Jump to content

Talk:Bacterial phyla

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

Cladograms

[edit]

ARB Silva Living Tree The Arb-Silva living tree project has the aim of creating a phylogram containing each validly published 16S and 23S sequence: currently there are over 8,500 species on the tree. The tree was created by ML without bootstrap: consequently accuracy is traded off for size and many phylum level clades are not correctly resolved (such as the Firmicutes).[1][2]

"Neomura"

Domain Archaea (Eukaryotes not present in analysis)

Domain Bacteria

Thermotogae

Thermodesulfobiaceae

Incertae sedis XV (Firmicutes)

-- fgTC 06:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that if content seems to be too large for a single article, then it is much better to split out than to 'hide' out in scrollable or collapsible boxes. The branching order section looks like a perfect candidate to become a Bacterial phyla branching order article (or whatever name is appropriate, I do not know). By the way, the section Overview of phyla needs expansion - some of its sections are simply threefold repetitions of the title 6.13 Dictyoglomi // Main article: Dictyoglomi // Dictyoglomi, many have litle more. And looks like another good candidate for splitting and eventualy merging in the smaller of the 'main articles'). - Nabla (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Yarza, Pablo; Ludwig, Wolfgang; Euzéby, Jean; Amann, Rudolf; Schleifer, Karl-Heinz; Glöckner, Frank Oliver; Rosselló-Móra, Ramon (2010). "Update of the All-Species Living Tree Project based on 16S and 23S rRNA sequence analyses". Systematic and Applied Microbiology. 33 (6): 291–299. doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2010.08.001. PMID 20817437. {{cite journal}}: Text "20817437" ignored (help)
  2. ^ Yarza, P.; Richter, M.; Peplies, J. R.; Euzeby, J.; Amann, R.; Schleifer, K. H.; Ludwig, W.; Glöckner, F. O.; Rosselló-Móra, R. (2008). "The All-Species Living Tree project: A 16S rRNA-based phylogenetic tree of all sequenced type strains". Systematic and Applied Microbiology. 31 (4): 241–250. doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2008.07.001. PMID 18692976.

Outdated "As of" tag

[edit]

Hello! In the lede, there's a statement marked as outdated:

"Therefore, the number of major phyla has increased from 12 identifiable lineages in 1987, to 52 as of 2003.[8]"

Does anyone have an updated number? Or could we restructure the paragraph so that it isn't phrased like this? For instance the previous sentence says currently 52+, could we leave it at that? Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bacterial phyla. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bacterial phyla. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of bacterial phyla?

[edit]
I'll go ahead and close this discussion off. I think it's clear there's no consensus to change the status quo here. Thanks all for your comments! Ajpolino (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm wondering if this article would be better described by the title List of bacterial phyla, since that seems to be what it predominantly is. This would fit with List of bacterial orders and List of bacteria genera. Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap, Ninjatacoshell, and Squidonius: pinging major contributors. Ajpolino (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just redirect It isn't just a list though, as the lists of genera and orders are. You could split off the pure list part and have two decent articles for phyla, unlike the single sentence stubs for orders and genera. With metagenomics making the phyla a bit unstable, I only see the prose growing. Nessie (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create two articles I concur with Nessie that this page should be kept for giving an overview of major/well-understood phyla and List of bacterial phyla would contain the full list, including the Candidatus phyla observed in metagnomic analyses and about which we know next to nothing. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm unconvinced two separate pages are necessary. If you look through some of the featured lists you'll see they often have quite a bit of prose defining the scope of the list, history of study of the topic, et al. For an example, see List of ant subfamilies. We already have pages for each major bacterial phylum, so at this page I'd imagine we want to have a brief history, a section on how these distinctions are made, and then lists of major phyla, metagenomic only phyla, etc. It seems like that all would make more sense under the title List of bacterial phyla, then under the title Bacterial phyla. Similarly, I don't think we need separate pages for Bacterial orders, Bacterial families, and the rest. For those who prefer the title Bacterial phyla, would you also prefer moving the other list-named articles to the analagous title (List of bacterial orders -> bacterial orders, etc.)? Ajpolino (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, we certainly don't want two articles. Just a simple change of title to say it's a list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, a "rename in title only" does means that the article stays as is for now, but down the line it will be heavily trimmed by someone trying to make it compliant with the guidelines of a "list article". Fighting someone who has the holy guidelines never goes well, therefore a rename would be dangerous as the article is a good quality one and it would be a sin making it go down hill —okay, I am biased as I made the article way back, but you chaps have done a really smashing job keeping it. Squidonius (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC) (Matteo Ferla)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CPR membership

[edit]

Are Saccharibacteria and Peregrinibacteria members of CPR or not? Phylogenetic tree says yes, table says no, Saccharibacteria says close relatives are Chloroflexi, but in phylogenetic tree there(!) Chloroflexi are just used as outgroup to root the tree. And the taxobox there says Saccharibacteria are CPR.--Ernsts (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bacterial_phyla&oldid=1205596762"