Talk:Eukaryote/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Eukaryote. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Maintaining NPOV

In the Origin of eukaryotes section, I think we aren't maintaining an entirely neutral point of view; thus Eukaryote#Hypotheses for the origin of eukaryotes assumes some kind of endosymbiotic process was definitely involved. Now it's true that many source write things like "it is now clear from phylogenetics that the eukaryotes are a derived domain: the outcome of an endosymbiosis between an archaeal host cell and a bacterial endosymbiont" (Lane, 2017 doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.04.031), but although this may be the current majority view, there are dissenters (see e.g. the papers authored by Ajith Harish and Charles G. Kurland in the references to the article), whose views should be included, albeit with limited weight. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say we are right to take the great majority's view that it did happen (we follow reliable secondary sources, after all), but that we should have a short dissenting paragraph (maybe at the end) to say that minority views exist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If we just followed secondary sources, there wouldn't be much left of this section, let alone the article, since it's all very new. :-) But, yes, I agree that all that is needed at present is a dissenting note, although maybe at the beginning of Eukaryote#Hypotheses for the origin of eukaryotes would be clearer? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Archeozoa hypothesis

Archeozoa hypothesis would be a good addition

https://books.google.com/books?id=KDzfXCptJbQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Eukaryote&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqxfn41e_YAhVLy2MKHcq1BnkQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Eukaryote&f=false

It's pretty discredited now; so I think it's not really notable. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing 6th supergroup

Article is completely missing Hemimastigophora, which includes hemimastigotes such as Hemimastix kukwesjijk. Some sections, particularly the "Five supergroups" section, may need to be updated. --Evilsofa (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Reproduction and haploid phase

The first paragraph of Eukaryote#Reproduction as of now is technically correct to say that animals don't have a haploid phase in the sense that plants have an alternation between a multicellular haploid phase/generation and a multicellular diploid phase/generation. On the other hand, there are haploid multicellular eukaryotes, such as male hymenopterans (ants, bees, wasps), and this doesn't seem obvious as it is now written. Can anyone suggest a way of clarifying this paragraph? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nominate as Good article

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI: If you want to nominate this article for consideration as a Good Article, what you want to add is {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Biology}}. Thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Readability

I would have though removing redundant references to “cell” and making the article easier for us non-specialists was helpful!) perhaps plantsurfer could improve the edit, rather than reverting it, per WP: Jabberwoch (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Age of oldest eukaryotes

The main page states, "Biomarkers suggest that at least stem eukaryotes arose even earlier. The presence of steranes in Australian shales indicates that eukaryotes were present in these rocks dated at 2.7 billion years old." However, in an article of 2015-06-01^[1], researchers from Max Planck Gesellschaft challenge the view that eucaryotes are more than 2.5 by old. Former samples are supposed to be contaminated. There is only acknowledged evidence of eucaryotes going back to 1.5 bya.

I suggest changing the paragraph to:

Biomarkers suggest that at least stem eukaryotes arose even earlier. The presence of steranes in Australian shales indicates that eukaryotes were present in these rocks dated at 2.7 billion years old.[ref][ref] However, recent analyses challenge that view, attributing the steranes to contaminations in former samples^[2]. --Stiip (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

References

I read the paper from Knoll indicated in the Fossil section. I did not find any indication of "1.6–2.1 billion years ago" and that Grypania date "as far back as 2.1 billion years ago". So please correct this and read papers carefully... Ulrich Utiger (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

For people new to this, could a small identifier be added to the multitude of species on this page, which indicate whether they exist today and if not, an estimated date for when they ceased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1701:AFD0:CC84:8A5D:8653:E0A8 (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Loss of mitochondria

Note 1 mentions that only one loss of mitochondria is known "to date": "Notes

To date, only one eukaryote, Monocercomonoides, is known to have completely lost its mitochondria."

the "to date" reference seems to be from 2017?

But there are others now, as a myxozoan is also (since 2020) known to have lost its mitochondria: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myxozoa "In 2020, the myxozoan Henneguya salminicola was found to lack a mitochondrial genome, and thus be incapable of aerobic respiration; it was the first animal to be positively identified as such. Its actual metabolism is currently unknown" 70.70.24.124 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Eukaryotes are multicellular organisms.....may be not unicellular

In the definition of eukaryotes many of us thinks that eukaryotes are only multicellular organisms but there are also some eukaryotes which are unicellular or we can say that some organisms which consists single celled are eukaryotes

2405:204:33AB:2B98:31E3:27A2:2644:E9CB (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Phylogeny - new supergroup Provora

Proposed in Diaphoretickes: Provora = nibblerids (Nibbleridia) + nebulids (Nebulidia)

Reference:

