Talk:Heterokont

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles

Protista

This redirect 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

Algae

This redirect 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

Number of species

This page should say how many species are in the phylum.

The diatom page says there are about 100,000 species of diatoms. But the heterokont page says there are only about 10,500 known heterokonts, and diatoms are a subset of the heterokonts. This discrepancy should be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.232.90 (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

untitled

Removed what verifiable information? This isn't sourced to anything in particular, there is no reference to this statement, and I really don't appreciate your wholesale removal of my edit and calling it vandalism, as I'm not vandalizing this page. If you're going to call another editor a vandal, just because you disagree with their particular edit, then provide a direct quote. KP Botany 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call you a vandal; the information needs a citation. It doesn't take much verify that our current best guess is that heterokonts have red algal chloroplasts - for instance [1], [2], [3]. I was hoping I could find a better reference before fixing the page. Josh

But you didn't just remove that, you reverted everything I wrote, treating my entire text as if it were vandalism in need of being reverted. And the information as is doesn't have a citations. Let's see, what's better, leave it more general without a specific citation, or go more specific? I think without the citation that it needs to remain more general. But, again, you just wholesale reverted what I did as if it were vandalism, thanks. KP Botany 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want with this article, as that tends to be the trend with Wikipedia articles anyway. I thought it needed to be general until specific sources were rerenced with competeing theories, but this is just too frustrating. Even with a red-linked editor this morning, whose change I reverted because he/she missed prior vandalism, I was sure to note that I was not reverting his edit, and I put his image bag in the page. I'm not a vandal, I'm not an anon-IP, and I work on algae and protist articles, some more consideration than you decided to show was in order. KP Botany 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did three things: removed some good though unsourced info, changed the spelling of cryptomonad to a non-standard form, and added some good though unsourced info. I should have left the last, which I will now replace. But I didn't realize that reverting text is a personal insult unless otherwise specified; and I'm sorry for implying your edit was bad-faith. Josh

Well, that's a good laugh, so I accept your apology. For future reference if you see a "non-standard form" on anything I've submitted, you should just assume I spelled it wrong--I do spell check, but I also have 3 Wikipedia editors who check all my major edits and clean them up immediately, please join 'em, as there isn't one for my protist articles, and I'm expanding many articles. The problem with leaving this particular unsourced information in is that it relates to research that has to be discussed in depth in the article. I disagree with it being included in the article without a reference and a discussion of competing theories of classifications. KP Botany 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy up taxobox

Don't people think that the classes in the taxobox should be alphabetized? --Kupirijo 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox colour

The colour of the taxobox for this article is #FA7B62. Does anyone know why taxoboxes for Heterokont classes have a mixture of colours? GrahamBould 07:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced additions

This addition adds a lot of information that may well be true, but seems controversial with respect to recent secondary sources, and so needs some sourcing of its own. I've reverted, but I hope that the editor can find sources to support it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fix

I changed the kingdom from “Chromalveolata” to “Halvaria” because the former is not monophyletic and is not in Template:Eukaryota. However, my taxobox got screwed up. Could someone please fix it? I hope everyone approves my changing of “Chromalveolata” to “Halvaria”, not withstanding the resulting taxobox messup? The consensus among biologists is that non-monophyletic taxa are not valid, and I fully agree; and Wikipedia's policy is not to give undue weight to fringe views, which I understand to mean that view of the overwhelming majority gets priority. Hence, the kingdom for an organism should never be listed as “Chromalveolata”. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heterokontophyta

Heterokontophyta (Hoek, 1995) includes colorless groups and can be synonym of Stramenopiles, but I think that Heterokontophyta (Hoek, 1978) may not include them, and so it would be synonym of Ochrophyta. Zorahia (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stramenopile and Heterokont

There are these two articles with different names; there is a complex taxonomic history, and both names have been used somewhat promiscuously. Are they now the same thing, or is there some justification for having them both? At Talk:Stramenopile it appears someone tried redirecting/merging back in 2008, but that this was undone at some point. And in Stramenopile#History and the Heterokont problem someone has written

"The consequence of multiple concepts for the taxon 'heterokont' was that the meaning could only be made clear by reference to its usage: Heterokontae sensu Luther 1899; Heterokonta sensu Copeland 1956, or heterokont in the sense of Heterokont Wkipedia on a particular date.[clarification needed] The term 'Heterokont' lost its usefulness in critical discussions about the identity, nature, character and relatedness of the group.[4]"

(my boldface emphasis): I'm not sure what we can possibly mean by citing "Wkipedia" as a taxonomic authority, so I've flagged it for clarification. In short, there's something wrong here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that Wikipedia is not an author in the context of taxonomic codes, so that text should presumably be removed. Perhaps more than just that sentence. I don't know whether it is quite "nonsense" in the sense of WP:CANTFIX but I'm not sure we need to keep it just because it is there now. As for whether these articles should be combined or separate, at least for me that mostly depends on scientific consensus. If there is such a consensus, then I'd organize the article according to the current classification, and then write a History section which can cover some of the messiness over the years. Unfortunately, I don't really have much expertise on that, what little I do have is out of date, and I haven't tried to read up on the current evidence. Kingdon (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the worst bit, but we still have 2 articles where one might well do, and both need serious revision. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stramenopiles = Heterokonts

Seriously, it's 2023, we need to get this over with. We can't have two separate articles for the same thing. They're not two different taxa, they're the same taxon. Even if they used to be separate concepts, that info belongs in a "History" section of a common article, not in an entirely separate article. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 11:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snoteleks: Well, you can see from the above thread that I agree with you... so, which name should we use? We certainly need to merge the taxonomic history whichever way we go, and we can use as many redirects as we need, they're cheap and helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A) The consensual position of many protistologists – taxon of no formal rank Stramenopiles Patterson 1989, emend. Adl et al. 2005 [syn. Heterokonta Cavalier-Smith, 1981 stat. n. 2017] (2018; DOI 10.1111/jeu.12691; PMID 30257078) (btw implicitly accepted by all recent systems using SAR)

B) Broadly accepted is also the last Cavalier-Smith's system – Superphylum Heterokonta Cavalier-Smith, 1981 stat. n. 2017 (stramenopiles) (2017; DOI 10.1007/s00709-017-1147-3; PMID 28875267 - Table 1) (btw implicitly accepted by all recent systems using Harosa)

Both respect the valid recent diagnosis of the clade/taxon. I would prefer A) because B) is a junior synonym and because Heterokonta is sometimes used with different diagnosis (=Ochrophyta/Heterokontophyta or =Xanthophyceae). But there may be other opinion – e.g. preferring the formal taxon with specified rank (superphylum). To be frank, I don't know the consensual position of phycologists; maybe somebody could add for better support of the final decision. --Petr Karel (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Karel: A more general discussion is under way at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life about which way we should merge; that looks as if the Wiki-consensus will be for Stramenopile but let's wait and see (or discuss there). Whatever the outcome, we can then launch a formal merger (one direction or the other) here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]