Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protista

WikiProject Protista

Main page

Talk

Article guidelines

Popular pages

New articles

Requests

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Protista and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives (index): 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Protista This page 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.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Good news about Picophagea

Many sources conflict on whether Picophagea and Synchromophyceae are the same class or separate classes. As with other taxa (e.g., Heterolobosea), it's a "Tom Cavalier-Smith vs. everyone else" issue, but with this particular taxon it's never been clear which genera belong to each class, making Cavalier-Smith's inclusive view more coherent. However, a 2024 study has revised their classification, and we can finally split the article in two without any worry. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Raphidomonadea § Requested move 31 August 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Raphidomonadea § Requested move 31 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raphidomonadea listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Raphidomonadea to be moved to Raphidophyceae. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Discussion at Talk:Synurid § Requested move 31 August 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Synurid § Requested move 31 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Amorphea § Podiata ref

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Amorphea § Podiata ref. Jako96 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Pseudofungi § Change to Oomycota? (That page exists already but as a redirect)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pseudofungi § Change to Oomycota? (That page exists already but as a redirect). Jako96 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Phaeothamniophycidae § Requested move 18 October 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Phaeothamniophycidae § Requested move 18 October 2025. Jako96 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phaeothamniophycidae listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Phaeothamniophycidae to be moved to Phaeothamniophyceae. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Raphidomonads

