Talk:Fungi

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Moving Phylum Oomycota ?[edit]

Oomycota is not a true fungi, I am not certain if fungi should reflect some sorta taxonomy based on function / biological role, but if it should follow phylogenetic evidence it should be removed and placed in Chromista. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tex Bandrew (talkcontribs) 05:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC).

Oomycota  Done (in 2016 . . . ) --Murma174 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Distribution[edit]

  • New Zealand etc.

Classification[edit]

As the upper level classification appears outdated, I'd suggest to use the Species 2000 / ITIS classification:

Superregnum: Eukaryota
Regnum: Fungi
Subregnum: Dikarya

Phylum: Ascomycota
Classes: Archaeorhizomycetes – Arthoniomycetes – Dothideomycetes – Eurotiomycetes – Geoglossomycetes – Laboulbeniomycetes – Lecanoromycetes – Leotiomycetes – Lichinomycetes – Neolectomycetes – Orbiliomycetes – Pezizomycetes – Pneumocystidomycetes – Saccharomycetes – Schizosaccharomycetes – Sordariomycetes – Taphrinomycetes – Xylonomycetes
Phylum: Basidiomycota
Classes: Agaricomycetes – Agaricostilbomycetes – Atractiellomycetes – Classiculomycetes – Cryptomycocolacomycetes – Cystobasidiomycetes – Dacrymycetes – Entorrhizomycetes – Exobasidiomycetes – Malasseziomycetes – Microbotryomycetes – Mixiomycetes – Pucciniomycetes – Tremellomycetes – Tritirachiomycetes – Ustilaginomycetes – Wallemiomycetes

Subregnum: Eomycota

Phylum: Chytridiomycota
Classes: Blastocladiomycetes – Chytridiomycetes – Monoblepharidomycetes – Neocallimastigomycetes
Phylum: Glomeromycota
Classis: Glomeromycetes
Phylum: Zygomycota
Classis: -

Reference link: Species 2000 / ITIS Catalogue of Life : 26 th August 2016

--Murma174 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the consensus classification presented in A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms. --Succu (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
That's "consensus" in the phylogenetic sense of agreeing with a consensus among phylogenetic studies, not in the sense that it has been accepted by taxonomists in the various fields. It is strongly out of step, for example, as thus whollly incompatible, with nearly every major system of classification used for plants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I assume your POV is mainly refering to your taxonomic opionion about Bryophyta... --Succu (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't trust a classification used at ITIS, which is derivative and does not represent any particular system of classification. I'm out of touch with current fungal classification systems, or else would make a recommendation. The best I can suggest is to ask the folks working actively on fungi at the English Wikipedia. Someone there might be able to propose a published system for use. Check at en:WP:FUNGI. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 1 external links on Fungi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)