# Talk:Diaphoretickes

Can Bikonts, Diaphoretickes, Corticata, Cabozoa, etc. PLEASE all be merged into a single page?

I think theyre separate because they are notable as ideas, even if t hey cannot all simultaneously exist.  e.g. we have a page for Pancrustacea even though not everybody believes in it.  —Soap— 19:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there reference for the unusual pronunc of the diap word ? It's not used in the source linked, so no help there.  —Soap— 19:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Couldnt find a source for the pronunciation, but it seems that it is sometimes spelled without the c.  And that it may come from a Greek word for "diverse".  But the name may also be a pun between that word and another one meaning "sweating" ... as all plants are known for pushing water through their body.  I'll look into this when I get a chance to see if the variant spelling is acceptable.  —Soap— 23:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I was not able to find anything so Im giving up on this.  it may be that diaphoretickes was never approved as an official name since i dontsee it in ICZN, etc. —Soap— 20:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hemimastigophora was removed from the list of subtaxa earlier.  I'm putting it back (with question mark) for two reasons:
1) Some recent studies found Hemimastigophora nests among the sub-clades of Diaphoretickes.  The Lax et al. 2018 paper that described Hemimastix kukwesjijk also mentions this is a (less likely) possibility.
2) Moreover, if the Lax paper's preferred placement of Hemimastigophora is correct, the Hemimastigophora still falls within Diaphoretickes, by definition.
The paper itself suggests this, although there some of the language is equivocal.  Some statements do indeed imply that Hemimastigophora is outside the clade: "They instead comprise an independent supra-kingdom-level lineage that most likely forms a sister clade to the ‘Diaphoretickes’ half of eukaryote diversity" (in the abstract), and "Hemimastigophora outside of and sister to Diaphoretickes" (p.3).  But there is also wording that implies membership within Diaphoretickes: "actually branched sister to all of the other Diaphoretickes" (p.2) and "Their consensus tree shows Hemimastigophora as sister to (other) Diaphoretickes with maximal support" (in Methods section).  [Emphasis added in all of these.]
This equivocation makes some sense if we think only of the clades originally considered members of Diaphoretickes.  But the definition of Diaphoretickes is clear: if a taxon is closer to Rhizarians, Alveolates, Stramenopiles, and Archaeplastida, than it is to Opisthokonts, Amoebozoans, or Excavates, then it belongs in Diaphoretickes.
In this diagram, the Diaphoretickes is defined as the branch marked "Y", even though sometimes people refer to the clade as if it were the node marked "Z":

               .----------- Rhizaria
  .-Y------Z---|----------- Alveolata
 |      |  |   '----------- Stramenopiles
 |      |  '----------- Archaeplastida
 |      | 
 |      '---------- Hemimastigophora
 |
 |         .---------- Amoebozoans
 |---------|
 |         '-----------Opisthokonts
 '------------ Excavates

It might be reasonable to redefine Diaphoretickes as clade "Z" to better match the original membership, but as far as I know no one as done so. Cephal-odd (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed member of Diaphoretickes: Provora = nibblerids (Nibbleridia) + nebulids (Nebulidia)
Reference:

doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05511-5 Microbial predators form a new supergroup of eukaryotes
Fig. 1 Cell morphology
Fig. 2 Phylogeny of eukaryotes reconstructed with a concatenated 320-gene dataset
It is a home for Ancoracysta as already contained in the Diaphoretickes tree given at Eukaryote#Phylogeny.
For more details see Talk:Eukaryote#Phylogeny - new supergroup Provora Ernsts (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC). Updated --Ernsts (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me,seems worth adding.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the section Convergent traits is false, the image in is misleading (and its description also false). Since the death of the chromalveolate hypothesis (~ 2012) the origin of all "red" plastids is not a secondary endosymbiosis of a red alga. This is probably true only for the cryptophyte plastids (maybe also for the haptophytes). Myzozoans and ochrophytes have their plastids not from an endosymbiosis of a red alga, but of a cryptophyte or another "chromist" algae. The section and the image description need rewording, to present the correct view ofthe consecutive endosymbiosis of "red" plastids and especially to clarify the misleading red discontinuous arrows in the image. Petr Karel (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Petr Karel This is entirely a subjective wording matter, since the statement "the origin of all red plastids is a secondary endosymbiosis of a red alga" is completely true: that is their origin, with "secondary" meaning "after the fact" in the context of evolution. Even if you went ahead and placed a specific order of secondary endosymbioses (of which there is no consensus except(?) for cryptophytes being the first, and neither the text nor the image refuse to support one hypothesis over the other, which would be misleading), that would not make it any less true that ultimately they all derived from a red alga. I can see a different wording being helpful and I will try to implement that, but the statement itself is not misleading, the scope is just narrow. I can also just add more information (something like what we see at Algae#Consecutive endosymbioses) if that suits you better. — Snoteleks (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
@Petr Karel I have re-worded both the section and image description. Since you were the one to post the warning, I think you should review it to see if it's satisfactory now. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. It was not subjective wording matter, secondary endosymbiosis is a specific term which shall be applied correctly in a "good article". The wording "plastids acquired in the secondary endosymbiosis of red alga" was not correct, the new "plastids originating from a secondary endosymbiosis" completed with the explanation is OK, I am deleting the "disputed" template. Petr Karel (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
@Petr Karel I think I see what you mean now. I see that the wording is indeed misleading for someone that does not already know the theory in-depth, or at the very least it's easy to misinterpret. Thank you for reaching out about that.
On another note, your comment made me wonder, would it be more clear for the reader if I used this image instead?  It's the same as the original but following the 2024 hypothesis (with hypothesized acquisitons marked '?'). Perhaps with the right caption it would avoid misleading the reader more easily than the original image. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, it is not easy to find a balance between corectness and clearness of the formulation or a scheme. I like the new image, showing that the red plastid is not "preserved" in all lineages from one act of a secondary endosymbiosis (chromalveolate hypotesis) neither is originated in many independent acts of secondary endosymbiosis of red alga. But the explanation to the previous version of the image was also satisfactory. Petr Karel (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm glad you like the explanation, but I think I also like the new image better. I might update the image so that the explanation does not have to be so lengthy. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

'The name Diaphoretickes derives from Greek διαφορετικές (diaforetikés) meaning diverse, dissimilar, referring to the wide morphological and cellular diversity among members of this clade.'
That's fine, but what needs to be explained is:
1. Why on Earth it is derived from Modern Greek and not from Ancient Greek. The adjective doesn't exist in Ancient Greek, and also the form -ικές for the feminine plural only exists in Modern Greek (in Ancient Greek it would have been -ικαί). They might as well have derived the term from, say, an Albanian word. On the other hand, if it's supposed to be from Modern Greek, it should have been spelt with F - diaforetikes - and not with PH.
2. Why on Earth it is spelt with a CK, which is utterly abnormal for borrowings from either Ancient or Modern Greek - and typical of native English words instead. Might as well have spelt it Dyuhferettickeese. It should have been either just a K, which is used for borrowings from Modern Greek and sometimes from Ancient Greek too (diaforetikes), or, more reasonably, a standard Latinisation of the Ancient Greek with a C: -icae.
I don't get what part of this is some weird expression of cultural pseudo-radicalism and what part is just linguistic illiteracy. With about 20 co-authors, I would have imagined that there must have been at least one who knows how neoclassical terms are formed, or that they would have been able to consult someone who knew that. Now this pathetic linguistic monstrosity is codified forever. 62.73.72.101 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly you're asking for, this just reads like an ill-directed angry rant. — Snoteleks (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)