis$ $lupus$ ? The text is not exactly italicized but it comes close.

Sorry but your example gives some issues already, Canis lupus is a wolf not a dog. Furthermore, especially many less known species would be difficult to translate to common English names.

@b.nota Yes, of course, I was wrong, but it does not matter at all for the proposal. You are right that this would not work for species that have no colloquial name, but I failed to find any questions with such species names in their title with a brief search. If they exist, they are going to be very, very rare. I tend to favour my second suggestion, btw.

Yes we can use LaTeX in titles, but (1) it looks odd to have two different fonts and (2) I think it would have the same issues as described in the meta post linked to in the question.

@b.nota Canis lupus is the scientific name for both wolves and dogs (technically speaking we could say just "wolves", since dogs are wolves). Other than that I agree with you in your comment: using common names is not a good alternative, it will raise even more problems (sorry for criticising your suggestion, vkehayas).

Quotation marks are used for names not validly published.

I believe Martin is talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undescribed_taxon. Even that being the case, I still reckon that this option (using quotation marks) is better than leaving the name the way it is now, without any highlighting. But that`s a good point against the "quotation marks" solution, thanks for that.

If you can't see the latin in Canis Lupus and need a "marker" to realize it (and you are writing in a Biology Forum), then the question is just a mannerism.

@Billeeb Most people here are professionals (I am, since 25 years ago), we all know what Canis lupus is. That's not the point. The point is that Canis lupus is wrong, it must be Canis lupus. That's a basic taxonomic rule that must be followed by any kind of publication. By the way, with very rare exceptions, you cannot capitalise the specific epithet, as you did in your comment.

@vkehayas Great. And for many other similar "template" like situations, SE sites provides  different MathJax and LaTex plug-ins. For example Music stackexchange have their special plugins. I also wish we should have plug-ins for writing floral-formulae and floral diagrams (for angiospermic plants), dental formulae (vertebrates), etc.

@vkehayas And also the MathJax fonts look like fonts of old taxonomic keys, indeed.

I agree that the inability to italicize scientific names is annoying. However, in the absence of being able to italicize the names directly in the title, I think any other solution would be too arbitrary, hard to "teach" others to use consistently, or result in other issues (e.g., searchability or rendering issues using some browsers).  I am directly opposed to eliminating scientific names from titles as one comment suggests, and instead just say we all deal with it and make sure scientific names are italicized properly in the body of the text.

Why are italics in the title "out of question"? This site wasn't made by a god out of contact, was it?

@Rodrigo The problem is that the search engines will see something like *Canis lupus*; instead of Canis lupus.

@GerardoFurtado I think both would appear as a result for "Canis lupus" search, so still don't see what the problem is.

Just use unicode
For example Canis lupus can be written as  . I did not use markdown for that, but unicode characters, which does work in question titles. You can use this utility to convert regular text to italic text (I was using the Math sans italic font). This one also looks good.

This seems like the best option. A question from someone with limited programming knowledge: if you searched for Canis lupus, would the Unicode version be found?

Depends how you search for it. It appears that Google doesn't care. Neither does Stackexchange.

I was thinking of the inverse search. Searching for Canis lupus doesn't seem to recognize  .

@canadianer What do you mean? This answer showed up in the search.

The search recognizes Canis lupus from this answer, but does it recognize  ? In other words, if a post only contained only the phrase  , will a search for Canis lupus find it?

This link would seem to suggest so.  The sandbox is a good place to play around with this.

Ah okay, thanks. And thanks for the link to the sandbox, I was unaware such a place existed.

In the app at least what you wrote appears as boxes, it's not rendered.

@PyRulez Unicode is not that simple unfortunately. For instance, I'm seeing the mobile page using chrome for mobile and it's not showing anything, just a bunch of boxes. So, at least for this browser, this is not an option.

@GerardoFurtado Hmm, how about  ? Or  ?

Nope, just boxes.

For what it’s worth, this renders fine in the app for iOS.

I was using the Android app. Is that a bug of the Android app then? @canadianer Does it also show up correctly in a browser in your device?

@PyRulez Just to let you know, it's working on my laptop. The problem seems to be that the HTML entities you chose are not covered by the android fonts. This is what I was seeing on my mobile, scroll down to "android". I am a web developer (Javascript), and I know that it is a pain in the neck writing a code that works on all user agents. So, I'd like to say that I liked your solution very much, but we have to find Unicode characters that work with Android, Windows, Linux, OS X, iOS etc...

@GerardoFurtado Is there a list of unicode characters that all implementations are required to support? Or that most support?

@PyRulez not that I'm aware of.

Please don’t do this.

This is really not worth bothering about.
The standard of titles on SE Biology is in general awful: lack of initial capitals, lack of question marks and poor English. It would be nice if it were possible to apply more sophisticated markup to titles for other reasons (subscripts, Greek characters), but, until SE does that, there is nothing to be done.
In my opinion energy would be better spent ensuring that titles are clear, appropriate and indexable.

Yes, since I speak a broken English I'll refrain from editing questions (and writing answers) on BioSE from now on, thanks for your advice. By the way you left a dash and a colon in your edit, that doesn't exist in English (or in any other 4 languages I speak).

And that's precisely why I said that, following your wise advice, I'll not write here anymore. Have a lovely life.

@GerardoFurtado — I'm sorry you seem to have taken offence. I did not mean to imply you should not contribute. Only that your written English is far better than my written German (or French, or Italian).  Your point is deemed a valid one by other people. I just happen to disagree. Others have marked my answer down. That's life.

This question is not about the use of English and we are not here to learn English. Hence, your last paragraph is uncalled for which is why I can easily see how @GerardoFurtado may have taken offence. Feel free to open a new question about the subject or edit more posts as you have.

@vkehayas  Oh dear. They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I have edited my answer and removed an associated comment. I trust it no longer causes offence.

This is not an answer, but I thought it may be useful to show, since it was suggested in the comments, what LaTeX would look like for this use case. Note that this may suffer the same pitfalls as outlined in this meta post.
$Canis\ lupus$

$Canis\ lupus$

That's an interesting option. Does LaTeX work in the title as well?

@GerardoFurtado Sometimes. It works in Edge, Chrome and Safari, but not in the SE app nor, apparently, will search engines render it correctly.

In the app, for example, it will appear as $Canis\ lupus$

If you search for "Canis" it will appear in the results, though.

@vkehayas I don't think the worry is searching, I think the worry is that it is not rendered properly in some clients.

