Talk:Cryptomonad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of Species[edit]

This page should say how many species there are in the phylum. --Savant13 20:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protists[edit]

Shouldn't we mention the protoctists (or protists) here? An "alga" without plastid is strictly speaking not an alga, right? StefanTerwijk (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are asking. The classification here is quite new, and somewhat uncertain. But as noted at Protist, the Chromalveolata are a subcategory of the protists (same with the Hacrobia, probably, whether or not it is considered part of the Chromalveolata). But "protist" isn't particularly used in most recent classifications. Kingdon (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Phylogenetic Classification[edit]

Cryptomonads are now thought to be a very basal lineage of the Streptophytes (Kim, E & L Graham. 2008. EEF2 analysis challenges the monophyly of Archaeplastida and Chromalveolata. PLOS One 3(7): e2621.). This view is now widely accepted, even by those who formerly advocated for a single primary plastid endosymbiosis event (personal communication with L Graham, 2012). --Jjknack1 (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the information by sourcing it to a reliable published article that incorporates it. This can be done by looking at the citations for the original journal article. Eau (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cryptomonad. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Article Name/Scientific Classification[edit]

While I originally believed the designation of Cryptomonads under "Cryptomonada" perfectly appropriate for the article, I no longer believe this to be the case and would prefer to see it (as well as other wiki articles referencing Cryptomonads) changed to "Cryptophyceae", except in any cases where the former designation is neccesary (such as material concerning historical changes in classification). Given that such a name/classification change would affect dozens of articles, I would prefer to get feedback from other editors before making this change to other relevant articles, though I have made the change in the main article.

My methodology is not really scientific, but I believe it sufficient for this purpose. The search terms for possible scientific IDs were put into Google Scholar, and English-language articles using the term between 2013 and 2019 were counted, from the first five pages of results than Google Scholar returned. This count found that Cryptophyta is much more common in recent scientific literature than Cryptomonada.

Doing this, I found only 4 examples using Cryptomonada, but 43 examples using Cryptophyceae. I find User:NessieVL's concern well founded.

