Talk:Amoeba (genus)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amoeba (genus) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Protista Low‑importance

	This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disease

There needs to be a reference to the human health effects of amoebas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.147.125 (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good suggestion. I'm not the right person to write it, but are a couple of CDC links:

http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/naegleria/

http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/acanthamoeba/

http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/sappinia/

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000926.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/balamuthia/epi.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.239.248 (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2004

When I took biology (mid 90's), I was told the new spelling was "ameba", and "amoeba" was being phased out. Did this not happen?

The genus name Amoeba isn't going to change. For the amoebae in general, the spelling amebae could be used to distinguish them from the genus, but such reforms rarely take off and amoebae is still much more common.

You can't have an amoeba article without a reference to Gary Larson. It's just wrong. :-)

I thought Gary Larson wrote about bees, dogs, crusaders, worms, bears, whales, aliens, airplanes, dinosaurs, and nerds. I guess he may have mentioned amoebae once or twice.

Naming

This article had "Bery St. Vincent" listed as the one who coined the term "amoeba." A Google search for "Bery St. Vincent" yields a lot of references back to Wikipedia and very little else, leading me to believe that the name is a typo and actually refers to Jean Baptiste Genevieve Marcellin Bory de Saint-Vincent, a prolific feanch naturalist for whom independent documentation exists (Charton, Barbara. A to Z of marine scientists. Facts On File, 2003).

The original source cited for the name was the Gale Encyclopedia of Science. There seems to be a consensus that this source is prone to editorial errors, particularly in earlier editions.

I bring this up because there are so many citations of this one mistaken statement online, all without any real verification, all tracing back to this entry. I went through no fewer than ten databases of scholarly scientific literature looking for sourced statements about "Bery St. Vincent," and found nothing that leads me to believe he a)named anything, or b)existed at all.

It's a minor point, but it's telling in regard to how we acquire and disseminate (erroneous) information.

Tevebaugh (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)tevebaugh[reply]

For such a huge topic, this article is seriously lacking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.37.146 (talk) 2006-10-26T07:15:26

Picture

Why is the picture of Chaos diffluens, which is in a differnt genus? The picture is not Amoeba proteus. Werothegreat 16:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i dont see a picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert carter083190 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-26T18:02:04. The kingdom is protista. What was written is not a kingdom.

bv amea hgfd

Food chain

please add whether or not its is a decompose a parasite or is part of a sybiotic realationship. also tell how it gets its food —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert carter083190 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-26T18:03:38.

According to the example about collecting, some of them eat bacteria. There certainly exist parasitic genera, for example, Entamoeba histolytica. -- saimhe 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, fast edits

I was reading this, and saw the line of vandalism on there. I was about to change it when somebody already got it seconds before me. I refreshed and it was gone. Nice job!

Feel free to delete my message here, it's not important... just wanted to say thanks.

AGAIN WITH THE PICTURE!

This is Chaos diffluens! Different genus! I'm removing this picture again. If you find a picture of Amoeba, not Chaos, then please put it up. Thank you. Werothegreat 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have no idea what I'm talking about, but Google knows all (?):

[1] Amoeba Soup: An A - Z of AmoebaeAmoeba proteus. Alternative names: A. diffluens, Chaos diffluens.
[2] "Pinocytosis of inorganic salts by Amoeba proteus (Chaos diffluens)."
[3] JSTOR: The Genus PelomyxaTo the latter genus, he assigned Amoeba proteus ("Chaos diffluens") and Pelomyxa carolinensis ("Chaos chaos").

That's the first three returned by searching for "Chaos diffluens" "Amoeba proteus" [4]. (I escape with my integument intact now...) Shenme 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to ITIS and NCBI Amoeba proteus is the proper name, so why not change the Chaos diffluens article's name? We should also change the line in this article that says "An amoeba ... is a single-celled organism." I don't know much about amoeba taxonomy or else I'd do it myself. Calibas 03:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery

Right now it says amoebas were discovered by Rosel. Rosel who? The source it cites no longer works. I found a link that may or may not be trustworthy that says the person was called Rosel van Rosenhof. Then I also found another link, which might be even less verifiable that claims Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered them, and a previous version of this Wikipedia page says they were discovered by Kara Flanagan, but there is no reason given in the history or this talk page for having changed it. Hopefully someone has time to investigate this further. Chainer29 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link, it should work now, and updated the name. Jvbishop 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All amoebas are unicelled and also they have a very large diet they eat algae, plant cells, bacteria, microscopic protozoa and metazoa and lots of other things.