Why do you add the "" into the description? If you want to use a small space, this would be ",".

@Chris Why? Because, beyond this site, I've never used LaTeX for anything and was unaware that that existed. The output seems the same, though.

@canadianer True, but at least it appears as text where it is not rendered (contrary to the Unicode alternative), and can be searched within stackexchange.

Ah, I see. In LaTeX a "" usually introduces a command, so it is one of the "protected" characters when writing texts. If it is followed by a blank, it is at best ignored, at worst it will crash the compilation of the text.

This font indeed looks like fonts used in old taxonomic keys.


text:
Is Dawkins' meme theory biology?
In The Selfish Gene Dawkins puts forward the idea that "replicators" are the cause of "life" and that the principles of replicators and Natural Selection are universal, not just across space, but across concepts.
Just as genes are replicators, Dawkins described memes as replicators as well.
Now, organisms, the subject of biology, are "vehicles" for the replicator genes. With further ideas from Dawkins' Extended Phenotype, it goes to follow that memes are an extension of the vehicles (organisms), which in turn are an extension of the replicators (genes). Therefore, study of memes can be focused into biology, right?
So questions like the following might be allowed here:

How has [meme] affected [gene]?

Example: How has varying conceptions of beauty affected superficial attributes, like hair and eyes?

How has [gene] affected [meme]?

Example: What part did genetics play in determining taboos like incest and cannibalism?

Does [meme] have any observable effect on [gene]?

Example: Does religious objection to contraception effect genetic propensity to conceive?

Does [gene] have any observable effect on [meme]?

Example: Does genetic propensity to conceive influence beliefs against contraception?
Opinions? I think Dawkins' meme theory makes a tidy connection between biology and sociology, but I don't want to call it biology. This could just be because I'm used to more traditional outlooks on biology.

Could this have been asked on main, without solicitation for opinion?

Did you mean [tag:sociobiology]?

@andrew That's close, but Dawkins' definition of meme is nearly synonymous with "idea". He puts forth "fear of hellfire" and "'for the sake of auld lang syne" (incorrect words to a song) as examples of self-replicating ideas. I don't know if things like greed and monogamy were in mind. He spends a lot of time discussing altruism, but that's leading up to the chapter on memes. He leaves the impression, to me, that it's an extension of biology, but never explicitly says it. If it's not, then the chapter is out of place in the book.

@fredsbend "If it's not, then the chapter is out of place in the book." - That's kind of up to the author, not you. You could make a similar argument for physics: all biology involves complex chemical reactions and interactions, which at their heart are based on physical interactions between matter, but that doesn't make a question about biological taxonomy on-topic at Physics.SE.

@Bryan Right, that's my point, but I have trouble seeing that in this instance.

@fredsbend I think I was unclear in my comment. I see no reason to use the organization of someone's book to inform what questions are on or off topic at Biology.SE.

I think some of the questions could be asked here at BioSE in a meaningful way, if it is done cautiously and focusing on the biological connections. For instance, I could see versions of #2 being relevant and biologically interesting. Answers there could e.g. use comparative methods to look at biological/evolutionary consequences of incest and cannibalism, the evolutionary processes that might influence behaviour, and draw parallels to how these processes might have affected human taboos. This is clearly bordering to evolutionary psychology. The tricky part is knowing at what point biology stops being the main driver and when "culture" becomes the driving factor. Even so, I think the question (and other similar) would be valid. BioSE allows for quite some diversity as it is.
(moved from comment to answer).

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


text:
How exactly do respirators seal out pathogens?
Which Stack Exchange would befit How exactly do respirators seal out pathogens??
I'm uncertain why moderator Bryan Krause closed this question on pathogens as off-topic. It can be asked for any surgical mask, not just 'construction of respirators'.

The question is on the engineering of a medical device and that's not our cup of tea, so Bryan rightfully closed it, responding to other votes from our community.
However, the question is well researched and of too good a quality to be just buried and forgotten. So the mod team re-opened it for you and transferred it over to our medical experts on Medical Sciences SE.
Thanks for bringing this up in meta.

Update
MedSci rejected the Q too, based on

A doctor doesn't need to know a single thing about how respirators work

Which I found an interesting note....
Anyway, I brought it too Engineering Meta.SE and let's see what they have to say about this.

Update
Engineering.SE accepted the question on its main site

Thanks for the support! Medical Sciences SE rejected the migration. Where else ought it be migrated?

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


text:
Can the Ebola, Measles, Coronaviruses somehow lead to a new deadlier virus?
After some research, I don't grasp how Can the Ebola, Measles, Coronaviruses somehow lead to a new deadlier virus? can be opinion-based. I didn't know it when I wrote the question, but it involves Genetic Recombination, so a layperson would have reasonable cause to ask my question.

One specific type of mutation that a virus can undergo is called "genetic recombination." Since viruses rely on human (or other organism) cells in order to produce their genetic material, if two viruses infect the same cell at the same time, this genetic material is in close contact, and can "cross-over." A layperson has reasonable probable cause to think that

Can Ebola, Measles and SARS-CoV-2 mingle and spawn a new deadlier virus? : answers

Viruses don't generally have any way to exchange genetic material with each other, no, except in very specific cases like Mimivirus, which can only infect its host if that host has first been infected by another virus named Sputnik, and there's evidence of gene transfer between those viruses.

At minimum, future readers would benefit from knowing the answer that someone adduced by Julia Oh B.A. in biology from Harvard University and her Ph.D. in genetics at Stanford University, rather than seeing my question closed without none.

The virus that caused the Spanish flu didn't exist before 1918. Experts think that it was a mix of human and bird flu viruses.
Most likely someone was infected by both a bird and a human flu virus. The bird flu probably picked up some parts from the human virus that made it easier to spread and harder for the body to fight off.
But, this kind of thing can't happen with the cold virus and Ebola. To be able to do this kind of mixing and matching, the viruses need to have very similar genetic material. And the cold virus and Ebola do not.

We close questions as "opinion-based" when they rely on guesses and speculation rather than facts that can be cited and referenced. See also
Why are opinion based questions not allowed?
Can this question about zombie virus be on topic on Biology StackExchange?
You might be able to ask questions about how genetic material from viruses can be combined, but you'd need to show some further research demonstrating plausibility and some effort towards an answer.

Does my edit change your answer?

Also, why was my question closed when https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/89958 wasn't?

