From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Heterokont is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Algae (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Number of species[edit]

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 (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)

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)

Tidy up taxobox[edit]

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

Taxobox colour[edit]

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)

Unreferenced additions[edit]

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)


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)


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)