# Talk:Eukaryote

Subgroups in the taxobox contradicts with the subgroups of the taxobox in the Protist page. This needs to be fixed. Jako96 (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I can only agree, that some taxons are obsolete (Cavalier-Smith system which supposes rooting of the eukaryotic phylogenetic tree inside of Discoba near Euglenozoa, instead of recently more probable rooting between Opimoda and Diphoda near Metamonada, applied in the Protist taxobox). Scotokaryotes should be deleted, but there are still many open questions. Monophyly of some groups has not been proven sufficiently (TSAR), Diaphoretickes can/may not contain Hemimastigophora and Provora etc. Petr Karel (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Well if we could use an automatic taxobox (in both/all articles) without surplus information then consistency cross-articles should be achievable. It has never been an article's goal to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia (not least because "Wikipedia is not a reliable source"); each article paddles its own canoe, and that's true even at FAC. The job for each article is to tell a single story, not to fix the entire encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
But wouldn't that be better if we fixed that? Are we really gonna leave it like that? Jako96 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
The two listings are largely compatible, they just lump taxa in different higher level groups. The only contradiction is whether Hemimastigophora and Provora are included in Diaphoretickes (included in the eukaryote list and excluded in the protist list). Given the conflicting positions of Hemimastigophora and Provora, it probably should be included. Tikhonenkov et al (2022) include it explicitly in their figure 2, whereas Eglit et al (2024) imply they don't include it, although the broader Diaphoretickes is consistent with their results. Otherwise, the eukaryote list lumps Archaeplastida and Cryptista into the CAM clade and lumps Amorphea and CRuMS into Podiata, while the protist list lumps the core excavate taxa into Discoba.  —  Jts1882  | talk  13:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Such compatibility is just an illusion that only applies when you ignore the phylogenetic nature of taxa (i.e. accept paraphyletic or polyphyletic taxons). Monophyletic Diphoda cannot be valid together with monophyletic Scotokaryotes, the root (from LECA) can be only one.  The supergroups listed in the Protist taxobox could be considered so far (with solid probability) as natural groupings and reflects the phylogenetic tree (with some open questions, as I wrote above), see also Torruella (2025)(free preprint). Not the taxobox in Eukaryote, which does not even reflect the section Phylogeny. Petr Karel (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Well, ignoring the fact that Protista is polyphyletic, why don't we just update the taxobox from there then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Proposal for Eukaryote (could be shortened):
Opimoda
Amorphea
Amoebozoa
Obazoa
Opisthokonta (including fungi and animals)
Breviatea
Apusomonadida
CRuMs
Collodyctionidae
Rigifilida
Mantamonadida
? Malawimonadida
? Ancyromonadida
Diphoda
Metamonada
Discoba
Diaphoretickes
? Hemimastigophora
? Meteora
? Provora
CAM
Cryptista
Archaeplastida
Picozoa
Rhodelphidia
Rhodophyta
Glaucophyta
Viridiplantae (plants)
Microheliella
Haptista
Telonemia
Sar
Stramenopiles
Alveolata
Rhizaria
Hemimastigophora, Meteora and Provora seem to originate a new supergroup, I expect the confirmation later this year (I heared another different protist of this grouping is being cultivated and its description prepared for publication).
Paraphyletic protists have some problems with the definition of borders to "higher/true" kingdoms. No consensus is for "algae". Picozoa and Rhodelphidia from Archaeplastida are mostly protists, usually also glacophytes. On Enwiki Plants equal to Viridiplantae, but sometimes also green algae are considered to be protists and only embryophytes are considered as true plants. Stramenopiles including the large multicellular brown algae are protists with broad consensus. On the border to fungi are rozelids, microsporidians and aphelids sometimes considered to be protists, sometimes (as Rozellomycota and Ahelidiomycota) fungi. That is because Protista is an obsolete paraphyletic grouping of selected eukaryotes. Chiswick Chap is true pointing out the polyphyly of protists, but the "correct" selection of protist groups would be too complicated (avoiding Opisthokonta, Obazoa, Diaphoretickes, Archaeplastida etc. which include also "higher" kingdoms) but posible. Instead of Opishokonta we would have for instance
Nucleariae
(Opisthophagea/Rozellomycota)
(Aphelida/Aphelidiomycota)
Ichthyosporea
Pluriformea
Filasterea
Choanoflagellata.
That is why I prefer not changing the list in the Protist taxobox. --Petr Karel (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Well if we could have a very short form for the taxobox here... Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
The protist taxobox is more accurate. Provora, Meteora and Hemimastigophora are indeed at the edge of becoming a new supergroup separate from Diaphoretickes (it will be part of my PhD thesis I expect), but I strove away from assuming that one hypothesis is true over the other. Look at any peer-reviewed source and you'll see that they are not solidifed members of Diaphoretickes; that is why I wrote the protist taxobox subdivisions in that way, with all members as basal branches with no clear relationships, reflecting the state of knowledge. Same with placing CRuMs and Amorphea at the same level, instead of inside Podiata. I also wrote it short, because naming all the non-animal or fungal opisthokonts (let alone the non-plant archaeplastids, but that's ambiguous thanks to Cav-Smith who considered them all plants) would take a ridiculously large amount of bullet points.
Now, when it comes to the eukaryote taxobox, it is inaccurate for a number of reasons:
It includes non-universally accepted clades, such as Scotokaryotes and the CAM clade. Podiata is still considered ambiguous. The positions of Hemimastigophora and Provora in Diaphoretickes are, as said earlier, not settled in the slightest.
By doing this, it hides clades that are significantly more important/popular in name, such as Cryptista (hidden by CAM) and Amorphea (hidden by Podiata).
It also excludes universally accepted major clades, such as Discoba, which is instead immediately divided into Jakobea, Tsukubea, and Discicristata for some unknown reason.
I would change the eukaryote taxobox to match the protist taxobox, not the other way around. Keep it simple, yet accurate. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Actually, another way it could be done is the way Annelida does it, which is by separating the subdivisions into two sections:
Traditional view (which would be Plantae, Animalia, Fungi, Protista)
Cladistic view (which would be Diaphoretickes, Amorphea, and all the orphan groups)
— Snoteleks (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Anything as long as it's brief. I'd even support having "See text" as the sole entry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we should make it like that:
Amorphea
Amoebozoa
Obazoa (including fungi and animals)
CRuMs
Diaphoretickes
Archaeplastida (including plants)
Cryptista
Haptista
TSAR
Telonemia
Stramenopiles
Alveolata
Rhizaria
Discoba
Hemimastigophora
Malawimonada
Metamonada
Planomonada
Provora
Incertae sedis
Meteora
Jako96 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I guess we did it now. Jako96 (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)