@Accounting Best not to defend one poor question with another.


text:
Add a tag for scientific names
A tag for scientific names would be helpful. It would be appropriate for the first question I asked here. Please add it?

Tags can be added by anyone with >150 rep. Not sure I see a need for this particular tag, but if you do want to advocate for one I'd suggest including a collection of several questions, with links, where you think that tag would be helpful. Remember that tags aren't good for making things on-topic but are mostly so that people with relevant expertise can follow a subject and easily track posts on that subject (including getting alerts when questions are posted). Probably [tag:species-identification] covers a lot of these.

There is already a tag for nomenclature which should cover your needs. This is meant to be used for:

The principles, conventions, and terms used to systematically classify biological information, entities, processes, but also subfields of biology.

Several Qs on species names are also already tagged by this tag. Or is there a specific reason why you think this is insufficient?


text:
Why was I suspended for 30 days for "plagiarism", when I linked to and blockquoted a Reddit comment?
I screenshot this now deleted post. As anyone could've seen then, and you can see now, I blockquoted, and linked to, that Reddit comment. Doubtless I never intended to "plagiarize".
I admit my citation doesn't follow the 3 major citation styles, but I don't think Biology SE requires them? I can't recall the exact wording, but when I messaged our moderators, a moderator replied the Reddit comment was "weakly attributed".
Then I replied that even if "weakly attributed", I oughtn't be suspended for:

I was eager to rectify the issue by citing the comment however the moderator desired.

the issue could be effortlessly rectified not only by me, but any moderator.

this is the first time that a moderator has accused me of plagiarism here. Other Stack Exchanges  freely allow Reddit comments linked to, and blockquoted, as I did.

I was never given a chance to explain. I was suspended for 30 days forthwith after Prof. Krause deleted my post.

But I didn't receive a reply, and I was suspended for the 30 days.

Based solely on your description of events, it’s absurd that your question was deleted by a moderator and even more absurd that you were banned for 30 days. You might try contacting Stack Exchange about this.

@canadianer Thanks for your understanding. Of course I stand to be corrected if my description of events isn't accurate. I'm hoping for someone to reply here, before contacting SE.

I welcome you to contact SE.

It's always difficult to judge these issues from the outside, I can't see any information only moderators would have. So I'll try to keep my comments to the general issues around the things you have made public.
A 30 day suspension is unusual as the first suspension, the typical progression is 7, 30, 365 days. Sometimes a longer suspension is issued even for the first rule violation, but that is not all that common and mostly for something like extremely offensive comments or other kinds of significant misbehaviour. For not attributing a quote properly I would generally start with a warning only.
The attribution of the quote is quite hidden, so I'd certainly agree that this could be improved. This doesn't go as far as plagiarism in my opinion as it's still marked clearly as a quote, it's just potentially confusing what exactly are you quoting.
The post has some quality issues, I found it rather confusing and I'm not sure what exactly the question is. Though that certainly isn't enough for a suspension unless you have a ton of bad deleted posts I can't see.
In summary, the description of the events and the punishment don't fit together in my opinion. But the community can't really judge specific events like this, as the important information is only visible to you and the moderators. So this is a case where you can contact SE directly.


text:
Expert opinion and answers to species identification questions. Why not?
The reputation system used by Stack Exchange to rate replies to questions, and to rate those who provide answers, is based on scores given by editors and users with sufficient reputation points. It is a reasonable approach for technical questions where it is not difficult to provide conclusive answers using reputable information sources, such as official documentation for a computer language.
By contrast, species identification questions that rely solely on a photograph do not fall in the same category. You can not provide conclusive documentation for a photo. You can only provide circumstantial evidence. That means that the quality of putative species identifications is subjective and should not be given the same weight as answers that can be supported by conclusive documentation.
Yet we have people down-voting replies to species IDs because of 'lack of evidence'. Hogwash!
There has been lengthy discussion on Biology meta about the pros and cons of posting species identification questions. But I don't see much discussion about answering such questions. For posters, there are guidelines (e.g. Welcome to Biology.SE! Identifications questions should include...). What about for replies?
I am particularly interested in the question of experts vs laypeople. Here is the issue:
Some species are are well-known to the general public (dogs, cats, goldfish), others to specialists only (insects, amphibians, fungi).

In these cases, expertise in the particular taxonomic would lend credibility to species identification.

But Stack Exchange permits only circumstantial evidence in species identifications, and provides no avenue for expert opinion.

The general public and the US court system rely on experts to answer questions regarding species identification. For example, I once provided expert witness testimony on the identification of an insect found in a candy bar. I have two degrees in zoology and a Ph.D. in biology, and have worked as a professional entomologist and as a professional herpetologist. Those credentials are considered sufficient to make me an "expert" and to raise the status of my opinion above the average person. Yet on Stack Exchange, there is no way to distinguish my level of expertise when I identify a specimen from a photo.
To me, the idea that a citation or other information can unequivocally identify a species from a photo alone is ludicrous. Biologists use taxonomic keys or DNA when a conclusive species identification is required. Sure, one could provide evidence based on coloration, pattern, morphology, and size. But 1) individuals of a species show variation in these traits, and 2) such evidence can only suggest an identification, not provide a conclusive answer.
On the other hand, someone with the proper education and years of experience in identifying species from specific taxonomic groups can provide reliable identifications. A grey wolf specialist with 20 years in the field should be considered a reliable source on the identity of a wolf from a photo. Her opinion should be given greater status than someone lacking her background.
I'm sure I am not the first to suggest a system that recognizes education and experience when judging replies to ID questions. The same reasoning could be applied to any of the topical areas of Stack Exchange.
And I realize that I am opening a can of worms just by asking this question. I have only scratched the surface of issues that could be (and perhaps have been) raised.
Still I believe the question merits discussion. Why not include education and experience in reputation scores and when judging the reliability of replies to questions?

We don't verify the authority of people answering questions, so purported authority/education/experience of the poster are not valid reasons for voting. This is SE Biology, not a US court, and we very much value experience and expertise when they are directed into writing informed answers, but not so much degrees and titles (neither of which contribute to good answers by themselves).
I think you are misunderstanding the reason for downvotes on species ID answers. If you are getting downvotes for "lack of evidence" it's because you haven't explained your answer. That's a general principle that applies to all types of Q&A here. We want detailed answers that educate: explanations of how you know are key to an informative answer, even if it can sometimes be harder for an expert to explain exactly how they identify some species.
It's very common for species ID answers to be at least partly unsure of the exact species.  There's nothing wrong with that; if anything, it's probably much easier for an expert to know how unsure they are. That's almost always sufficient for the people asking the questions, who tend to be a lay audience asking out of curiosity or for practical reasons.