Upscaling

Does anyone know why an ameoba would die if it were as large as a shark? Would it be a surface area problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.35.224.63 (talk • contribs).

I'll confess, this sounds like a homework question. In any case, it's not well-formed. Would the atoms be expanded? Would things be stretched? Duplicated? How? The cellular membranes would then have a different ratio of thickness. Beyond even these points, this page is for the discussion of the amoeba article. This sort of "factoid" information probably wouldn't belong there. --Eyrian 03:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's two broad reasons for a maximum size for amoebae. One is that their internal processes include things like diffusion, which really doesn't scale well, for example it's why you have a heart instead of just letting food diffuse from your stomach and air from your lungs. Second, for things like pseudopod motion which may scale well enough for it to live, simply aren't efficient compared to other living things it would compete with, like shark swimming. 70.48.107.69 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs cleanup

Poor language, redundant info, quotes without reference footnotes, references to images which are nowhere to be found in the article.

References also seem awful, Recognition section reads like sensationalised fiction, we need some factual verification here as Google searches for amoebas listed in Recognition turn up no results on Wikipedia or the Web. Removing the Recognition section until someone can verify the text maintained and requesting general cleanup on this page. Hyaline eston

How much of the text has been copied from a book? I see references to "page seven" and various figure numbers. Ebichu63 13:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the amoeba

The "parts of the amoeba" section needs massive cleanup, as it is written in a manner that literally makes absolutely no sense. And it makes references to diagrams that don't exist, leading me to believe that it is actually copied from some sort of textbook. On the subject of diagrams, do you think it would be possible to get one of those diarams that labels all of the parts, either on a drawing or superimposed on to a photograph? Calgary 06:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow that is atrocious, isn't it? without checking its hard to know if it's the result of vandalism or poor copy edit. however, the diagrams are probably copyrighted, so unless someone would be kind enough to draw one or find a very old one? i know little to nothing about amoebas, so i cannot help. i've never been able to ask this before, so i'll just throw it out there: where is an amoeba expert when one needs one???--Snideology 02:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that is an amoeba?

It looks like a puddle of water with seashells inside. Are you sure it is not staged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.81.193 (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC) you r todilly wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.26.45 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible plagiarism?

I'm concerned that the section titled "Stimuli" might be plagiarized. It cites sources -- however, it also includes the suspect phrase ("See Figure 4.") Why would this be in the article if it wasn't copied verbatim from a text? — Adam Conover † 01:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want, the references in question appear to be cited at the bottom. You could check them yourself, but I'm far too lazy. Speaking of laziness, I'm too lazy to figure out the proper method of Wiki citations at the moment. Perhaps you(plural) could change them? 70.48.107.69 19:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polyphyly

Not all "amoeba" belong to the genus Amoeba (for example all the heteroloboseans). In fact, amoeba are quite polyphyletic. A disscussion of this would be helpful, as it is a common misconception that amoeba are monophyletic. Fritzlaylin (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edit

Could someone please close the unclosed cite before "Reaction to Stimuli"? 132.250.130.206 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC BIOLOGY? DID ANYBODY EVEN GO TO HIGH SCHOOL?????

Just looking at the top right of this article is going to make me explode. I'm going to spell this out for you; Amoeba is in the domain EUKARYA, and is part of the kingdom PROTISTA. It's phylum is PROTOZOA. My god, such a blatant disregard of facts is going to make me crazy! Amoebozoa isn't even a kingdom!!! It even says Tubulinea twice!!! It's ridiculous!!! And what is Eukaryota, because that sure isn't the name of any domain I know! Can someone please change it so that it looks like this;

Domain: Eukarya Kingdom: Protista Phylum: Protozoa Order: Amoebida

Please, please somebody do this for me. I am going crazy looking at the wrong words on the screen. I would so much appreciate anyone who could make these changes. PLEASE!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramedica (talk • contribs) 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends somewhat on exactly when you went to high school - taxonomic nomenclature has changed substantially in the last ten-tp-fifteen years. You may want to take a look at the Taxonomic rank article: it appears that the data in the Infobox is correct (at least to my eyes). -- MarcoTolo (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a tenth grade ap biology student and he is correct it is:

Domain: Eukarya Kingdom: Protista Phylum: Protozoa Order: Amoebida —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.69.196 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, 6, 2010

Most high school and intro level college texts use simplified taxonomies or older taxonomies. More advanced texts utilize more complete and up to date taxonomies. Neither Protista nor Protozoa is considered a valid taxon under current classification systems. Khajidha (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing up the meaning of "amoeba"

The articles about amoebas could use some cleanup.

