Talk:Prymnesiophyceae

Protista Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Protista, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of protists and protistology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ProtistaWikipedia:WikiProject ProtistaTemplate:WikiProject ProtistaProtista articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Algae Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Algae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the photosynthetic organisms commonly called algae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AlgaeWikipedia:WikiProject AlgaeTemplate:WikiProject AlgaeAlgae articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Prymnesiophyceae not a current name?[edit]

Ruggiero et al.'s 2015 classification prefers Coccolithophyceae over Prymnesiophyceae, as the earliest validly published name, and this is now followed by AlgaeBase (e.g. at time of writing) and Catalogue of Life (2018 annual edition). WoRMS, which claims to follow AlgaeBase, however has Prymnesiophyceae as at today (though the record has not been changed since 2012). Ruggiero et al.'s revival of Coccolithophyceae follows this paper: Silva, P. C.; Throndsen, J.; Eikrem, W. (2007). Revisiting the nomenclature of Haptophytes. Phycologia. 46(4): 471-475., available online at https://doi.org/10.2216/07-22.1

I have not changed relevant Wikipedia entries at this time but others may wish to do so. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than maintain discussion in 2 places, I have raised the same issue over at Wikispecies (https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prymnesiophyceae#Prymnesiophyceae_not_a_current_name?) and will post further comments there. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]