Fair enough. Perhaps Stack Exchange editors could be more transparent about why they downvote. Simply assigning a minus one without explanation (which is what happened to me, twice) is not very helpful.

@prefectionist It's been discussed ad nauseum at the main meta (and I think people have raised it before here, too), https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/encouraging-people-to-explain-downvotes for example. It's not a perfect system, but the short story is that comments can be used to explain downvotes, but it's not required. I think people get bored explaining the same reasons over and over, and people who explain their votes can be subject to revenge downvoting, abusive comments, etc that train them to avoid it.

In general, I think Biology is better than some of the other stacks at explaining downvotes. You can always come to meta, or maybe even chat, and as long as you ask politely I think you'll get a polite answer. Also sometimes someone who didn't downvote but sees the negative score will offer an opinion of why they think someone voted that way.

Here's the thing Bryan. What's the point of Stack Biology? Is it trying to be an academic resources, along the lines of a scientific journal? Are people expected to conduct research and provide references to back up claims? Or is it simply a public forum where knowledgeable people can share their knowledge with less experienced people in an open informal exchange? Requiring citations for answers to "what kind of dog is this?" is just being egotistical IMO.

I received -4 to my post. LOL At this point SE Biology has lost its appeal. You're no fun anymore. : P

@perfectioneist: regarding purpose: The [tour] explains Bio.SE to be a Q&A site for biology researchers, academics, and students... However, what's this mean in practice? Well, that's actually a matter of existing discussion (e.g., see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc)

@perfectionist you received -4 to your post because at least 4 people likely disagree with your rationale or statement in some kind of way. Voting on meta is often reflective of personal opinions relating to the posts under question. Don't take this personally -- this is why we have meta (where voting doesn't "count" against you). You made a proposal, and the community disagrees. If you spend more time here (or anywhere on the internet) you'll find a lot of people claiming to be experts (whether true or not) and making wrong, or misleading ID's...

@prefectionist Science is built on citation; I don't see asking for citations as egotistical. To the contrary, "just trust me I'm an expert" seems to fit that description. As a whole, Stack Exchange intends to make a repository of useful Q&A, not just to answer the questions that individuals have. For species ID questions in particular, I see the explanations as critical for serving that purpose. It lets the next reader learn and possibly complete their own ID on the similar organism they have in front of them, rather than needing to ask their own separate question.

Regardless of your (or anyone's) own legitimacy or expertise, the internet doesn't know that about you (nor should users passing through necessarily believe that to be true about you -- there are plenty of "fake" experts out there). Having a more formal source of info allows users to check in on the legitimacy of something more completely & objectively. It also enables them to use your source as a doorway to learning more about the topic. Take a look through Yahoo answers or Quora and see how many "legitimate" answers from "experts" are wrong -- without regular citing practices, users will never know one way or the other
We want posts to demonstrate your line of thinking. If you're an expert, then expand someone else's understanding. Walk them through your thought process using reputable links, pictures, guides, keys, etc. If you learned to ID something personally using a "gestalt" approach, take the time to confirm a resource that backs up what you always believed to be true. Everyone walks away understanding more about the subject organism. No one should believe you just because you're an expert. In the age of internet misinformation, we need to be explicit, demonstrative and well-cited when teaching others
also, certain individuals here have demonstrated themselves to be experts. Often the way you write posts (vocab, resources you link, etc.) paint a picture of who you are as a biologist and where your expertise lies. So, pad your answers with the best evidence you can, do so in an informed and formal manner, answer a few more questions the same way, and you'll certainly pick up a reputation here. You can comment about your expertise in your bio, too, as people will go looking to find out who this new "expert" is that's giving a bunch of good answers ;). Thanks for your efforts.

so what you seem to be saying is: SE Biology is a teaching site. A place where people come to ask questions and other people attempt to answer them. But what you discount is the chilling effect of pedantic moderators who themselves act as experts, can anonymously censure others, but can not themselves be censured. Who are you to say that someone's citations are sufficient or even relevant? What prevents a rogue moderator with a grudge from simply downvoting whoever they want? I like the premise of the site, but the implementation needs work my friend.

"certain individuals here have demonstrated themselves to be experts" Don't you see how ironic that statement is? First you deplore expert opinion, and next you raise it as a shining emblem of success. Demonstrated to who? Who are you to decide what is evidence and what is not? You can discount credentials all you want on SE, but they matter in the real world. Degrees are not mere titles but the results of years of hard work, and for higher degrees, a vetting process of peer reviewed original research. Would you prefer open heart surgery from a surgeon or a random guy who cites papers?

"Often the way you write posts (vocab, resources you link, etc.) paint a picture of who you are" and here lies an important and revealing truth. SE moderators are biased. Let's give biased people policing powers over others. What could possibly go wrong?  I'm sorry but you guys have constructed a walled garden here. As an experiment in self-moderated scholarship, SE Biology suffers from the usual flaws of cliqueishness, intolerance, and self-congratulatory BS that bedevils all social groups. It could be a truly open forum for discussion, but for the anonymous policing of participants.

may the downvoting commence! LOL

@perfectionist well I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm certainly not going to engage you in any argumentative fashion. I'll just simply state 1) we have 4 mods and some amount of across-SE moderation to provide checks + balances to prevent unfair moderation and 2) mods were all voted on by the community. Ultimately, it's the community that decides the value of your posts through voting. Does that reflect "expertise"? Unfortunately, not as likely as 6 years ago given our transition from mostly professionals to mostly students here. If we all cite sources, it doesn't matter what your status is

I appreciate you comments and I apologize for getting my hackles up. My goal is to provide (hopefully) constructive criticism and perhaps rock the boat a bit. We are all students, it's just that some of us have been at it longer.

You're right that all social groups have flaws, and I certainly don't promote the SE network as any model of perfection (ever post over at SO? :p). Given that mods will only delete harmful material here, the worst you'll likely get from a mod is a post notice to add citations and a comment. You've claimed to be an expert and used to hard work, so you know this is the expectation across the sciences. So just provide citations to support your work. This site is not a discussion forum (though see our chat), but rather a Q&A site trying to maintain scientific truth and rigor. Just add citations!

Okay I get it. Citations talk, bullshit walks.

