From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Algae (Rated Start-class, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fixing method[edit]

Regarding the fixing of material in sublimate-acetic mixture, someone mysteriously broadened the possible targets from the Volvocaceae to the Volvocales. Are we sure this is applicable?

I'm not sure, although this fixing method does seem to have been generally used for all types of algae. What I do know is that "corrosive sublimate" is "violently toxic", so it has probably been replaced by some other reagent. If I find out which one, I shall write it up. -- Heron volvox moves in water — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Plantae vs. Protista[edit]

I just took a microbiology test and in preparation was referring to Volvox as part of plantae. Somebody argued the opposing viewpoint with some other links and a statement about "you can't trust Wikipedia." So, I checked the only "hard reference" that I have which is a current edition of Stedman's Medical Dictionary and there you also find the protista designation.

As it turned out, that question was on our exam and the correct answer was protista.

A lot of students rely on Wikipedia to provide accurate information. I'm not talking for scholarly research but just to study. Something this basic should be backed up by what's the most oft-stated designation in current publications.

So, where are the current publications that still put it in plantae? Beggar00 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, Protist / Protista / Protoctista is invalid due to paraphyly. All recent classifications place Chlorophyta within the Plantae (or Viridiplantae). See for example Baldauf, S. L. (2003), "The deep roots of eukaryotes", Science, 300: 1703-1706 , Keeling, P. J. (2005), "The tree of eukaryotes", Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20: 670-676 , algaebase , NCBI . Note also that Plantae does not mean the same thing as land plants; Plantae refers to the descendants of the original endosymbiosis of chloroplasts, which include Glaucophyte, red and green algae as well as land plants. Multicellularity / unicellularity is also irrelevant; Plantae includes both single-celled algae (e.g. Chlamydomonas, Chlorella, Cyanidioschyzon) and multicellular algae (e.g. Volvox).

In the taxobox, Volvox is currently treated as a protist. Many of the most recent classifications treat it as a plant, since the green algae are clearly closer related to the higher plants than they are to animals, fungi, and any of the other protists. Does anyone have a strong opinion on the treatment of this group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Grosse (talkcontribs) 7 March 2003

Thats not true, it IS considered a protozoa by most recent classifications, if i knew how i would change it back. They are colonial flagellates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2 January 2006
Treating Volvox as a protozoan requires classifying them a second time as a green algae, as it clearly belongs with them but the others are not protozoan in nature. This is something only very old classifications do. Treating them as protists is a more modern approach, but phylogenetic treatments now move the green algae back to the Plantae, while leaving other algae out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Grosse (talkcontribs) 2 January 2006
Agreed. It is widely accepted to be in the Kingdom Plantae. Please read primary literature before changing it back. I am tired of vandalism and please sign in before you change anything so we can discuss it. --Kupirijo 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Also agreed. The literature is mostly consistent:
Bremer, K., Humphries, C. J., Mishler, B. D., and S. P. Churchill. (1987). On Cladistic Relationships in Green Plants. Taxon, 36(2): 339-349.
Also see AlgaeBase.
--Rkitko (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Since many in the scientific community disagree as to the classification of Volvox, as an algae or a plant, I suggest that this article should show these opinions, showing that it is classified in both, by conflicting scientific bodies. (my AP biology book classifies it as a protist) Rusober (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be an inappropriate topic to cover on the article about Volvox. That topic should be and is covered in places like green algae. --Rkitko (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Another thought on that - many biology textbooks still end up calling Pinophyta by its older name Coniferophyta and they still refer to the botanical divisions as "phyla", enough to enrage any botanist. It's no wonder biology textbooks also get the proper placement of the green algae wrong. I prefer to trust the primary literature and botanists who study these organisms, which are overwhelmingly affirmative that green algae are in a clade that includes plants. --Rkitko (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

