Talk:Plant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What is source for "300–315 thousand species of plants"?[edit]

I can't find a source for this 300–315 figure, and the given ref says 321,212.[1] Another ref says 400,000.[2]

"modular" unclear[edit]

I have a doctorate in biophysics, and thus I am not an "layperson", yet I have no idea what is meant by " Plants are also characterized by ... modular ... growth," even after reading the article it links to. The word "modular" does not appear in the linked article. I have "Plant Life" from Oxford Unifersity Press on my desk and it does not index "modular". Can some botanist please elucidate for the educated layperson, the meaning of "modular growth"? Thanks, Nick Beeson (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

See, e.g., this explanation. A tree branch can be considered to be a "modular part" of the tree. It usually has buds capable of growing into new branches, so that the tree is made up of an indefinite number of modules. The contrast is with the determinate growth and shape of almost all animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It means that the structure is made of repeated similar units. Individual animals have segmentation, with a few repeated "modules", but these typically occur in a fixed location and in finite numbers, such as ribs in the human body, or body segments in a centipede. By contrast, buds, branches, and leaves repeat over and over throughout the structure of a single plant. So, instead of specific organs localized in a particular location as animals do, the organs in a plant repeat over and over as modules. Some colonial marine invertebrates approach this kind of pattern.
And because of indeterminate growth, plants can repeat these same modules over and over throughout their lives. When modular structure is combined with indeterminate growth, the result is (in mathematical language) a fractal pattern. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"Green plants" ?[edit]

The leading paragraph currently begins with -- "Plants, also known as green plants, are a..." Is this a joke? 137.124.161.13 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Is the figure '300-315 thousand' accurate?[edit]

The article says that there are about 300-315 thousand plant species. But in the page of Angiosperms, it says that there are around 350,000 species of flowering plants itself, which contradicts the above statement. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anantu.S (talkcontribs) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

beneficial characterstics of plants[edit]

Everyone know the importance of plants, their importance in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.196.22 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Plant nerves and feelings?[edit]

Hi!

The passage "Nervous system" discusses the feelings of plants and their supposed nervous systems. This seems little else than complete nonsense to me, nevermind the fact the passage includes two citations. I suggest removal. (The article is protected and I am not able to make removal myself.)

However, if plants actually did have a nervous system, contrary to all common knowledge, then Wikipedia seriously lacks information on this important topic. Try searching e.g. with words plant nervous system.

I also suggest reviewing the passage "Immune system" for possible faults.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.112.143 (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2016

I looked the citations, and the citations seems to be mostly unrelated. First citation refers to some history in 1800 where some researcher at that time made a hypothesis. It is a fact that there was a person who made a hypothesis, but that does not make the hypothesis true. Second citation says in abstract that plants "lack central nervous systems", exactly opposite of the claims in article. --Thv (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The "Immune system" section still (at 22 Mar 2017) contains a reference to "cells that behave like nerves", and suggests that bundle sheath cells perform a nerve-like signaling function. The reference for this content is a 2010 BBC news feature, reviewing the paper "Secret Life of Plants" (S. Karpinski, M. Szechynska-Hebda; Plant Signalling & Behaviour; Nov 2010; 5:11; pp1391-1394). This paper is - to be generous - extremely heterodox; it makes many claims not found in the mainstream of plant science. Passages such as "...plants are capable of processing information encrypted in light intensity and in its energy", "...plants are able to perform biological quantum computation and memorize light training in order to optimize their Darwinian fitness" and "It is suggested that plants could be intelligent organisms with much higher organism organization levels than it was thought before" give some indication of the flavour of this paper. Much of the paper seems to be designed to obfuscate; a lengthy, over-technical presentation of an assortment of uncontentious detail about the mechanisms of photosynthesis is used to introduce unsupported assertions about memory and quantum computation; an interesting but uncontentious paper (D. Peak et al;Evidence for complex collective dynamics and emergent distributed computation in plants; PNAS;Jan 2004; 101:4; pp918-922) is cited out of context, with the term "cellular automata" incorrectly referred to as "cellular automation", to support the thesis of plant computation capabilities. While this is not my domain (I'm a computer systems engineer), I believe this section should be reviewed by a domain expert, and updated to reflect a modern consensus view of this aspect of plant biology. --FredV (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I think your comment "Much of the paper seems to be designed to obfuscate; a lengthy, over-technical presentation of an assortment of uncontentious detail about the mechanisms of photosynthesis is used to introduce unsupported assertions about memory and quantum computation" is an excellent assessment. Jargon for jargon's sake and no clarity. The section in the Plant article, as written, is worse than useless (it detracts from the whole article and Wikipedia in general). It says nothing clearly or accurately and has two separate parts: one about the paper you mention and another about the receptor and signalling molecules that could be an immune system. The text should briefly summarise what is in Plant_disease_resistance#Immune_system and aspects that don't make the grade there shouldn't be in this article. Jts1882 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph[edit]