Yes. Community members can judge your sources a lot easier than they can judge your expertise.... But that doesn't mean expertise isn't welcome (and in fact absolutely wanted) here. Experts know their fields and all the nuances that go with them. So experts can plug the community into the most informed and rigorously supported answers -- with the most thorough and reputable sources! So, please consider applying your expertise here within our guidelines -- it'll be appreciated. You can remain active on meta to discuss improvements, but know that the core values are unlikely to change

" the core values are unlikely to change"
social systems/websites are like species; a few evolve into something new. Most fail to change and disappear into the gaping jaws of extinction.

Getting back to my original question, and after reading the posts linked by @theforestecologist, I think it's important to make a distinction between research questions ("what are the implications of Taylor's Power Law for community dynamics?"), and species identification ("what kind of butterfly is this?). Citations definitely make sense for the former. I'm not convinced they do for the latter. As I said, you can't use a taxonomic key on a photo. You can only compare a photo to a another with a verifiable provenance. Things like toe counts are not reliable (toes can be lost).

perhaps it would be better to start a separate new question.

Comments aren't for extended discussion (this has already extended quite far), so yes please address tangential questions in new posts. Species ID came up a lot early on in the site's history as well as more recently, so you should find a lot of previous discussion on Meta already exists. The same is true regarding citations in one's answer. Please do a thorough search concerning these prior posts to see if a similar question has been asked before, and you can add to that existing discussion. (I'm surprised you're this adamant about not providing support for your answers...). Good luck.


text:
Question migration
This question was asked in Biology and migrated to the Gardening SE yesterday. https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/65239/stages-of-leaf-drop-in-trees
As I note in a comment there:
While this question could probably be answered here, it was focused more on tree biology: what causes a tree to drop leaves from one (arguably arbitrary) horizontal layer of its canopy.
I don't know how this question is off-topic for Biology? Is it because it's a yard tree, that makes it a gardening question? I imagine that if I had left out the setting of the tree, it would still be in Biology. I don't see ID questions about insects that appear in people's houses migrated to the Home Improvement SE.

I migrated it since you seemed to be concerned with the care of your tree. For a Biology question, I'd expect some biology background to the question rather than just an expression of curiosity.

Before asking, I did a web search with terms similar to this [Google Scholar search[(https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C34&q=difference+in+leaf+drop+levels+of+tree+canopy&btnG=). There aren't results relevant to my question. I understand why trees lose leaves. But I don't know what explains what I am seeing, thus my question. I can't give biology for something with which I don't have experience. If I had some idea of why, I would have said what I thought and asked for affirmation or otherwise. I only gave the context I did to indicate that the tree likely isn't dying or sick.

I guess I'm still not understanding why you don't think your question is well-suited to the Gardening StackExchange, that seems like the best place to consult with people who would be familiar with what might be stressing your plant. If you were looking for a Biology answer I might expect mention of a signaling pathway: receptor proteins, messenger molecules, etc.

There are people who ask for animal IDs. They don't provide signal pathways. At the moment, there is a question about knuckle popping on Biology with no mention of anything related to molecules. I'm not expecting the tree to be stressed. It's getting to fall, and while it's early, it's been hot. I know what drought deciduous means and maybe it's related, but again, I would expect the whole canopy to be affected, not one horizontal layer. I don't know why a bird ID or knuckle popping is suited to Biology, but a question about (apparent) spatially selective leaf drop isn't.

Also, I didn't ask for help caring for the tree (gardening), because I don't think there is a problem. I'm curious if this something about trees and leaf drop that I was not aware of (tree biology).

I don't mean to suggest that every question here need be about signal pathways, but for your particular question I do think that things like causes of early leaf drop in a tree in your yard are best suited to a gardening context, where gardeners and landscapers are experts in care for plants and are a great resource for plant health issues.

Biologists and ecologists would certainly be interested in things like: proteins and molecular signaling pathways that lead to dropped leaves, biochemical changes in leaves that result, ecological-scale changes in leaves dropping, etc. I just thought your particular question was best at home with the people most equipped to answer it. If you re-post it here with background beyond what you already provided that clearly positions your question as at-home in a biology context, such as using references to scholarly work in biology, that's fine by me.

Similarly, if you're asking why your house is tipping over on the Physics site, they're probably going to point you to a home improvement resource because, even though physics is certainly involved, it would appear you are looking for an answer that is more about building materials and foundations and not about drawing a force diagram of the various stresses and strains on a house, even though houses falling over is very much in the realm of physics.

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. A moderator, using his experience, migrated your question to a SE site he thought more likely to provide an answer. You seem offended that a question you regard as science has been “downgraded” to something you perhaps regard as more mundane.
The moderator knows the site. He was trying to help. Do you want an answer or not?
For what it’s worth, the natural history identification side of SE Biology is a bit of an aberration. It is what many people regard as biology and it has a large audience. But it it is restricted to identification. And, although there is no prospect of removing it, in my opinion it just does not fit the SE model. How do you use the wisdom of myriad identifications of fleas to search for the one you found on your dog? Not by a text search, and SE doesn’t have a visual image search facility.
Addendum: ‘Migrated’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘off-topic’
The poster persists (in his comment on this answer) in declaring that his question was declared ‘off-topic’, and invokes Wikipedia and his biology text as evidence that ecology is a part of biology. Few would doubt that ecology is part of biology, but what I read regarding the migrated question on Gardening & Landscaping is:

This question was migrated from Biology Stack Exchange because it can be answered on Gardening & Landscaping Stack Exchange

Nothing about ‘off-topic’.
Something similar might occur with migration from Biology to Bioinformatics of Medical Sciences, or from Chemistry to Biology (for biochemical questions). All the moderator was trying to do was move the question to the SE group which was most likely to be frequented by people who could answer.

