Template talk:Opisthokont protists

Pompholyxophrys, Rabdiophrys and Pinaciophora

Nice work on the template, Zorahia. I'd remove Pompholyxophrys, Rabdiophrys and Pinaciophora from Nucleariidae, since these organisms have been found to be Rhizarian filose amoebae (under Perlofilida), not opisthokonts. See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1434461011001325 See also: http://www.arcella.nl Deuterostome (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok!Zorahia (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sooooo...more recent work has proven that Cavalier-Smith was mistaken, and Pompholyxophrys is a nucleariid after all. See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1434461022000402 and https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jeu.12691. Rabdiophrys and Pinaciophora are believed to be nucleariids as well, according to the same sources. Zorahia doesn't seem to be active anymore, but perhaps someone else who can restore these taxa? I'm not comfortable editing these templates. Deuterostome (Talk) 20:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Animals

Animals and fungi are not included in "protists", causing the latter to be paraphyletic. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alfa-ketosav: is that a problem? Informal terms like "protists" don't have to refer to monophyletic taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Animals and fungi are included in the template, despite not being protists. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)