I understand there's an issue around the paraphyly of the green algae. However, this article is about a (much) larger group, the plants as a whole, and the article's title is a common English name, so readers from school age upwards can reasonably expect at least the lead section to be simple and welcoming. I suggest, therefore, that we should not be launching into discussions of whether a particular group of plants happens to be paraphyletic - the job of the lead section is to give an overview of the plants as a whole, by summarizing the article as a whole. Taxonomic intricacies are not the priority there, specially in the first paragraph. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, provided the lead makes clear that although "plant" was an unproblematic term in the past, it has different definitions now. But the lead isn't the place to go into fine details of those definitions. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Error in scope[edit]

Currently, the beginning of the article decisively declares that "Plant" is synonymous with Viridiplantae. This unnecessarily narrows the scope of the article to only one technical definition from one discipline (biology). Even from a biological standpoint, this is contradicted immediately when the actual ambiguity of the term is unfolded under Definition. If the scope of this article is supposed to be limited to Viridiplantae, why is there also a Viridiplantae article? Lusanaherandraton (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a little harsh, as the clade is only one element of the first paragraph, but in essence you have a point. The lead should summarize the body of the article, including any ambiguities it may have, and definition is certainly one of those. The lead might better say something along the lines of "As currently understood by botanists, the green plants are equivalent to the clade Viridiplantae, but ..." Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right about my sounding harsh. Sorry! I went ahead and changed the paragraph (before I saw your suggested wording, which may be better). Anyway, I suppose it was more an error in summary than the scope of the whole article. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
As a more general point, should the opening sentence (now a standalone paragraph) emphasise the multicellularity of plants when many green algae are not multicellular? The most characteristic feature of plants is that they are photosynthetic autotrophs and as such form the basis of most terrestrial food chains. I can see why the lede starts with trying to describe the scope of the term, but perhaps multicellularity should be dealt with later. If photosynthesis can wait, so can multicellularity. Alternatively, the sentence should be made less absolute ("mainly/predominantly multicellular", "multicellular green plants and their unicellular relatives") and/or more general (e.g. "a group of photsynthetic autotrophs including the multicellular green plants and their unicellular relatives"). I note that the issue of multicellularity has been raised before, so won't make changes as I'm not sure of the history of why it retained in such a prominent position. I do see that defining a plant in a simple manner is actually an extremely difficult issue (harder than reptiles). Jts1882 (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Added a couple of words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Plant. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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) 22:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent significant changes[edit]

Jmv2009 made some signficant changes to the article in this series of edits. "Plant" is such an important article, and linked from so many places, that changes of this nature need to be discussed. I'm particularly concerned that the edits don't give due weight to alternative views, including those employed in most "plant" articles.