Based on the comments here that aren't mine and this answer, this forum seems to have an exclusive view of what biology is. My old Bio 101 text (I have seventh ed., now in its 12th ed.) includes ecology. https://www.macmillanlearning.com/college/us/product/Life-The-Science-of-Biology-Digital-Update/p/1319333559?selected_tab=Contents I checked Wikipedia and it also includes ecology as a part of biology, not just biomolecular topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology

@JohnPolo See my addendum. It is not a question of a particular view that members of this SE community have, it is a question of what the interests and expertise are of those members. Like it or not. (And when I just did a search on SE Biology, I found 548 questions with the tag 'ecology'. So that is not the problem, and citing books and Wikipedia is irrelevant.)


text:
Why so mean? Not a good first impressiong
So I just asked this question:
How does a chicken egg go from one cell to many
And rather than a response like "I know all about this, let me explain it to you"  I just got downvoted, and then ridiculed for even asking the question.  And I still don't have an answer!  The guy that downvoted and closed the question clearly doesn't know, and just posted links to other questions that shed some light, but don't answer the question.
So as a newby, I'm not likely to come back to Biology stack to ask more questions or interact.  But having been involved in other stacks over the years and met with much nicer responses, I felt it's worth pointing out that this is really not the best attitude to have.
The guy who responded has a diamond so is clearly influential here.
Not a cool welcome.
Edit:
In response to the comment:
"One of the linked duplicates explains the whole egg is not an entire cell. The other explains that the yolk is not an entire cell, either. Did you read them?"
Yes, I've read them, but the point here is, in comparison with more welcoming sites, no effort was made to answer the question.  The question was voted for close without detailed explanation how those other questions relate.  There was no explanation WHY those help answer the question.  They are clearly not direct duplicates, since this question is asking about how the egg cell divides, not what the egg IS.  Granted they are very helpful in deducing the answer, but not themselves an answer.  For example, none of them state WHEN mitosis begins.
Perhaps a better response, even when there are related questions around, is to answer the question, and link to other questions that are similar.
Edit 2
I should probably vote to close this.  The meaness of this site is already well covered here:
What does "Be Nice" *mean* to you?
I'm out of here.  Deleted my Biology stack profile.  Best of luck.

One of the linked duplicates explains the whole egg is not an entire cell. The other explains that the yolk is not an entire cell, either. Did you read them?

I was not involved in this question in any way, as I know little about organismal biology and embryology. However, like the poster, I have used the privilege earned on one site (SE Biology) to gain 100 credits when posting on other sites where I am no expert (e.g. SE French). These credits are given because SE assumes that you know what is the expected behaviour on SE sites. I have always been very careful to respect these sites, but I am afraid that this question (and the poster’s original question) does not do this.
Expected behaviour includes:

Don’t bad-mouth the site you are guest on. By all means say that you felt it ‘unwelcoming’ — which is an optional extra in life. But the use of the word ‘mean’ implies a moral criticism of individuals, which is neither ‘nice’ nor likely to endear you to members on the site.
Read the Tour to find out what the constituency of a site is, what sort of topics are allowable, and what is expected of a question. This site is a serious academic site for “biology researchers, academics, and students”, which is why we expect reputable sources for statements.  “We are always told” does not cut it, nor does quirkyscience.com. Pointing this out is not ridiculing you.
Don’t attack the moderators. We would expect that you are aware of the role of the “guys with the diamond”, the experience they have, and the amount of work they put in to trying to maintain the standards of the site. If you don’t agree with their decisions, either ask nicely why (here on Meta) or just shrug your shoulders and say nothing. I don’t always agree with their actions — many of my comments have been removed over the years — but I have only ever challenged their actions (or actually inaction) when I was personally abused by another list member, and I did that through the official complaints procedure, not in public.


text:
Discussion on my closed question
Related question in Meta Earth Science

I am new in the site where I had posted only this question about DNA and computers.
I reopened an account to post my second question in the site about Pleistocene mamals.
It was closed as "needs more focus".
User @David told me in Main Meta in a deleted post you don't want questions as covid related ones, as we in Earth Sciences we decided to ban id-my-rock questions.
I corrected a bit the question this morning at work (I do nothing in the administration), but wondering if I shouldn't put any more effort on this, so asking to you as it is your site if I can or not do something to reopen or repost my question more clearly to be accepted by your community.

What I said on the main Meta was not that we did not want questions on Covid (I have just left a comment suggesting improvements on one) but that we don’t want people to use the site for discussion, in this case comments on people’s theories. I used Covid as an example because during the pandemic we received post from people floating ideas about how to eradicate the virus or describing how they would create a vaccine.
My justification for this view is, first, what is written on the Biology Tour page.

“Biology Stack Exchange is a question and answer site”
“This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum.”

and then it gives examples of what type of questions are suitable:

general questions about biological concepts
questions about the biological mechanisms behind medical conditions
questions about techniques in a biological or biochemical laboratory

Questions, questions, questions. And “I have this theory… am I right?” doe not cut it.
The Help page on the type of questions not to ask amplifies this. The closest example to floating theories is:

…just a rant in disguise: “______ sucks, am I right?”

The word rant is not applicable here (I wish they would modify it) but the point that “…am I right?” does not make something a genuine question is relevant.
Let me give an example for Covid§. In my opinion:†
A post of the type “How does the covid virus enter cells?” would be an acceptable question (if the answer were not so easy to find) — it addresses a biological problem and has an answer.
A post of the type “Would chemical X prevent covid entering cells and thus be useful as an antiviral?” is not acceptable in my opinion because one can only speculate on an answer. It is possible to make an argument for “no” but there can be no objective “yes”.
A post of the type “I have this idea for a covid antiviral… Do you think it would work?”. Is not an acceptable question. The poster is just floating a theory for discussion. “And this is not a discussion forum.”

§ I would mention. (1) the existence of SE Medical Sciences. Questions about disease mechanisms that are more physiological or epidemiological than molecular might be better there — but check their guidelines before posting. (2) “Personal medical questions and health advice are off-topic on Biology.” So questions relating to one’s personal experience of Covid (or that of one’s acquaintances) should be avoided.
† I am not a moderator. Just a list member who has read the instructions and tries to explain them to new users.


text:
New Anthropology and Sociology Stack Exchange proposal
We have recently created a new proposal on Area 51 that focuses on Anthropology and Sociology.
Anthropology and sociology are two closely related fields. Anthropology focuses on the scientific study of human behavior and cultures of both the present and past, including past human species, while sociology more focuses on the scientific study of social behavior and the patterns of social relationships and interaction in humans.
Creation of this site will help improve efficiency addressing common problems/questions, as well as being a good open resource for those wanting to learn more about anthropology and sociology.
This site is different than Biology1/Medical Sciences. This site may include questions related to how cultural norms have risen within different societies. This site may include questions related to how social relationships and interaction affect the aspects of culture in our everyday life, or it may include questions related to analytical/mathematical approaches to sociological problems.
During the proposal we intend to define the scope of questions appropriate for the Anthropology and Sociology Stack Exchange site.
We invite anyone with an interest in anthropology or sociology to join our site and encourage you to submit example questions that you might hope that this site would answer, and vote on questions you would like to see answered on this site.