The introductory sentence and the taxobox suggest that this article is about the genus Amoeba, but much of the article describes other creatures of amoeba form in general. For instance, the section on Food scarcity refers to a study about Dictyostelium, a slime mold genus not closely related to Amoeba, while the Marine amoeba section links to a video about Gromia. None of the pathogenic forms listed belong to Amoeba.

As the article recognizes, the problem is that "amoeba" most often refers to eukaryotes of amoeboid form. Wikipedia does have a separate article about amoeboids. But even professionals often refer to all amoeboids as amoebae. This paper^[1] , for instance, uses the terms amoeba and amoeboid interchangeably.

For the public, "amoeba" also refers to the amoeboids in general, since the differences between Amoeba and, say, Polychaos are obscure.

Here's an idea. We can separate the articles as follows:

Amoeba - disambiguation page that links to the pages below
Amoeba (genus) - retains the taxobox and information specific to the genus Amoeba
Amoeboid - about amoebae in the general sense

Another possibility is to rename the Amoeboid article "Amoeba" and start it with a link to a separate genus article.

Either way I think we should separate out the genus article, because I suspect that as long as it's simply called "Amoeba", it will attract content about other taxa.

hey. It will be better if you change it either than complain!!! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.141.1.111 (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bapteste, Eric; et al. (2001). "The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostelium, Entamoeba, and Mastigamoeba" (PDF). PNAS. 99 (3): 1414–1419. doi:10.1073/pnas.032662799. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help); line feed character in |title= at position 51 (help)

Asexuality

I am wondering if the use of the "amoeba" image by asexuals could be mentioned in this article or in Amoeba (disambiguation). Many asexuals call themselves "human amoebas" or simply "amoebas" as a subtle or humorous way to make reference to their sexuality (or lack thereof). The slogan of the asexual community is "Asexuality: it's not just for amoebas anymore". I think it would be better but in the dab page, but maybe could be worth a mention in this article. Any opinions? [5] [6] Canjth (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amoeba proteus

Classification error

Phylum- Plasmodroma Class- Sarcodina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.234.73 (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size claim for "Amoeba" dubia

Under Anatomy, the article says:

"The most famous species, Amoeba proteus, is 700–800 μm in length but the species Amoeba dubia is as large as a millimeter, and visible to the naked eye."

The same claim of size up to one millimeter appeared in the Amoeba dubia article earlier, but was unsourced and appears to be incorrect; Polychaos dubium (the newer, correct name) seems to be smaller than Amoeba proteus. In any case, since the species doesn't belong to Amoeba, statements about giant amoebas should probably appear in the amoeboid article instead. Cephal-odd (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error on page

On the wikipedia "amoeba" page, it says amoeba reproduce via mitosis and not binary fission, but I cannot find any evidence to support this in the link provided or in any other literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.120.181 (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binary fission is properly only used to describe the reproduction of prokaryotic species (bacteria and archaeans for example). Mitosis is the process that occurs in eukaryotic organisms such as amoeba, it involves the organization of chromosomes by means of a network of cytoskeletal elements. Khajidha (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of this article

It must be a symptom indicating that this article has been rewritten too many times, for it omits a number of important points that people associate with the amoeba, which include:

it has a single cell,
it likes bananas ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.240.140 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it has no fixed form, which led
many authorities to conclude, once upon a time, thought it was the most primitive form of life, although more recently some believed that
the amoeba is a degenerate form of the protozoa (as opposed to paramecium, which have a stable & identifiable shape).
And then there is the matter of Amoeba in popular culture . Despite the expressed dogma that "popular culture' sections are the equivalent of gangrene on Wikipedia, there are common sense reasons to include them -- & the amoeba's image in popular culture is one of them

Sometimes Wikipedia articles must truly suck for non-specialist readers, who expect to see certain facts mentioned, yet find nothing about them -- whether they are true, or erroneous. -- llywrch (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Light and Dark and ameoba

on wiki answers it says (2008) re: stumili

'They respond to food, water temperature, light/dark, other organisms, chemical concentrations in the water.