A separate issue is that primary sources should not be used as references for the authorship of taxa. The original paper in which a name appeared does not show that it is valid under the nomenclature codes: the name could be a homonym, it might not be properly published, etc. (There's also some confusion between authorship and sensu. A name authored by X does not have to be used in the sense intended by X: the nomenclature codes are clear that names do not determine circumscription, beyond any type involved.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Peter coxhead reverted the senso stricto -> senso lato change. The main issue I have is that currently Plantae typically includes Rhodophyta and Glaucophyta, making it equivalent to archaeplastida rather than viridiplantae. See eg. [3] and [4]. Please provide suggestions to fix this other than undoing the coxhead revert. I have no opinion about the authorship references.Jmv2009 (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The inclusion of a couple of basal clades should not impact the validity of links from other articles. I have not found recent alternative authorities which are at odds with this. Jmv2009 (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
What's important is not what a couple of primary sources say (especially when one of them is Cavalier-Smith, whose views have long been controversial) but what the preponderance of secondary sources says (as per WP:PSTS). It may well be that there's a move to treating kingdom Plantae as the clade Archaeplastida, but (a) this needs to be demonstrated with appropriate sources meeting WP:RS and (b) there needs to be a consensus among editors. I've flagged this discussion at WT:PLANTS. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Clearly we mustn't take sides with one or another primary source here: our job is to summarize the situation, not jump into a partisan camp. The section "Plant#Current definitions of Plantae" summarizes the positions of both Viridiplantae and Archaeplastida, as well as the strict Land plants (Embryophyta), not to mention the now-obsolete sensu amplo meanings of Linnaeus, Haeckel etc. I'd suggest that we should summarize this helpful section in the lead of Plant so as to make clear we know different definitions are available and we aren't taking sides. If of course there's overwhelming evidence from review papers that one of V or A (or some newer view) has now taken over in the minds of almost all botanists, then we should document that, but it doesn't seem we've quite reached that point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, it would help if involved editors could also hold off from making related (possibly partisan) edits to Viridiplantae, Archaeplastida, Charophyta, Streptophyta etc, all of which I see have been edited very recently in this way, while this discussion is ongoing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Chiswick Chap on both points above. I think that, at least for now, it would be best not to take any position in the lead section as to the meaning of "plant", simply say that there are alternative definitions. This does mean changing the lead, but not from one definition to another. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll add that the change to the last cladogram mirrored the one made in Prasinophyceae where the structure of the cladogram was changed without justification. The cladogram now differs from the stated source in making Mesostigmatophyceae a sister of Chlorokybophyceae.   Jts1882 | talk  12:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I added the sources for that change in Prasinophyceae.Jmv2009 (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank-you. All you had to do was add the sources when first making the edit. In doing so you build up trust in your edits. The Leliaert et al (2016) has some other potential changes for the Prasinophyceae cladogram, including a whole new grouping.  Jts1882 | talk  14:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is another (secondary) source with Plantae equal to Archaeplastida: [5]. I'll try to find more references (both ways).Jmv2009 (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Another source: [6]Jmv2009 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Another source: [7]Jmv2009 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Another source: [8]. I never see Rhodophyta discussed as e.g. sister to Plantae.Jmv2009 (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Another source: [9]Jmv2009 (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jmv2009: Rather than adding a list of hard-to-follow DOIs (at least one of which is broken, so it's unusable) to unseen papers, could you rather document the papers by name and author, and state how we know they are reliable and what they actually show. What is required is evidence that a widely-accepted change in botanical usage has occurred, not that A or V are in use (we know that already). Then I suggest we delete the existing list above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
As a general point on Plantae, we can come up withlong lists of papers using Plantae sensu stricto and sensu lato to refer to the Viridiplantae and Archaeplastida, respectively. None are wrong as they use the names in a particular context. For instance, you often find different uses of taxa for people working on extinct and extant forms. The important point here is that this article and other Wikipedia articles use Plantae sensu stricto. It would require something significant to justify a change.   Jts1882 | talk  14:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The references above using DOI Wikipedia reference generator:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]   Jts1882 | talk  14:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms , Rugiera et al [10] discuss the following: For decades, taxonomists have debated the boundary between Protozoa and Plantae. We accept the view that it should be placed just prior to the evolutionary origin of chloroplasts and that Plantae should comprise all eukaryotes with plastids directly descending from the initially enslaved cyanobacterium, i.e., Viridiplantae (green plants), Rhodophyta (red algae), and Glaucophyta (glaucophyte algae), but exclude those like chromists that ...

All random articles I found (e.g. after 2013 on scholar.google.com "Rhodophyta Plantae" search) follow the Plantae senso lato convention. Usually not much need to change in the other wikipedia articles despite the large number of references. In the taxobox the problem only occurs if both Archaeplastida and Viridiplantae are present, and Plantae is used for the latter as the "proper" Kingdom name. This only occurs mostly near the root of the Viridiplantae.Jmv2009 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd be wary of any opinion that still uses protozoa as a valid taxon.
Your search wasn't random. You searched for "Rhodophyta Plantae", which is biased to pick up articles that include Rhodaphyta in Plantae. People who are studying Rhodophyta and don't consider them as members of Plantae would have no reason to include Plantae in their article.   Jts1882 | talk  15:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Only two of those papers are taxonomic papers (one of which by Cavalier-Smith). Again, it would require something significant for us to change the current Wikipedia classification system. Two taxonomic papers and a handful of papers about environmental physiology in algae do not constitute a "significant" change in the literature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Still, a less biased search appears to give the first results (searching for "Plantae" only on scholar.google.com, but such a search is much less specifically confined to the root obviously):

e.g. [11] [8] [12] [9]