Eukarya or Eucarya

In the original publication of Woese (1990), the domain was termed Eucarya instead of Eukarya. Has this original name fallen out of usage? TheBartgry (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Both names seem now to have fallen into disuse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Nevertheless, 'Eukarya' is still name-dropped in the opening sentence of the article. Perhaps you could consider removing it, if it's indeed obsolete. TheBartgry (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I actually have seen Eukarya more often used than Eucarya. Eukarya is not Woese's taxon, but Lynn Margulis' (see wikispecies:Eukaryota#Synonyms). A quick search in Google Scholar of 'Eukarya' shows just how popular it is. I suggest not removing it, please. Or at the very least put it under a synonyms list in the taxobox. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 19:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll put something in the History of classification, as it's exactly not terribly "informative" stuffing unexplained things in "infoboxes". Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap But that's quite literally the point of taxoboxes, they wouldn't have a synonyms section otherwise. they're a quick look at the taxonomy and synonyms are a pretty big deal in taxonomy. I don't think it's unexplained as long as it is later talked about in the text. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 20:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Not later, first, and cited there. Always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the info in the history section, that is much more clear now. TheBartgry (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Animal cell" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Animal cell has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13 § Animal cell until a consensus is reached. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Page name

Ought the page name be the same as the domain name Eukaryota as per the infobox name and first entry. Iztwoz (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers English names to taxonomic Latin when such are in reasonably common use; thus we'll say plant not Plantae, nematode not Nematoda, eukaryote not Eukaryota. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Fix biomass statement

"Eukaryotes represent a small minority of the number of organisms, but due to their generally much larger size, their collective global biomass is about equal to that of prokaryotes."

This is objectively not true. As of 2018,^[1] it is clear that the biomass of eukaryotes (mainly thanks to land plants) is highly superior to that of prokaryotes. This needs to be stated! —Snoteleks 🦠 10:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Updated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

^ Bar-On, Yinon M.; Phillips, Rob; Milo, Ron (17 May 2018). "The biomass distribution on Earth". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (25): 6506–6511. Bibcode:2018PNAS..115.6506B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1711842115. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 6016768. PMID 29784790.

oh god...

not a British English -> American English edit that ((may)) spark a discussion Webclouddat (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the article has been {{Use American English|date=March 2017}} for over 6 years now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Are claims of eukaryotic fossils in the Francevillian Biota confirmed?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X23001607 Since my edit got reverted for lacking a source, I’ll put the paper here so people can evaluate it and see if it’s good enough to include. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it's good enough to substitute the current fossil range in the taxobox, because it is only cited by two other articles that have nothing to do with eukaryotes. But you can always just add a little cited paragraph with this info in the Fossil section. —Snoteleks (Talk) 13:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Before it goes in the taxobox, it should be added to the main text. It's a primary source so should be treated as provisional until confirmed. The abstract actually says "Once confirmed ...". It looks important so would be a welcome addition to the fossil section. As it is, I think it supports the earliest date (2100mya) in the long fossil range bar rather than justifying a change to the 1700mya.

More generally I note that the lede has information on the fossils not mention in the main text. The text doesn't mention Gabonionta, although it does refer to the Francevillian B Formation, in Gabon, with another recent reference on zinc content. Both lede and fossil section start with mention of eurkaryotes dating from 2.2bya, but Knoll et al (2006) doesn't seem to support anything older than 1800mya (1700; 1800-1600 in Table 1). The fossil section needs updating and the lede modified accordingly. — Jts1882 | talk 13:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added the ref and removed the 2.2gya mentions from lead and body. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the difference between European eukaryotic fossils and American eukaryotic

I was just wondering cause I wanted to add something about this so many people don’t get confused 2607:FEA8:4E64:5F00:596:732D:3201:1C83 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@2607:FEA8:4E64:5F00:596:732D:3201:1C83 the difference is their location. —Snoteleks (Talk) 07:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Eukarya or Eukaryota?

The first sentence of the lead says Eukarya, but the taxobox says Eukaryota. Should they be made consistent? ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's Eukarya. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

For consistency, it would be better to have Eukaryota everywhere given that that's what used by the taxonomy template. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It would, except that unfortunately for the internally consistent WikiWorld, in real life the domain is called Eukarya. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap NCBI, EOL and the majority of sources I've found use Eukaryota, not Eukarya (which by the way is a junior synonym). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Clearly opinions differ. I'm easy either way, but don't say I didn't mention it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby did not expect this taxon to ever be disputed over synonyms... the original name is Eucarya, both Eukarya and Eukaryota are junior synonyms, so it doesn't matter. Both names are widely used today, and both deserve to be in the lead and taxobox interchangeably. I for one prefer Eukarya because it has three syllables much like Bacteria and Archaea, that's all. (also noteworthy, both names are attributed to Chatton 1925 in the sources that I could find, so where did you find one is a junior synonym of the other?) —Snoteleks (Talk) 23:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The current article attributes Eucarya Woese et al. 1990 and Eukarya Margulis 1996, so that's something that should be checked. Even though both names are widely used, it would be better to have the same in the lead and taxobox for consistency, but calling the taxobox on "Eukarya" breaks as that is not the name used in Template:Taxonomy/Eukaryota. Right now the taxobox is broken, which isn't great for a GA. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

