Talk:Chlamydomonas

Algae C‑class Top‑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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classification

Chlamydomonas is not a Protist but a Plant --Kupirijo 12:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC) I have checked the history and it is very annoying when people change it to Protists without discussion. --Kupirijo 12:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Chlamydomonas is currently considered to be a protist. The division to which it belongs, the Chlorophyta, has been reclassified under the kingdom Protista following recent biochemical studies. Please refer to the American Society of Plant Biologists at http://www.aspb.org/education/bookmarks/chlamydomonas1.cfm.

It does not seem to be a recent reclassification. Considering it Plantae is based on genomic data. --Kupirijo 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am an A-level student in Malta and according to notes provided by our lecturer who is very experienced Chlamydomonas is classified under Protoctista. I strongly recomand that it is changed as it is missleading to people reading the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.23.249 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classification again

Chlorophyta is considered to be part of Plantae in all others articles about green algae classification in Wikipedia. For the sake of consistency, either it should also be the case here, or all the other pages have to be changed. Chlamydomonas cannot be the only Chlorophyta classified in Protists!...

As Kupirijo said, newer classifications are based on genomic data. For all references, see Plant, and http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/reprint/91/10/1535.pdf for an extensive review on genetic evidence of relationship between green algae and land plants. It is unlikely that reclassification may have taken place following biochemical studies. The American Society of Plant Biologists (at http://www.aspb.org/education/bookmarks/chlamydomonas1.cfm) doesn't even say that, and additionnaly, all the links there are broken, so the content may not really be up-tp-date :)

In phylogenetic classifications, Protists do not appear any more.

Since the classification is rather controversial, and again for the sake of consistency, please retroclassify Chlamydomonas in the kingdom Plantae.

Biozic (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Order is Chlamydomonadales in?

This are ALL WRONG THINGS regarding taxonomy, whether the order is Chlamydomonadales or Volvocales. 136.142.169.66 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot-generated content

A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase. You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Chlamydomonas (alga). Anybot (contact operator) 16:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comment

CONTROVERSY OF CHLYDOMONAS WHETHER THEY ARE IN ALAGE OR PROTISTA KINGDOM.

Chlydomonas are the part of algae kingdom (major part of plant kingdom). Recently there was a controversy weather they are the part of kingdom algae or kingdom Protista . The one who proposed that they are part of kingdom Protista claimed it on the basis of its level of organisation (that is unicellular). But the fact is that our taxonomist no more uses the level of organisation as only the criteria . The classification is more about phylogenetic relationship,phytochemistry And not only morphology but also anatomy. We know that Chlydomonas are photosynthetic even though they are unicellular. Thus this controversy ended with a good note that chlamydomonas are from phylum Algae.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chlamydomonas. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130723074505/http://www.seaweed.ie/algae/chlamydomonas.php to http://www.seaweed.ie/algae/chlamydomonas.php

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) 12:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Science

8 2405:204:138D:D6C:0:0:12A6:30AC (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chlamydomonas

Speak 2405:201:C001:724A:99F3:C030:6D0B:1746 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]