and Rugiera et.al [10] appears quite authoritive and is definetately a secondary source.[13] Jmv2009 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Doing more searches on google scholar on both "plantae viridiplantae" or "plantae archaeplastida" the overwhelming majority appears to refer to viridiplantae. Viridiplantae is assigned to be a "subkingdom" often as well.Jmv2009 (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Kingdoms are rapidly becoming an archaic grouping (like their political counterparts). For historical reasons we have the kingdom plantae, which has either a subkingdom viridiplantae or superkingdom archaeplastida depending on definition of plantae as equivalent to viridiplantae or archaeplastida. The best solution to the confusion would be to abandon Plantae as a taxon. So my preference would be to name this article Viridiplantae and have a short article for plantae explaining history and the different definitions and pointing to the land plants, viridiplantae and archaeplastida articles. On the other hand, for a popular encyclopedia, plants should direct to the most relevant article and this is it. You could go further and argue that land plants is what most people think of as plants.
I've just noted an inconsistency in the opening to the lede, where kingdom plantae is equated to unranked clade viridiplantae. If they are the same the clade is ranked.   Jts1882 | talk  16:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I would hope we would vie to educate people, rather than follow what most people think. Unfortunately, there is a difference. The biggest problem actually occurs in the taxoboxes which are still following the biological taxonomy system. I would like to avoid the Plantae moniker there as well, specifying less ambiguously either the Archaeplastida or the Viridiplantae. In the taxoboxes no senso stricto or senso lato is mentioned. Unfortunately this appears to be unacceptable as well.Jmv2009 (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

