Talk:Chromista

No Sources Tag

There is a section explicitly labeled "References." I think the tag isn't needed anymore. Werothegreat 12:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Stramenopila

It appears that the proper name for this kingdom is Stramenopila. Kingdom Stramenopila (Patterson in Green et al., 1989), (Beakes, 1998), (Campbell & Reece, 2002) --Bejnar 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there are many different equivalent words for this division: Ochrophyta, Chromophyta, Stramenopiles, Heterokonts. I think they are all identical (now).

Contradiction

Article says: "They include all algae whose chloroplasts contain chlorophylls a and c..." but green algae has chlorophyll a and b too. (and is obviously not a Chromista)

• You've just contradicted yourself (whoever you are). Chromista includes those with a and c. Green algae, which have a and b, are included in Archaeplastida and are closely related to embryophytes (land plants). Please double check your information before putting up something like this. Werothegreat 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Singular or plural?

The names of other kingdoms are plural nouns - is "Chromista"? The first sentence of the article treats it as a singular but the second treats it as a plural. — 78.150.36.255 (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead section seems confusing or contradictory

"Chromista is a biological kingdom of some single-celled eukaryotic organisms, which are probably polyphyletic."

This is easily read as meaning that all members of Chromista are single-celled eukaryotic organisms (but not all single-celled eukaryotic organisms are members of Chromista). Although I am not knowledgeable about this subject, apparently this is untrue since types of seaweed, which are obviously not single-celled, are classified under Chromista (according to Wikipedia).

"According to Cavalier-Smith, the kingdom originally included algae"

This is naturally read as meaning that the kingdom no longer includes algae, which is contradicted later in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:4B91:AB00:4CF2:224B:79CB:D81C (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Good points. One thing is certain, this kingdom is confusing with all its taxonomical revisions. Let's see if the new edit is more readable. Chhandama (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead is incomprehensible

I am not a biologist but I am not ignorant of biology. I cannot, even with difficulty, extract much information from this intro. As an example I annotate the first sentence: "Chromista is a biological kingdom [I get that.] consisting of single-celled and multicellular [All eukaryotes are single-celled and multicelled, so that gives no information.] eukaryotic species [Aha, eukaryotes. Are they all eukaryotes, some eukaryotes?] that share similar features [All eukaryotes share similar features. No information here.] in their photosynthetic organelles [I deduce that they have photosynthesis. That could be stated directly. "Organelles": do we need that in the introduction?] (plastids) [Sorry, what does that tell me?]." So I gather that Chromistans are a high-level division of eukaryotes, based on I know not what criteria, and are photosynthetic; that's what I extract from the whole sentence with all the technical verbiage. Can someone please follow the WP guidelines that an introduction should be meaningful to the average educated reader? Zaslav (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Step by step

The various threads above have one thing in common: this article has been a terrible muddle. The confusion has consisted, I believe, in the continued revision of the classification and phylogeny by conflating different stages of understanding and multiple sources to try to make a synthetic tree which is in some sense up-to-date. Of course, the following week/month/year that becomes an outdated picture, and worse, it quickly becomes impossible to see what date(s) it was supposed to be "correct", which sources it used, and whether there was any sort of scientific consensus on it.

I have therefore gone step-by-step and drawn trees which correspond directly to specific, named, cited sources. I appreciate this may seem slow and plodding to those who wish to rush on and incorporate every last minute detail, sub-detail, correction, clarification, and suggestion. The problem with that is well seen in the history of this article.

The other thing is the degree of certainty about the Kingdom Chromista itself. Cavalier-Smith himself reconstructed it several times, and in 2009 went so far as to write that it was "probably" paraphyletic. He changed his mind about that, but which of the various Cavalier-Smith instances are we to believe, given that they contradict each other? The most that we can say is that at least one of them must be wrong, and that the Chromista could possibly be paraphyletic. Another relevant fact is that all the components of Chromista are (also) in Diaphoretickes, so if that is accepted as a taxon, Chromista is redundant.

With all those thoughts in mind, I have reorganised the article to show the actual state of understanding of Chromista over time. I hope that, while much no doubt remains to be written, editors will agree that this is an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Quotes in Lede

Certain links in the lede are quoted, and I think they shouldn't be.