Raphidomonads' classification should be updated. The class Raphidophyceae should be used instead of the subclass variant, Actinophrys and Actinosphaerium should be classified under the family Actinophryidae within the monotypic order Actinophryida within Gyrista, Heliorapha should be classified as Ciliophrys and as a pedinellid and Commation should be directly under Stramenopiles (tbh not sure about my Commation proposal). Edit: If Commation gets excluded from Ochrophyta then it should also be in the monotypic family Commatiidae and monotypic order Commatiida in Stramenopiles. Jako96 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Snoteleks because he agreed with using the name Raphidophyceae. Jako96 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait why do you want to classify Heliorapha as Ciliophrys? — Snoteleks (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because Adl et al. 2019 and everyone does that. Jako96 (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, Heliorapha and Ciliophrys are different genera. One species of Ciliophrys got separated and made into the genus Heliorapha, which is an actinophryid and is not even mentioned in Adl et al. 2019. Both genera exist and belong to different groups. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you're right. Then I think we should just use the name Ciliophrys azurina. Jako96 (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No... Ciliophrys azurina is now known as Heliorapha azurina, it is no longer part of the original genus. Why do you want to un-do this combination? — Snoteleks (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's only mentioned in that 2013 paper, that's it. Nobody uses Raphopoda or Raphomonadea, so we have no choice but to not use that classification. Jako96 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 That's not how it works, the internal actinophryid classification doesn't magically regress into the 20th century just because a hypothesis for their external classification got disproven. If you claim that Heliophris azurina is back to the genus Ciliophrys you need to back that up with sources that show it. Otherwise you're just extrapolating what happened to one piece of information onto another piece of unrelated information. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be WP:SYNTH. Then, you say it. How should we classify raphidomonads, Snoteleks? Jako96 (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do the changes myself now. I already have the references at easy reach. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should Raphidophyceae replace Raphidophycidae or Raphidomonadea? Is there still a split of raphidomonads into Raphidophytes and raphopods as in the CS classification? Are both raphidomonad and raphidophytes articles still neccessary? My extremely quick research suggests that Raphidophyceae includes the all the orders contained in Raphidomonadea.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882 As far as I've seen, the modern (post-20th century) use of the name Raphomonadea is pretty much exclusive to CS classification. Thus, Raphidophyceae should replace Raphidophycidae (which includes only the order Chattonellales, synonym of Vacuolariales), while Raphidomonadea (obsolete) also includes the orders Commatiida and Actinophryida, as Raphopoda. But, if you found a source that disagrees, please share — Snoteleks (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 @Jts1882 Ah wait, I just noticed a conflict. Raphidomonadea (and the vernacular name 'raphidomonad') seems to be the zoological counterpart to the botanical names, like raphidophyte. Before 2013, even CS only referred to raphidophytes as raphidomonads, never considering actinophryids. Therefore it's more consensed if we merge the two articles, and place "raphidomonad" as one of the common names, "Raphidomonadea" one of its synonyms. In the systematic history we can explain the proposal of actinophryids as part of raphidomonads, and the subsequent rejection of this idea. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking, merge the articles. So actinophryids don't belong, as they are recovered close to Chrysophyceae, Synurophyceae and Synchromophyceae, but what about Commation?  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's two possibilities. Either we place it with Raphopoda (obsolete) as its parent, or we place it as incertae sedis ochrophyte (which I see as the better choice). Either way, it should be made clear that its position is very uncertain and that the hypothesis that it's related to actinophryids and raphidophytes is de facto rejected, and that there's no molecular data to support its position. — Snoteleks (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Commation should be Chrysista incertae sedis. Jako96 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, I agree with merging the two articles. Jako96 (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use Chrysista incertae sedis? The source for this (Cavalier-Smith and Scoble 2013) places them in Raphidomonadea (Chrysista) as sister order to Actinophryida. Give the grouping of actinophryids and raphidophytnes has been abandoned, how much reliance should be placed on that placing? Earlier schemes had them as sister to Heliomonadida (now in Cercozoa) in a weird Apusuzoa. Is their Stramenopile placement even certain?  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original 1993 paper describing Commation placed it as Stramenopiles incertae sedis. They state The ultrastructure of the mitochondria, in particular the shape of the cristae (tubular), the presence of tubular flagellar hairs assembled in the endoplasmic reticulum, and flagellar roots consisting of a rhizoplast and microtubular elements are features indicating that Commation is best assigned to the stramenopiles.^[1] It is true that these ultrastructural characters, especially the tubular hairs, are exclusive to stramenopiles. However, CS briefly proposed it as a kinetoplastid in 1997, arguing: The flagellate Commation is here assigned to the class Kinetomonadea on account of its kinetocyst-like extrusomes. In my opinion its previous assignment to the Heterokonta was probably mistaken. Not only do no definite heterokonts have kinetocysts, but it is doubtful whether Commation has tripartite retronemes, as was assumed by Thomsen & Larsen (1993). One species has no known flagellate stage and the only clear micrograph of tubular hair-like structures (not obviously tripartite) showed them in an intracytoplasmic vesicle not on a cilium, so their nature remains problematic; the structures shown near a cilium are difficult to interpret.^[2] But later, in 2013, CS proposed it as a stramenopile, particularly related to raphidophytes, stating: Commation was believed to have tripartite hairs on its single anterior cilium and thus considered a heterokont (Thomsen and Larsen 1993); despite earlier scepticism of that interpretation (Cavalier-Smith 1997b), the presence of a single axopodium/proboscis, extrusomes and a rhizoplast suggests that Commation are colourless raphidomonads; they glide by means of their proboscis like uniciliate pinguiophytes, not by their cilium, so we consider them not closely related to Incisomonas [a placidozoan]. In the same paper he says: If Commation really belongs in Raphopoda (a sequence to test this is needed) its single proboscis could be an homologous relic of the hypothetical intermediate; if so, photosynthesis was lost before [actinophryid] axopodia multiplied. & [L]eucoplasts [...] should be [...] sought [...] in Commation.^[3] Meaning it may not even be an ochrophyte, as it has no observed leucoplasts, but it very probably is a stramenopile at least, due to similarities in behavior and cytoskeleton. — Snoteleks (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some changes for raphidomonads now, you can go and check them. Jako96 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Helge Abildhauge Thomsen; Jacob Larsen (12 November 1993). "The ultrastructure of Commation gen. nov. (Stramenopiles incertae sedis), a genus of heterotrophic nanoplanktonic flagellates from antarctic waters". European Journal of Protistology. 29 (4): 462–477. doi:10.1016/S0932-4739(11)80409-8.
2. Thomas Cavalier-Smith (April 1997). "Amoeboflagellates and mitochondrial cristae in eukaryote evolution: megasystematics of the new protozoan subkingdoms eozoa and neozoa". Archiv für Protistenkunde. 147 (3–4): 237–258. doi:10.1016/S0003-9365(97)80051-6.
3. Cavalier-Smith, Thomas; Scoble, Josephine Margaret (2013). "Phylogeny of Heterokonta: Incisomonas marina, a uniciliate gliding opalozoan related to Solenicola (Nanomonadea), and evidence that Actinophryida evolved from raphidophytes". European Journal of Protistology. 49 (3): 328–353. doi:10.1016/j.ejop.2012.09.002. PMID 23219323.

Discussion at Talk:Bigyromonada § Requested move 20 October 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bigyromonada § Requested move 20 October 2025. Jako96 (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bigyromonada listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bigyromonada to be moved to Bigyromonadea. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Soliformovum irregularis listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Soliformovum irregularis to be moved to Soliformovum irregulare. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.