They respond to food by moving toward it and engulfing it with their pseudopods. The food source is usually releasing some type of chemicals into the water that the amoeba is attracted to. If the water temperature is too cold they may form a cyst and remain inactive until the water is warmer(like in the winter). Too much light - they move away to darker areas of the pond... but they have no eyes.. so is this correct?' please could this be added o the articleRothkelly (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Base pairs in DNA

Are the figures of base pairs given in the article correct? How many chromosomes are there in each nucleus? If the huge number of base pairs is correct how many genes do they code for, or is much of the DNA (even compared to mammals) junk? 86.178.74.82 (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Classification

Hello, I'm a little bit confused because of the nomenclature at this page in contrast to the pages Amoebidae and Entamoeba histolytica. At each page there is given a different class. Does anybody know where I can get the information which is actually correct? Greetings Baertierchen (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move requested

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amoeba (genus) → Amoeba Will someone 'over redirect' this back to the unbracketed title? Thanks. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - disambiguation isn't necessary in this case. Marcus Qwertyus 03:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unnecessary disambiguation. Jenks24 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Disambiguation is not neccesary. M701 (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the supports, but I wasn't so much looking to start a discussion. I just can't move it myself, since I'm an IP, and I just wanted to flag someone down to do it. I think we would be fine it someone just went ahead and moved it now :-) 68.54.4.162 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Marcus, M701 and myself are all non-admins and therefore just as unable to move the page as you are. This requested move discussion will most likely be closed by an admin about a week after it started. In future, if you have an uncontroversial request, such as this one, that you think does not require discussion, you can list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as above Suraj T 05:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Straightforward case. Noetica^Tea? 06:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Huge genome - so what?

OK, so the amoeba genome has 100X the number of base pairs that the human one does. Uhh, so what? What is the signficance of this? Old_Wombat (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the genome is the genetic material of an organism, that which determines its traits and characteristics, genome size is often correlated with complexity of the organism. That makes it rather interesting that humans, for all of our complexity and interacting tissues and systems, have 100x less genetic material than this amoeba. 67.168.130.9 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Domain

"Romasaka" domain? What? Infobox looks vandalized. -75.150.254.105 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom

The infobox says the amoeba belongs to the kingdom Protista. However, Protist suggests that this usage is outdated. Which is correct, this infobox, or the Protist article? Both? Neither? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Protista is still used, in some taxonomic systems. Wikipedia has not settled on a single taxonomic standard, so the use of "Protista" here did not need to be challenged. However, since the taxobox already contained Thomas Cavalier-Smith's Domain Eukaryota, I decided to make the rest of the taxobox consistent with the high-level taxa used in his 6-kingdom system of 2004 ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15306349 ). I've added authorities for Domain and Kingdom (T C-S, in both cases). My own preference would be to use the standard established by the International Society of Protistologists in 2005, which abandons formal taxonomic ranks altogether. However, Linnaean named hierarchies are still in common use, and the taxobox was created for that system. Deuterostome (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vehemently disagree with the idea that any classification system is as good as any other. There are many older systems that use demonstrably non-monophyletic groups that would not hold up under current rules of nomenclature. "Protista" and "Protozoa" manifestly in that category - they're fine as common names, but are not real groups and have no place in an up to date taxonomic listing. I'm going to remove "Protozoa" from the taxobox, and replace it with a more current "Kingdom", if any, and the non-Linnean rank of Unikonta. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter G Werner, your intentions are good, and I share your "vehement" desire to harmonize taxonomy with phylogeny (which is why I am partial to the unranked ISOP system, proposed by Sina Adl et al. in 2005, and updated in 2012). However, what you've done here is quite odd. While you cited Thomas Cavalier-Smith, 1998 as the emending authority for "Kingdom Amoebozoa," if you actually look at his taxonomy of 1998 you will find that "Amoebozoa" does not feature as a kingdom at all, but as a phylum, under Kingdom Protozoa. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9809012 ) Thomas Cavalier-Smith (who certainly knows the "current rules of nomenclature") continues to include Kingdom Protozoa among his high-level taxa (from 2010: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/12/17/rsbl.2009.0948.full ). Also, in your revised taxobox you've retained Amoebozoa as a phylum, so the same name appears twice in the hierarchy! While the use of (admittedly, polyphyletic) "Kingdom Protozoa" is not a violation of rules of nomenclature, this certainly is, so I have edited the taxobox in keeping w/ taxonomic standards. I also considered adding Cavalier-SMith's Unikonta to the taxobox, but decided against it, in light of evidence showing it is not an ancestral clade (Adl et al, 2012 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x/full ). As Adl et al. point out, the group is taxonomically correct, but cladistically confusing. Their proposed clade Amorphea could take its place, between Eukaryota and Amoebozoa; however, it is a new group, and Wikipedia is not the place for new research that has not yet gained general support. Deuterostome (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit, removal of information about other genera