fwiw, Google Scholar produces 37,000 hits for Eukarya, 28,000 for Eukaryota, 12,700 for Eucarya and 1,110,000 for Eukaryotes. For comparison the corresponding terms Procarya (104), Prokarya (1170), Prokaryota (4200) and Prokaryote (211,000), appear much less frequently in the literature. Plantsurfer 23:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Came here 'cos I saw the taxobox was broken (broken taxoboxes end up in a hidden category). I think this needs a wider audience before the change is done, and if a change is to be done, it needs to be done in a way that doesn't cause a breakage. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW - I reverted for now. Not because I disagree, but because it was broken and as a GA, I think this needs more discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

None of the major* nomenclatural codes makes any claim to regulate the name of this clade. There is no applicable definition of priority that would make any name a "junior synonym".

The PhyloCode apparently recognizes Eukarya, but attributes authorship to R. Creti 1991; I looked at the Creti paper, and Eukarya isn't even defined, it is assumed the reader is already familiar with the term. Creti might be the first to use the spelling Eukarya after Woese (1990) spelled it Eucarya. Google Scholar results pre-1991 for Eukarya are heavily polluted with publications from years later, and results for Eucarya pre-1990 are polluted or about one of two plant taxa. I guess Woese could be credited with "formally establishing" (under which code?) the rank of Domain and "formally naming" (under which code?) Eucarya.

There are papers going back to the 1970's that discuss Eukaryota as a kingdom or superkingdom (but I guess without "formally naming" (under which code?) it).

Eukarya does beat Eukaryota in Google Scholar and [Ngrams https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Eukaryota%2C+Eucarya%2C+Eukarya&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3]. Taxonbar links in this article go to databases using Eukaryota, not Eukarya. There is no Wikidata item for Eukarya, and it seems that no Wikipedias in any language use Eukarya as the name for this clade.

I don't understand why "real life" (as Chiswick Chap puts it) favors Eukarya over Eucarya or Eukaryota. Is there any nomenclatural argument there, or is it just protistologists and researchers studying all 3 domains of life using Eukarya in abstracts picked up by Google Scholar (researchers studying 1 domain of life probably aren't going to bother mention the domain they study). Plantdrew (talk)

@Plantdrew (wouldn't let me reply elsewhere) I can think of several reasons why Eukarya is preferable to Eukaryota. Firstly, the suffix -ota in bacterial taxonomy denotes a phylum, not a domain. Secondly, it's easier to say/read since it has three syllables over four. Thirdly, it matches the shortness of Bacteria and Archaea, both of which also have 3 syllables. Lastly, pioneers of eukaryology/protistology such as Lynn Margulis have been using Eukarya since its renaissance in the 80's-90's. Since there is no consensus, people are able to prefer this over the other name. —Snoteleks (Talk) 08:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

From the new-ish scholar.archive.org: Eukarya 9,797 hits; Eucarya 1,771; Eukaryota 6,570; Eucaryota 227; Eukaryotes 584,564; Eucaryotes 23,907. FWIW, Snoteleks's reasons above seem sensible to me, all other things being equal. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Eukaryote goes back to Chatton (1925), who used prokaryotes and eukaryotes to distinguish two major types of cellular organisation, and Lwoff (1932), who credited Chatton for distingishing two types of protist. This division was picked up in the late 1950s by Dougherty, who used eukaryon and prokaryon as names for the types of nucleus (plurals eukarya and prokarya), and in the early 1960s by Stanier, who also used the terms for two different organizational patterns of cells rather than formal taxa. The earliest use as taxa seem to be Murray (1968), who proposed Procaryotae and Eucaryotae as the top level taxa, and Allsopp (1969), who suggested rank superkingdom for Procaryota and Eucaryota. These names were in use as taxa before Woese's Eucarya (1990), notably by Cavalier-Smith (who some want to erase from history). Eukaryota is widely used (albeit with a "k" now) as google shows. I suspect the google scholar numbers are selection bias (as Plantdrew suggests). — Jts1882 | talk 14:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The article Domain (biology) correctly refers to Eukarya throughout, so this article is internally and externally inconsistent and out of order. Eukaryote is widely used as an informal or common name, and is not generally capitalised, but its elevation to a domain name is a mistake.Plantsurfer 14:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: I moved Snoteleks's response to below Plantdrew's. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm fine with using either Eukaryota or Eukarya, I'd just prefer it to be internally consistent throughout the article (or to have something like Eukarya or Eukaryota in the lead). It's just that the taxonomy template is at Eukaryota and the last change there didn't go through, so getting a consensus to change it might be harder (although it could be possible if we end up with a consensus here for Eukarya). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

