Talk:Protista

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archive 1

In support of Kingdom Protista[edit]

Protista should remain an accepted taxon of living organisms if for no other reason that it still used, although not exclusively, in references and that it is well understood by micropaleontologists and protozoologists, alike. The assumption that it is polyphyletic may come from its definition by exclusion, that it is a wastebasket taxon, a hodgepodge of living things that simply aren't plants, animals, or fungi.

Protista are better defined by what they are, Eukaria, living organisms with nucleated cells, in which the processes of life are carried out within simple, complex cells rather than by tissues and organs made of simpler more specialized cells.

Protista however is not a clade, since it does not include taxa (other kingdoms) derived from it, making it paraphyletic - a perfectly valid and useful concept. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Why The Defunct Taxon Protista Should Not Be Used[edit]

In the past, the eukaryotes that are neither plants, animals, nor fungi were grouped into the kingdom Protista. However, phylogenetic research has proved that the Protista are a paraphyletic assemblage of eukaryotes. My proposal, which is more phylogenetically accurate, is given here (bolded taxa are previously part of protista):

It might have left out a few groups, but I'm kind of still a student. But anyway, there was a a more accurate reflection of eukaryote classification.

-Awesome210, on December 7, 2015 — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awesome 210 (talkcontribs) 02:35, 8 December 2015.

I support (at least) Regnum Chromista, used by AlgaeBase and WoRMS --Murma174 (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Protists: Things to do[edit]

- ( Discussion moved here from Wikispecies:Village Pump ) -

Hi, I have been working in some protist pages (creation of alternative classifications, creation of referenced pages for genera), but now I'm leaving Wikispecies for a time. However, I would like to make some suggestions (should I include them in Wikispecies:Done and to do? Or in Talk:Protista?):

Thanks, Zorahia (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zorahia: Thanks for all your research and contributions! As you can see in the thread above, the main problem will be, to find one higher level classification for "Protista" for our Wikispecies-system. And I think, @Awesome 210: above made a very good suggestion. --Murma174 (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Murma174: in relation to the higher level classification, I would like to embrace the classification of Adl et al., 2012 rather than Cavalier-Smith classifications. Despite of Adl et al., 2012 being informal, it is more stable (see a discussion at Village Pump). --Zorahia (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@Zorahia: Thanks for the link! Yes, Cavalier-Smith appears a little outdated and inconsistent, but what I don't like with Adl et al. is the introduction of several (IMO unnecessary) new names. Honestly I'm not up-to-date with the latest scientific insights, that's why I prefer a generally accepted structure rather than following the newest perceptions. I agree with @EncycloPetey: in the last paragraph of the Feb. 2015-discussion, that we should stay comprehensible for the majority of readers. @Awesome 210:'s suggestion above has much charme to me, as it is comprising several aspects (and following Ruggiero et al. 2015 in general). Anyway I know, that noone is lucky with a compromise. --Murma174 (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Murma174: I also think @Awesome 210:'s suggestion is good (it uses the 7 "superkingdoms" of Adl, Amoebozoa, Opisthokonta, Excavata, Stramenopiles/Heterokonta, Alveolata, Rhizaria, Archaeplastida/Plantae, and not the kingdom Protozoa of Cavalier). I would only suggest to avoid the use of the taxa Chromista, Bikonta and Unikonta. --Zorahia (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
As said above, I'm not such a specialist in these higher regions. For me (sic!) some paraphyletic taxa groups are helpful just for orientation. --Murma174 (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Everybody is taking this too seriously, it was just my suggestion. --Awesome210 (talk) 0:42, 17 June 2016

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 2 external links on Protista. 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) 10:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 2 external links on Protista. 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) 11:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)