How would YOU use this site?

Join Anthropology and Sociology Stack Exchange Proposal on Area 51

1Although while there is a bit of an overlap here with the anthropology tag, if I'm (hopefully) not mistaken that is for questions that are more related to biological anthropology.


text:
This website is incredibly unfriendly to interdisciplinary discourse
was excited to come to this website and start regularly sharing my in-depth knowledge of modern biological research, but it seems the biology sub frequently decides, inaccurately and inconsistently, that some technical questions about biology research are "not biology".
E.g. a question about laboratory staining techniques is ok, but a question about laboratory biomolecule manufacturing is not. Structural biology modeling is not ok in the biology sub, yet neither does it fit under bioinformatics.
It seems like this entire website is built on a paradigm that doesn't recognize science is interdisciplinary, removing anything that crosses disciplines, which is ironically where much exciting new information is emerging.
Engineering biology is the natural development of understanding biology. There's not even a category for bioengineering, so the website simply removes content about modifying biology... I really hope people can see how not-optimal this is after reading my rant...
Because of its progression from natural biology, I think it would be unwise to separate biological engineering from biology. From a certain perspective, they are not separate, rather they are the same discipline progressing over time. For example, often bioengineering is used to make tools to further understand natural biology. The separation of medicine, biology, and bioinformatics is already questionable...
The future of bio science is interdisciplinary. Things that fit in rigid categories are often well established basic research, whereas new things are usually more interdisciplinary.
As I said, I was excited to share my extensive knowledge base with people trying to learn about bioengineering, but every bioengineering q/a I see has been removed/downvoted, without any positive feedback like offering to move it to a correct section, or admitting that the correct section is actually missing from this website. My overall experience has been unfriendly and negative. Lots of negative reinforcement, no positive reinforcement.
Why would anyone contribute bioengineering content when they get yelled at for doing so?
This website is currently very unfriendly to one of the fastest growing sectors of biology research.
Consider that maybe rigid categories aren't a good match for science, or please re-evaluate what is allowed in "biology", a ridiculously complex topic in real life.
The sad thing is, I was told to post in meta about this issue by a mod, but I have a feeling this will be downvoted and deleted because it's not a question, even though I'm trying to make people aware of a major flaw in the system here.

Examples:

Can the spike protein created by the Covid mRNA vaccines be created independently of the human body, and is there a higher cost to that?: "I’m voting to close this question because it is not about a biological mechanism or process."
What's superposition and thread in RosettaCM?: "I’m voting to close this question because it is not about a biological process or mechanism."

Thanks for your post. I am sorry to read all this and questions like this are what meta is for. So of course this post will not be removed. Can you please add the links to example posts such that we can have a look? As of now it's hard to answer  your question, because it is more of a rant than anything else.

I think this again suggests the need for a synthetic biology stack exchange, where I think questions like this would be considered on topic: https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/125068/synthetic-biology

I do agree with you that it would be nice to see more acceptance of interdisciplinary questions in general though

@Amanda A large group of us came to the same conclusion a couple of months ago, per the discussion on this meta post: https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4156/would-this-site-welcome-an-influx-of-technical-synthetic-biology-qa , and for that reason are attempting to start an interdisciplinary synthetic biology SE, as Brad notes above. I'd like to invite you (an everyone else with interdisciplinary interests) to come and join that proposal! At this point, we just need to hit 100 users with 200+ rep and it will be launched.

If you are interested, we also have a community-building slack where we are coordinating to help hit those targets. I'd love to have you involved, as you've given a number of answers that I thought were excellent and should have received a lot more love.

This website is unfriendly and inconsistent in general.

@canadianer you really think so? I thought we were doing not so bad of late

@AliceD I don't know the long-term history of the site, but I will certainly say that I'm still feeling extremely concerned about the prospect of referring students here to ask questions, given the reception that they are likely to get.

It should be noted that the problem of some users using a narrow interpretation of their site's scope is common across SE sites, or at least across those about academic subjects.

My overall experience has been unfriendly and negative. Lots of negative reinforcement, no positive reinforcement.

It looks like you have seven active answers and one question. These all have a net positive score. Your one question has an answer, though there are no votes on this answer (if it is helpful, you could upvote it; if you feel it sufficiently answers your question, you can mark it as an accepted answer). Clearly you've had some negative experiences outside of these posts, perhaps with seeing questions by others that are closed, but I don't think it's fair to say there is no positive reinforcement directed at your contributions here.
Close votes and explanatory comments
There are some details about what it means to close a question here: What is a "closed" or "duplicate" question? Users with sufficient reputation can vote to close questions. Close votes, except those by moderators, are not binding, they're just votes. It takes 5 community members voting to close a question for it to actually be closed. Closed questions don't disappear, and some can be edited and later reopened, closing is just a way to prevent answers in the meantime.
Users do not need to explain their close votes, but some choose to. Explanations for close votes don't set site policy, it's just one user explaining why they've voted the way they have. Why do some users feel a need to explain their votes?
Sometimes, question askers get frustrated because they don't understand why people are voting to close their question. They may write angry comments like "Why are people voting to close?"/"Close voters - explain yourself!" (perhaps this is also just a direct question and maybe it's not fair to call it 'angry', but I can say in my experience with SE that often these forms of comments come paired with some angry words and expletives). Some users may see these comments on other posts and choose to preemptively explain their own votes, trying to help the askers understand their action.
Other times, when people try to explain their votes the user reacts aggressively towards the explanation. Name calling and accusations of censorship or bias are common. Sometimes these responses betray that the user has not attempted to learn the site guidelines in the Help, especially https://biology.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask and https://biology.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic As a result, a lot of people just vote quietly without comment.
For me personally, since I'm a moderator here my own close votes will unilaterally close a question. Sometimes I feel a question should be closed, but I don't feel it's clear cut enough to use my vote. In that case I will sometimes leave a comment instead. I'm open to feedback on these comments if anyone feels I am misrepresenting the site scope or being unfriendly.
Questions that are and are not on-topic for Biology.SE
The scope of the site is determined through discussion on Meta. If one would like to change the scope, the way to do so is to raise a discussion on Meta. Interpreting the site scope is not always straightforward, and different users may interpret the site scope differently and therefore vote differently on questions. I think it's reasonable to expect some difference of opinion on these things, and to expect that not everyone will vote the same way. That lack of clarity can certainly be frustrating, but I don't think there is any alternative in a community of individuals who think independently.
BIOLOGY vs Biology.SE

it seems the biology sub frequently decides, inaccurately and inconsistently, that some technical questions about biology research are "not biology".

