Talk:Eocyte hypothesis

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Tree of Life C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Microbiology C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pronunciation

Please add pronunciation(s) of this group. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.238.168 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom?

The links to Euryarchaeota and Crenarchaeota refer to them as phyla, not kingdoms. It would be nice to get the articles to coincide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.238.168 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are Eocytes?

What is right (if Eocytes = Eocyta):

Eocytes = Crenarchaeote
Eocytes = Asgard + TACK (including Crenarchaeota as a true subset)

The article states both, whichcannot betrue.--Ernsts (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Domain Hypothesis: A Fusion of Two Ideas

In science, the most important thing is the scientific method process which allows for revision based on newer information. If the new "two-domain" classification system is accepted then the earlier Eocyte hypothesis is invalidated, as the 1980s Eocyte hypothesis had both archaea and bacteria in the same domain. In short, while the earlier and latter hypotheses have two domains each, the parameters for domain division are different and contradict each other.

Ironically, this is a case whether neither the Eocyte Hypothesis or the Three-Domain Hypothesis are now the leading idea. Instead we have the Two-Domain Hypothesis which combines elements of both. And while the more recent 'two-domain' hypothesis has some origins in the Eocyte hypothesis, the new Two-Domain hypothesis has Archaea and Bacteria as separate domains, not on the same side. If anything, this only strengthened Woese's 1977 discovery that archaea were not like bacteria at all. Ryoung122 04:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]