	Eukarya	Eukartyota	% Eukaryota
1985-1989	168	3	98%
1990-1994	218	175	55%
1995-1999	412	1300	24%
2000-2004	1410	3390	29%
2005-2009	3440	5850	37%
2010-2014	5340	8050	40%
2015-2019	7400	9560	44%
2000-present	7640	8410	48%
2023-present	2320	1900	55%

Both are used so both should be mentioned. The use of Eukarya in the lede to the exclusion of Eukaryota is a recent change and doesn't accurately reflect the use by different sources.

For those who take Google scholar seriously for this sort of discussion, we might be past peak-Eukarya. Usage peaked in the late-1990s and over the past year Eukaryota is slightly more used. — Jts1882 | talk 17:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

For context, the version that became a GA used Eukaryota in the lede, although I think it would be best to have both names. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Google Bard says "Technically, both Eukarya and Eukaryota are valid domain names in terms of the technical specifications set by the Domain Name System (DNS). They meet the length requirements (between 3 and 63 characters) and can use the allowed alphanumeric characters (a-z, 0-9) and hyphens (-).

However, the more appropriate choice for a domain name related to the scientific domain of Eukarya would depend on your specific intentions:

Eukarya: This is the preferred scientific term for the domain itself. It's shorter, easier to remember, and aligns with the standard nomenclature. Eukaryota: This is a less common variant of the term, although still technically correct. It might be considered less familiar and potentially harder to remember for a general audience. Therefore, while both domain names are technically valid, Eukarya would be the more common and appropriate choice for a domain related to the biological domain of Eukarya." Plantsurfer 18:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Google Bard seems to have confused Domain Name System (for websites) with names of the eukaryote domain (biology). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of that.Plantsurfer 19:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Google Bard says "Technically, both Eukarya and Eukaryota are valid domain names in terms of the technical specifications set by the Domain Name System (DNS). They meet the length requirements (between 3 and 63 characters) and can use the allowed alphanumeric characters (a-z, 0-9) and hyphens (-). (emphasis mine)
There is no "Domain Name System" in biology, that's a website thing. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, OK. Artificial but not very intelligent! Plantsurfer 21:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Heimdallarchaeia

It is mentioned in the lead without a ref (because it's the lead) but nowhere else in the text. It should be mentioned there first. —Snoteleks (Talk) 10:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Can Unikonta be added to the Phylogenetic tree?

Bikonta is there, but not Unikonta? Can this be changed? Haplodiploid75 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. It's not there because, as the Amorphea article explains, "Unikonta" doesn't work as a group name; it was based on a synapomorphy which doesn't exist. The Amorphea, too, aren't all-the-Eukaryotes-that-aren't Bikonts. So we're better off without it, mein herr. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Frau, but I get your point! Makes sense to me, thanks for clarifying Haplodiploid75 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Great. Song in Cabaret, btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thuchomyces (2.8 gya) eukaryotic status very far from being established

A claim that Thuchomyces from 2.8 billion years ago is or may be a eukaryote has boldly been added to the article, along with some uncited discussion. The evidence is however really flaky, and not surprisingly for such a radical claim has been challenged by scientists as implausible:

"The Ediacaran lichen hypothesis put forward by Gregory Retallack is largely rejected due to an inappropriate definition of lichens based on taphonomy and substrate ecology." and "the Lecanoromycetes, the oldest clade of lichen-forming fungi, originated 306 Ma in the Carboniferous." (Lücking & Nelsen 2018)

I wouldn't want to read too much into that, but if Retallack's claim that lichens (as they still exist) are directly related to Ediacaran fossils of a much younger age than Thuchomyces, then it a priori seems even more of a stretch that the older fossil can fairly be described as a lichen either. The most we can say is that the jury is still out, and without a systematic review article that broadly accepts that there were eukaryotes 2.8 gya, the safe position for Wikipedia is that it's very doubtful.

I'm not even sure the cited material is worth including here as it's such a wild claim; the uncited material needs to be cited immediately, or all of it would be better deleted. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Added the source you linked, and emphasised the dubious affinity of the taxon.

Is that enough? IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. I'll maybe copyedit at some point for brevity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.mpg.de/9256248/eukaryotes-evolution

[2] ttps://www.mpg.de/9256248/eukaryotes-evolution

[The_biomass_of_Earth-3] Bar-On, Yinon M.; Phillips, Rob; Milo, Ron (17 May 2018). "The biomass distribution on Earth". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (25): 6506–6511. Bibcode:2018PNAS..115.6506B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1711842115. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 6016768. PMID 29784790.

[1]

[2]

[1]