If that means synthesising our own view from primary evidence, that is forbidden on Wikipedia. We are only allowed to "educate" from reliable secondary sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
That's fair, but unfortunately I'm getting very little feedback here on the SCIENTIFIC consensus on what Plantae currently is. There is a lot of beating around the bush. For secondary sources: I'm again referring to Rugiera et.al [10]. There is also the reference work. [11] This is another one: [12] Are there any recent authoritative secondary counter-sources?Jmv2009 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking for a current consesnsus on any very old topic will necessarily be very difficult to explicitly achieve. By the very nature of science and scientific literature, it will be much easier to locate specific challenges to the established view, than to find statements of the established current view. If a view is that well established, it won't make it into the literature, because it isn't original research, which is what scientific journals publish. So while journals may be the best place to look for novel or original views, they are not a suitable place to look for the established view. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jmv2009: unfortunately, I can't access many of the papers on your list, as they aren't open access and aren't subscribed to by my institution. Those I can access don't always seem to me to support your case. The most interesting is Thuesen et al. (2015), which I was aware of. I'm rather sympathetic to their attempts to produce a complete classification, but as they explicitly use paraphyletic groups as major ranks, I doubt that their proposal will find widespread acceptance, and I certainly see no evidence so far that it has.
    It's hard to produce a good Google search, because Google ignores parentheses, so "Plantae (Viridiplantae)" is the same as "Plantae Viridiplantae", but I get twice as many hits for the search "Plantae Viridiplantae" OR "Viridiplantae Plantae" as for the search "Plantae Archaeplastida" OR "Archaeplastida Plantae", whereas it's the other way round if I search in Google Scholar. In neither case are they all what I really want, i.e. showing treatment as synonyms, which can only be seen by looking at individual cases. The core problem is that neither Plantae = Archaeplastida nor Plantae = Viridiplantae are well supported in secondary sources, which are always behind changes in scientific consensus, but these are the sources we need to use here.
    I can only repeat my previous view, namely that the article should be made neutral between alternative views in the lead, although when describing "plants" a decision has to be taken. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm more convinced by the Ruggiero et al (2015) position [this is the same as Thuesen et al ((2017). The doi reference utility prefixes the editor for some reason]. From the perspective of someone working on the many groups of eukaryotes they want to assign kingdoms to the major groupings. And Archaeplastida is one of the major eukaryote groupings. If you accept that for historical reasons Plantae has to be a kingdom then Plantae needs to be used sensu lato for the Archaeplastida. The alternative is a ridiculous number of kingdoms or a subkingdom Plantae.
That is not to say that this article needs to be changed. It already deals with the different definitions near the top of the article so it is clear and accurate. It clearly states the convention used in the article and that there are alternatives. The choice used by researchers seems to reflect their field of study. Those like Cavalier-Smith studying a variety of eukaryota prefer to use Plantae sensu lato for Archaeplastida, while those studying land plants tend to use Plantae sensu stricto for Viridiplantae. More people study the latter so it will return more google hits. Neither is right or wrong.
I would favour using Archaeplastida and Viridiplantae as the taxa in the taxoboxes. Plantae sensu lato/stricto could be added in parentheses.   Jts1882 | talk  08:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you please give some examples of where they use sensu stricto? If so, are they using sensu stricto or sensu strictisimo? And is it actually clear what they are using? When studying only land plants, it may not actually matter how big the group actually is. It matters more when you are studying the contrasts to outgroups, e.g. Rhodophyta or green algae, depending on the stricto or strictisimo usage. I concur with the proposed taxobox usage, and actually tried to change it, but it got changed back as Plantae is arguably the established kingdom name, despite the multiple meanings.Jmv2009 (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that the sensu use in the table in the article is really based on sources: it's descriptive of the particular set of terms given in the table, and not meaningful when one term is isolated from the others (latus compared to what?).
As far as I can tell, there's no consensus in sources for calling Archaeplastida or Viridiplantae "kingdoms"; they are clades. So putting "Kingdom: Archaeplastida (Plantae sensu lato)" would be wrong. Also, throughout the Tree of Life Wikiprojects, the consensus has been against trying to put alternatives in taxoboxes.
Jmv2009 is, in my view, right in saying that in many circumstances the circumscription of "Kingdom Plantae" doesn't matter, e.g. in taxoboxes for angiosperm taxa. It matters when the article is about major eukaryote subdivisions, and then it's best to follow what seems to be the majority of sources and not use "kingdom" or "Plantae" at all, just the clade names. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cavalier-Smith, Thomas (2017). "Kingdom Chromista and its eight phyla: a new synthesis emphasising periplastid protein targeting, cytoskeletal and periplastid evolution, and ancient divergences". Protoplasma. ISSN 0033-183X. doi:10.1007/s00709-017-1147-3. 
  2. ^ Boudouresque, Charles-François (2015). "Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Unicellular Eukaryotes": 191–257. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9118-2_7. 
  3. ^ Spiegel, F. W. (2012). "Contemplating the First Plantae". Science. 335 (6070): 809–810. ISSN 0036-8075. doi:10.1126/science.1218515. 
  4. ^ Busch, Shallin; McElhany, Paul (2017). "Using mineralogy and higher-level taxonomy as indicators of species sensitivity to pH: A case-study of Puget Sound". Elem Sci Anth. 5 (0): 53. ISSN 2325-1026. doi:10.1525/elementa.245. 
  5. ^ Contreras Porcia, Loretto; Lopez Cristoffanini, Camilo; Lovazzano, Carlos; Flores Molina, Maria Rosa; Thomas, Daniela; Nunez, Alejandra; Fierro, Camila; Guajardo, Eduardo; Correa, Juan A.; Kube, Michael; Reinhardt, Richard (2013). "Differential gene expression in Pyropia columbina (Bangiales, Rhodophyta) under natural hydration and desiccation conditions". Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research. 41 (5): 933–958. ISSN 0718-560X. doi:10.3856/vol41-issue5-fulltext-13. 
  6. ^ Nicholas Ainslie (2016). Phenology and Gene Expression of Paralemanea Catenata (Lemaneaceae, Rhodophyta) in a Southern California Stream. California State University San Marcos. pp. 53p. hdl:hdl.handle.net/10211.3/182563. 
  7. ^ Moenne, Alejandra; González, Alberto; Sáez, Claudio A. (2016). "Mechanisms of metal tolerance in marine macroalgae, with emphasis on copper tolerance in Chlorophyta and Rhodophyta". Aquatic Toxicology. 176: 30–37. ISSN 0166-445X. doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2016.04.015. 
  8. ^ Hanikenne, Marc; Baurain, Denis (2014). "Origin and evolution of metal P-type ATPases in Plantae (Archaeplastida)". Frontiers in Plant Science. 4. ISSN 1664-462X. doi:10.3389/fpls.2013.00544. 
  9. ^ Koreny, Ludek; Field, Mark C. (2016). "Ancient Eukaryotic Origin and Evolutionary Plasticity of Nuclear Lamina". Genome Biology and Evolution. 8 (9): 2663–2671. ISSN 1759-6653. doi:10.1093/gbe/evw087. 
  10. ^ a b Thuesen, Erik V.; Ruggiero, Michael A.; Gordon, Dennis P.; Orrell, Thomas M.; Bailly, Nicolas; Bourgoin, Thierry; Brusca, Richard C.; Cavalier-Smith, Thomas; Guiry, Michael D.; Kirk, Paul M. (2015). "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms". PLOS ONE. 10 (4): e0119248. ISSN 1932-6203. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119248. 
  11. ^ Simpson, Alastair G. B.; Slamovits, Claudio H.; Archibald, John M. (2017). "Protist Diversity and Eukaryote Phylogeny": 1–21. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32669-6_45-1. 
  12. ^ Becker, Burkhard; Marin, Birger (2009). "Streptophyte algae and the origin of embryophytes". Annals of Botany. 103 (7): 999–1004. ISSN 1095-8290. doi:10.1093/aob/mcp044.