Talk:Amoebozoa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Microbiology (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Number of Species[edit]

This page should say how many species are in this phylum. --Savant13 20:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

User:Guanaco's Category:Protista seemed apt. Why was it removed by User:UtherSRG I wonder? Wetman 20:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At the time, there were general questions about how categories should work for taxa. I've replaced it. Josh

The image placement is ridiculous! It states "Amoeba proteus", but when you click on the image, the file is called "Chaos diffluens"! Two clearly different species, different genera even! There are plenty of real photos of amoeba proteus out there - a correct one should be used here. 150.203.2.85 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Amoeba proteus = Chaos diffluens ?[edit]

Amoeba proteus and Chaos diffluens are synonyms?

"Many synonyms exist for Amoeba proteus. (Mast and Johnson, 1931). However, the only other name used today is Chaos diffluens, proposed by Schaeffer in 1926. Amoeba proteus can be distinguished from two similar species, Amoeba dubia and Amoeba discoides, by ...", [1]. 91.117.48.143 17:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Taxobox colour change[edit]

Hello,

After much discussion, it has been agreed that colour changes for taxoboxes are necessary; it's currently proposed that amoebozoa taxoboxes should become #FFC8A0 and rhizaria, lavender. These changes would be carried out automatically, determined by regnum/phylum/etc entries in the taxobox. Your comments and opinions would be gratefully received here!

Thanks,

Verisimilus T 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fossil range[edit]

wrt. the taxobox, are there really fossils of precambrian amoebozoa? Or, indeed, any amoebozoa at all? I'd be very interested if so! Verisimilus T 11:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom or not?[edit]

As far as I know, this is not a kingdom, but rather a group within protists. In fact, it seems that many new kingdoms of eukaryotes have been added, when before there were just animals, plants, fungi, and protists. What's happening? Is there some new taxonomic descision I should know about? 69.15.134.58 (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right. In fact, the authority given for this group (Luhe 1913, emend. Thomas Cavalier-Smith, 1998) classifies it as a phylum, under Kingdom Protozoa ( see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9809012 ). Every taxonomical authority I am aware of classifies Amoebozoa either as a phylum, or as an unranked supragenic taxon (as in the ISOP system). I think the problem here originates in an eccentricity of the automatic taxobox template, which seems to insist on classifying Amoebozoa as a kingdom. The simplest solution is to switch to the ordinary taxobox template, which permits us to classify Amoebozoa either as a phylum under Protozoa, or as an "unranked_phylum" (with no kingdom specified, as preferred by ISOP). Deuterostome (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

= "List of amoeboid protozoa pathogenic to humans" mistake[edit]

Naegleria is not an amoebozoan but an Excavata member. Excavata are not even closely related to amoebozoan since they are Bikonts (like plants and algae) while amoebozoa are unikonts (like fungi and animals). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone define an amoeba?[edit]

Could a knowledgeable person please define the terms amoeba and the plural amoebae as used on this page? Does it refer to any member of the Amoebozoa, i.e., to a species, or does it refer to a particular type of cell such as the amoeboid stage of a slime mold (or to both)? This explanation is also needed on the page Amoeba (disambiguation). Thanks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Myxamoeba as gametes and not as individual organisms like Amoeba[edit]

See https://sites.google.com/site/philippinemyxomycetes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.6.168 (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of Edits to Amoebozoa[edit]

  • Rewrote the lead, clarifying the taxonomy.
  • To reduce possible confusion with amoebae in other taxonomic groups, I replaced "amoebae" with "amoebozoans," in several places. There is nothing incorrect about the use of "amoebae" for "amoebozoan organisms", but it seems to add an unneeded conceptual difficulty for some readers (see comment by Sminthopsis84 above).
  • Rewrote and reorganized Morphology section, added some citations (more work is needed there).
  • Updated Classification section, to reflect the current state of research. Created a subsection on the place of Amoebozoa in the Eukaryote tree. Changed subsection title "Lobose Amoebozoa" to "Subphyla of Amoebozoa: Lobosa and Conosa", and added paragraph on recent confirmation of the validity of those subphyla.
  • Made numerous small changes for reasons of style, clarity, spelling or organization. Deuterostome (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amoebozoa. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)