Thereppy (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Several matters are discussed, but overall there's no consensus for any particular course of action, and discussion has been silent for two weeks.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– In the 2010s, 'Cryptophyte' has surpassed 'Cryptomonad' as the most common preferred informal term for this group. Roughly 3x the number of results in returned articles by Google Scholar Search. In articles where both terms appear, Cryptophyte is usually printed first, with Cryptomonad often in quotes. Thereppy (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Cryptophyceae - Cryptophyte is already a disambiguation page, and I think adding a disambiguator like Cryptophyte (alga) would be a lot clunkier than just using the official name. The other uses may also be influencing the search hits as well. --Nessie (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To editors Thereppy and Nessie: the target page, "Cryptophyte", will need to be moved to allow "Cryptomonad" to be moved there, so it has been added to this request. See also the new article, Cryptomonada (rewrite of Cryptomonad?). Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  07:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the wikipedia taxonomy of these and related organisms should be sorted out before any moves are made. A few comments:
There is also a Cryptomonada article.
Cryptophyta is not necessarily a synonym of Cryptophyceae (although it is in Adl et al, 2019).
In the Cryptomonada article, which uses a manual taxobox, it is a superclass containing classes Cryptophyceae and Goniomonadea.
In the automated taxonomy template system, {{Taxonomy/Cryptophyta}} has a single child, Cryptophyceae.
In Silar (2016)[1] Cryptophyta contains Cryptophyceae and Goniomonaphyceae.
This brings us back to the question of what taxonomy is followed for Eukayotes. As a further point, if Cryptophyte needs disambiguation, then use the taxon name, Cryptophyta.   Jts1882 | talk  15:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I now see what Thereppy is intending with the new article for the group containing Goniomonadea and Cryptophyceae (the actual subject of the Cryptomonad article). This new article is the one that needs a decision on the title, Cryptomonada or Cryptophyta. Then the current Cryptomonad article can be moved to Cryptophyceae.   Jts1882 | talk  16:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new article is intended to describe Cryptomonada sensu. Cavalier-Smith 1989 (Cryptophyceae+Goniomonadea), as the current 'Cryptomonad' article only describes the Cryptophyceae. The cell-scheme image, for instance, includes 3 organelles not found in Gongiomonas or Hemiarmida. I believe the best option is to keep (with a few revisions) the current 'Cryptomonad' article, but move it to 'Cryptophyceae' (I have already done this), with the new article 'Cryptomonada' being moved to 'Cryptomonad'. 'Cryptophyceae' might be moved to 'Cryptophyte' per WP:COMMONNAME, with the current disambiguation page there being moved to Cryptophyte (disaumbiguation), but this decision might not be appropriate if the other two meanings of 'Cryptophyte' see comparable levels of use.Thereppy (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cryptophyte as article title is best avoided. Apart from the need to disambiguate from the life-form category, Cryptophyta is used in two senses. Silar uses it as a synonym of Cryptomonada (Cryptophyceae+Goniomonadea), while others restrict it to Cryptophyceae (e.g. Adl et al (2012, 2019) after Cavalier-Smith 1986).
Which classification are you using for your changes? Is it Cavalier-Smith (2018)? The different articles seem to use a contradictory mix. This would be a good time to make a decision for Hacrobia taxa and convert to automatic taxoboxes.   Jts1882 | talk  13:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I'm not using a particular classification scheme, but going off of the taxoboxes of the lowest-ranked parent taxa which already has a Wiki article, then filling in any remaining info required. This does lead to inconsistencies and...honestly I feel really dumb for not realizing automatic taxoboxes were a thing before. Definitely a preferable alternative. As for whether Cryptista should be classified under "Hacrobia", I lean against as most studies in the past 5 years have failed to support the clade. I think it would be better to have the Cryptista put under Diaphoretickes, maaaaybe with "?Hacrobia" kept as well to denote the uncertainty of that clade. Thereppy (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia we should primarily be following reliable secondary sources (WP:RSPRIMARY). This means we should be following taxonomic reviews, rather than the conclusions of primary reports on the phylogeny, which to me means the taxoboxes should follow one of the systems described in Ruggieri et al 2015, Silar 2016, Cavalier-Smith 2018, or Adl et al 2019 (there is also Tedersoo et al 2017). The individual studies (e.g. Burki 2016, Brown 2018, Lax et al 2018, Strassert et al 2019) showing Cryptista and Haptista in various places can be discussed in the text. I agree with your conclusion on Hacrobia, and I think Adl et al 2019 would be an appropriate source for your suggestion (at least for the hierarchy). Placing Cryptista under Diaphoretickes is relatively uncontroversial and avoids a choice between Hacrobia and an expanded Archaeplastida, which can be discussed in the article text. However, previous attempts to get agreement on which source to follow for major Eurkaryote groupings failed to get consensus and the Adl et al 2019 scheme in particular was deemed too recent or even dismissed (incorrectly in my view) as a primary source (see Request for comment: new classification scheme for eukaryotes).   Jts1882 | talk  12:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing Adl et al to my attention. It's a very recent scheme, which makes me skeptical that it's the most appropriate for any encyclopedia, but it follows recent developments in Cryptist & Haptist phylogenies much better than any other classification scheme. Cavalier-Smith's 2018 classification scheme is interesting (especially with regard to the Excavates), but conflicts pretty badly with many phylogenetic studies and phylogenies argued by other authors. Ruggiero et al 2015 is mostly good but, owing pretty much entirely to more recent research, falls short for the Cryptists. I'm genuinely unsure whether it would be better to go with Ruggiero or Adl for Wikipedia's current usage, but think Cavalier-Smith can be safely(ish) ruled out for now. Thereppy (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adl et al (2019) shouldn't be considered in isolation as a "new" scheme. It is the third edition (after Adl et al 2005 and 2012) of a collaborative effort involving a number of people working on eukaryote phylogeny. This is why I feel their hierarchy is most suitable, but you can see lack of consensus in the previous discussion I linked to. The biggest problem is their abandonment of linnean ranks. There would be considerable opposition to Wikipedia following suite and how do we choose ranks to go with the Adl heirarchy without venturing into original research. Cavalier-Smith is always interesting as he keeps changing his scheme so often and doesn't mind being different. Ruggiero is the backbone used on a variety of other projects (ITIS, CoL) but is very dated in some areas (e.g. mammals), but might be a safe option for higher ranked taxa of Eukayotes. I think this needs broader discussion to get consensus, but as the last discussion on the Tree of Life project was only four months ago (Feb) perhaps it should wait a few more months.   Jts1882 | talk  17:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One further comment. I don't think we can say that Cavalier-Smith can be safely(ish) ruled out if we use the Ruggiero scheme. Protozoa, Chromista, Sulcozoa and other paraphyletic phyla are all part of the system. As one of the authors he is very influential in Ruggiero scheme.   Jts1882 | talk  09:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Silar, Philippe (2016), "Protistes Eucaryotes: Origine, Evolution et Biologie des Microbes Eucaryotes", HAL Archives-ouvertes: 1–462
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cryptomonad&oldid=1194953509"