Biology.SE is not the only scientific site that excludes questions about broader technical application of the field. Electronics.SE is an example with respect to Physics. In general, a SE site's name is just a label that serves as a general colloquial description. It is not meant to indicate some taxonomic scope. Though one can argue biology is just applied chemistry, most biological questions aren't on-topic at Chemistry.SE, only those that relate to basic chemistry. Same on down the line for Physics and Math. Something can be reasonably argued to be within the scope of BIOLOGY and yet outside the scope of Biology.SE.
It's certainly difficult to define scope rigidly, but ultimately actions like "closing a question" are rigid and binary: a question is closed or it is not.
Synthetic biology and bioinformatics
The Biology.SE site scope in the Help includes:

questions about techniques in a biological or biochemical laboratory

as on-topic. If one interprets the second statement broadly, it indeed seems that many techniques in fields like bioinformatics and synthetic biology would be on-topic. However, there is also a second clause that states:

Questions on interdisciplinary subjects like bioinformatics are also welcome, as long as they focus on the biological part of the subject.

For strictly bioinformatics questions, I think we've mostly settled as a community on where the lines are. There is a separate site, Bioinformatics.SE, where many of these questions are on-topic. There is a structural biology tag there with a handful of questions.
For synthetic biology, we haven't had a lot of those questions historically. Some may also overlap with Bioinformatics. Some users here with experience in the broader SE community wondered about changing that, and started a Meta discussion here: Would this site welcome an influx of technical synthetic biology Q&A?
Feedback from the community was, if it's fair for me to summarize, that while many of the suggested questions are perfectly reasonable here (or could be modified to fit), others weren't a great fit. As a result, there is now a Synthetic Biology site incubating at Area51. If this site makes it to Beta, I see it filling a similar niche to Bioinformatics but in the synthetic biology space.
What to do now?
Besides supporting the SyntheticBiology.SE Area51 proposal, I think it's fine to suggest and support changes to the scope here. It may be especially worthwhile to do so if SyntheticBiology.SE is not able to attract sufficient support. Certainly we can reconsider scope in the future if that site does launch, and direct some categories of questions to find more focus there.
However, my advice would be to start in steps rather than chunks. Rather than "interdisciplinary questions" or "biological engineering questions", I'd recommend starting with a close cluster of similar questions that you think are a good fit for the SE format and a good fit for Biology.SE. The big categories are too big: there's too much room for disagreement and too many questions under that bubble that won't fit well. With a more specific focus I think you'll have more luck.
So far, you've linked to two questions that, although they've attracted close-votes and down-votes, have remained open so far and have also received positive votes. It's not clear to me that the community has in fact declared these unacceptable here.

Lastly,

Why would anyone contribute bioengineering content when they get yelled at for doing so?

If someone is yelling, please flag for moderator attention. Including if it's a moderator doing it, and especially if it's me - the other mods will review it.

Thank you for this well-reasoned and informative answer. It's a very good point that the users can define the scope of the site through the use of meta.


text:
Line between evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology

What is the evolutionary explanation for why lions sometimes kill their own cubs when they acquire a new pride?

Is definitely on-topic to Biology.SE

What is the evolutionary explanation for why people pick their nails as a stress-reliever?

Would be considered sort of in the middle between Biology.SE and Psychology.SE

What is the evolutionary explanation for domestic violence being so common despite the fact that it compromises the welfare of offspring?

Would be considered "off-topic" to Biology.SE since it discusses human psychology.
Another question asked about the gray area between biology and psychology but this question is specific to evolutionary psychology, since evolution is notoriously a "biology" subject, I imagine a lot of questions that discuss "what is the evolutionary purpose (explanation) of (random psychological trait or habit)" get closed for mixing up the two, but 'evolutionary explanation' does throw a wrench in the equation, I think, because maybe the asker would get a better explanation about evolution here than over there, even if it is in the context of humans (after all, humans evolved similarly to other animals). What are the defined barriers?

There are certainly overlaps where questions are on-topic between multiple SE sites. It's unfortunate that the SE software does not handle that well by allowing cross-site duplicates, etc, but that's another story.
However, most "what's the evolutionary explanation for _______" questions asked here get closed as a duplicate of this one:
Why do some bad traits evolve, and good ones don't?
When people ask them on the other sites, I wish they'd ask them here so we could also close as a duplicate of this one. It has several distinct answers that address the issue from multiple perspectives. I'd highly recommend looking carefully at it before asking any of these sorts of questions on any SE site.
Evolutionary psychology in particular has received a lot of criticism for putting out theories that are not testable by science and are rather "just-so" stories. Then, you have people that confuse this with a weakness or criticism of evolutionary biology more broadly, when really that's just not how evolutionary biology works.

I think a lot of the theories are testable, the problem is ethics, doing tests on humans to determine evolutionary psychology hypotheses the same way tests on animals and other life forms are done is considered unethical and therefore not allowed (even in prisoners), gating a lot of potentially vital information. Why else would we be unable to gain information about evolutionary psychology of humans to the same reliability/accuracy as evolutionary psychology of other animals?

@AshtonDowling There are typically other issues besides ethics. You might be able to do an experiment (or even use observational data) to support whether a trait is advantageous reproductively, but that doesn't mean the trait originated through selection. It may not even be heritable, and for behavioral traits is almost certainly not inherited independently. Additionally, many evolutionary psychology explanations make inferences based on a past environment that does not currently exist and consisted of conditions that we are very uncertain about.

@BryanKrause Very well said! Your comment should be posted on a wall somewhere!

Any question starting:

What is the evolutionary explanation for…

should not be allowed on SE Biology (at least until it has been reworded) because it contains the implicit assumption that the phenomenon in question has arisen through evolutionary pressure. In many cases this is manifestly ridiculous as it relates to recent human behaviour. But on a scientific forum like this such questions should be of the form:

Is there an evolutionary explanation for…

Often questioners are really asking:

What purpose is served by…

in which case the questions should be simplified to say that.
In my opinion we are too reluctant to edit questions for the legitimate purpose of improving them. This both raises the standards of the site and, one hopes, educates posters to consider the assumptions in their questions and whether they are valid.