i have a question. i'm a student from hong kong. my book said volvox is an algae coz it cannot be a plant. yes, it contains chlorophyll but it cannot imply that it's a plant. some bacteria have chlorophyll! also, IF IT'S A PLANT, then it would be non-flowering plant. But volvox is neither moss, fern not gymnosperm! it can't be a plant. since protoctista is a kingdom for organisms that are not prokaryotes, fungi, plants or animals, volvox is a protoctista! that's what i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See above. Biology textbooks are often wrong on several counts when it comes to botany. Yes, some bacteria have chlorophyll, but different forms from green algae and land plants. The conclusions that green algae are part of Plantae come from molecular studies on how closely related different organisms are. These studies have overwhelmingly affirmed the placement of green algae with plants. It takes a while for some textbooks to catch up. --Rkitko (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see from the taxonomic classification that in the kingdom level, Volvox is treated as belonging to the kingdom plantae which is not true. Although algae is a multicellular photosynthetic organisms and consequently cells do have specialization it is not enough to consider them as plants. Most possess flagella in part of their life cycle used in movement and locomotion, whilst plants are well adapted to live on land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre da Silva (talkcontribs) 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I can see misinformation still continues. Read the above discussion. "...It is not enough to consider them as plants" - got a reference? Who says? I'm afraid the wealth of taxonomic on this topic comes to the conclusion that all green algae are a clade set within what is frequently described as the clade "Plantae", though it's also often called Viridiplantae or Archaeplastida. Possessing flagella has nothing to do with the molecular evidence that green algae are more closely related to plants than to any protist-like organism. Besides, the kingdom Protista is no longer even considered to be a single kingdom. Rkitko (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Volvox is a green algae. Algae are protists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Blatantly incorrect. Rkitko (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Protista is still a kingdom. Monera, however, is now two kingdoms, Archaebacteria and Eubacteria. Also, many protists are plant-like while some are animal-like or fungi-like, but belong in none of these three kingdoms. Volvox is a green algae, which are plant-like protists. Volvox also does not have many of the characteristics of a plant. It is not multicellular and does not have roots, to name a few of these traits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What source are you using? Protista is no longer a kingdom in its own right. It has been broken apart because it was paraphyletic. Green algae are (and have been for a while) considered be included in either Plantae or Viridiplantae, depending on the circumscription. And Utricularia don't have any roots, should they not be included in Plantae? The relationships are built on molecular data, not morphological. Rkitko (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Viridiplantae is not even scientifically classified as a kingdom. However, Protista is widely known as one of the five kingdoms. All algae are considered to be protists, although some may have animal or plant-like traits. Anyway, just because something has chlorophyll does not mean it is a plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that P-Clorophyta is in K-Protista, not K-Plantae; therefore, it would classify the volvox under K-Protista. -daxty495


I highly doubt that Volvox can grow to 500ft tall.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 9 June 2006

lol - they are microscopic, approx 1 mm in size, maximum. I edited that out and added some culturing info.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16 June 2006

Link deleted[edit]

I was asked via e-mail why I deleted a link that was not up and running at the time I accessed it--I deleted it originally because it was a bad link, and I could not tell what type of content the site had. The place to discuss issues of content about an article is on the talk page, not via e-mail, because it is best to reach a general consensus among editors. However, the deleted link is to a web design consultancy firm, and Wikipedia does not allow commercial spam. There is also a poem about Volvox on the website, however, this either vanity content or personal research, and is, also, not part of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This article does need expanded. Feel free to add appropriate content. KP Botany 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken regarding poem being on the same template that I use for my website - my apologies for that. If you feel the article and prose I have on that page is worthy content, I will happily create a new page that has no reference or links back to the commercial area of my site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Volvox777 (talkcontribs) 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
The problem is the poem is your original research and creative output. There's no place for it in an encyclopedia. KP Botany 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

culturing volvox[edit]

This is great information on culturing algae. I wonder it would be appropriate to put this info in the article on green algae or somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozzychan (talkcontribs) 17 February 2007

Volvox reproduce sexualy and asexuly that should be changed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23 June 2007

Bot-generated content[edit]

A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase. You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Volvox (alga). Anybot (contact operator) 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New diagram on commons[edit]

There's a new diagram on commons


which may be useful to this article. It is currently being used on wikipedia de, but I don't know enough to put it on this page. Is it any good? It's been proposed as a Quality Image on commons... Karora 07:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Green Algae?[edit]

Uh, we're learning about algae right now,and before, we treated Volvox, not as algae, but as Protozoa. Could anyone explain this? My teacher told me it's bad information :/ -- (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, checking on Wikipedia, the English jargon for what we used is Flagellate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)