I understand that algae are a diverse group (and assume the same is true for the other quotes links), but I don't think that quotes are called for. First of all, they don't explain the problem at all. Second, the leading "certain" does point out the problem. Third, anyone not sure about algae can use the link. Forth, they are algae, specifically, they are algae, ie. they fully fall within the scope of the linked article. Fifth, quotes are hugely overused (cf. the very name) and thus potentially misleading by default.

I don't think these links need any qualifier except the ones they already have (ie. "certain"). --91.5.106.136 (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

So how do you think we can indicate that the indicated groupings are also poly- or paraphyletic? The minimum is to indicate that these aren't full-valued groups, i.e. actual clades. Secondly, I can't see how the word "certain" bears on the problem at all: it does precisely nothing to resolve the issue. Thirdly, how does algae's being defined in another Wikipedia article contribute? Recall that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" -- it isn't something we can ever cite. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure that we need to indicate that in the lede at all. I do think however that "certain" et al. gives enough of a hint for readers to look closer - which they can easily do with the link provided.

Second, how are quotes doing a better job to resolve the issue?

Third, I'm not citing Wikipedia, and I wonder why you think I did. I only pointed out the very links in this article leades to other articles that explain the phyletics in detail, exactly tailored to whatever taxon is described. --91.5.106.136 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It matters because if we say "it's one of the Doodles", and it turns out the Doodles are a flaky paraphyletic assemblage thought up in the pub, then we're leading readers astray. Either we remove all mention of the flaky groups, or we indicate that flakiness is involved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

We do say that by using modifiers like "certain" or "one of the". We literally don't say that by using quotes. --91.5.106.136 (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, 91.5.106.136, we don't. Saying it's "one of the Doodles" does (as you say) indicate it's a member of that rubbishy group. What it also clearly implies, in Wikipedia's voice, is that "a Doodle" is a genuine, full-fat, recognised group. Only problem is, "Protozoa", "Protista", "Chromista", "Doodle", and any other paraphyletic muddled-up whatdyoumicallit, is exactly NOT a decent, pukka, phylogenetically solid clade — exactly the opposite. I do hope I make myself clear as I've now had to make this point three times. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Doodle? You lost me. Please rephrase. --91.5.106.136 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Deep sigh. A nonsense group, like "algae" and "protozoa", something that doesn't exist as a clade in nature.

Remember, algae are what they are. Their phyletic qualities don't change all of a sudden if we use quotes to describe them (or modyfying words for that matter). So by making it explicit that chromista contain only some algae, we are not at all misleading. Who knows what quotes could mean in this particular instance. --91.5.106.136 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"are what they are": totally meaningless, and actually completely off-topic too. I'm talking, as I've now said repeatedly, about indicating that we've not got solid (phylogenetic) group membership here, but flaky, obsolete, and frankly unsystematic bits of worn-out non-classification. If quotes don't do flakiness for you, then I repeat, we need to find another way of indicating it, or better, just removing the flaky claims altogether. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It's neither. What I'm trying to explain is that we don't create words, we have to use what's out there. In this case, algae. Chromista contains them, but only some of them, only certain algae. These phrases are a clear indication that Chromista does not contain all algae. So why is that not exactly what we are looking for? Why are quotes explaining the concept better?

I guess some algae are flaky when dried. Other than that, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. --91.5.106.136 (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously the lead isn't clear. I'll reword it. By "flaky" I mean "no good", i.e. it crumbles when you try to depend upon it. I know English Wikipedia has to be to an extent international, but all the same its medium is English. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

One final try. I've removed all the quotation marks, and have demoted the mentions of the paraphyletic memberships (algae, protozoa, which are not clades). I've left the word "possibly" in the first sentence, but frankly it should be removed as obsolete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good to me.

BTW, you should never assume that problems in communication is exclusively one side's fault. --91.5.106.136 (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This is an English-medium encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said, wrong assumption, in any language. --91.5.106.136 (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Eh? It's the simple truth, this encyclopedia is written in English, and that's the medium of discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)