These changes are a continuation of the recent effort by User:Espoo to fix a problem in the earlier version of this article. As written, the previous version did not distinguish between the informal term "amoeba" or "ameba" (loosely applied to a wide range of unicellular organisms with a roughly amoeboid cell morphology) and the formal taxon Amoeba, a genus within the family Amoebidae. The result was a very confusing mix of information about organisms from widely separated branches of the eukaryote tree.

Since this article is about the genus Amoeba, I have removed all material pertaining mainly to other genera of amoeboid organisms, such as Naegleria, Dientamoeba, Polychaos, Gromia, Pelomyxa and Chaos.

A hatnote has been added, linking to the disambiguation page.

I left as much of the original Amoeba article as possible, adding new material when necessary to fill gaps. Some other changes:

Rewrote History section, focusing on the genus. Added "Classification" to the section title, since most of the "history" is nomenclatural.
Consolidated the sections on Anatomy, Nutrition, and Movement, because the removal of extraneous matter left a scattering of small sections.
Removed the Genome section. Information about the genome size of particular species belongs in Amoeba proteus and Polychaos dubium.
Lightly edited the section on Osmoregulation to improve clarity. It is longer and more detailed than any of the other sections, but since it doesn't contain major redundancies I left most of it intact.
Replaced the image in the taxobox with a more colorful one
Added an image showing the earliest depiction of an amoeboid
Edited the section on reproduction in light of the fact that, while sexual phenomena are found in many amoeboid lineages, they are still unknown in the genus Amoeba (although members of that genus, like all eukaryotes, are almost certainly descended from a common ancestor that did have sex) Deuterostome (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved as suggested and hatnote updated. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amoeba → Amoeba (genus)
Amoeba (amoeboid organism) → Amoeba

– The article Amoeba, as the lead and taxobox make clear, is about a single taxon, the genus Amoeba, which contains a relatively small number of Amoebozoan species. However, microbiologists and others customarily use the word "amoeba" (lower case, no italics) to describe a common type of cell (one that uses pseudopodia to move and feed). This sense of "amoeba" is a much larger and more important subject, encompassing many thousands of species, very few of which are in genus Amoeba. The article that covers this subject is Amoeba (amoeboid organism), which I believe should be the primary topic. Most of the existing Wikipedia links to "amoeba" are not actually intended for the genus Amoeba at all, but for other amoeboid taxa, or for "amoeba" in the looser sense of the word. I reviewed the first 100 of the the incoming links to Amoeba. The only links genuinely intended for the genus "Amoeba" were in the few pages that use the Template:Amoebozoa, in which Amoeba is included among many other taxa. The template can be easily adjusted to link to Amoeba (genus). A few links were aimed at the species Amoeba proteus (a common experimental organism), and one was for a men's magazine called "Amoeba." If there is consensus on the move, I will review all incoming links to make sure they are properly directed. The page receives a fair bit of traffic (lots of school kids doing biology homework) so it's important to get it right. See: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/amoeba Deuterostome (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support; this is as if there were a dozen species of Cockatoo, but having the article only be about the one species whose Latin name is Cacatua. The general-purpose topic should have the title, not a single genus which is also a subtopic of it. bd2412 T 04:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a taxon encyclopedia (or WikiSpecies) . -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per above. However, I believe Amoeba (genus) should be specifically named in the disambiguation hatnote for maximum convenience in directing readers, e.g. . --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent suggestion. bd2412 T 00:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. James ^{(T • C)} • 12:52 PM • 02:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please

Please give me a picture of a large amoeba without a microscope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.246.87.185 (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what 91.246.87.185 has in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.26.170 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amoeba proteus is large and there are some pictures that don't depict a microscope. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Bapteste, Eric; et al. (2001). "The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostelium, Entamoeba, and Mastigamoeba" (PDF). PNAS. 99 (3): 1414–1419. doi:10.1073/pnas.032662799. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help); line feed character in |title= at position 51 (help)

[1]