# Talk:Nucleariid

@User:Snoteleks: I appreciated moving the article from Cristidiscoidea to the common name. The taxonomic consideration of this clade differs both in name and rank in individual taxonomic systems. 

Protistologists recently (since 2018) prefer the rank (as low as possible, to avoid monotypic taxons) order and name Rotosphaerida Rainer 1968 (junior syn. Cristidiscoidida Page 1987, Cavalier-Smith 1993, 1998, Nucleariidae Patterson 1983, 1999) [1](new revision in preparation),NCBI, or traditionally the rank class and name Cristidiscoidia Page, 1987 or the junior synonym Cristidiscoidea Cavalier-Smith 1998 (above the separate orders Nuclearida and Fonticulida), with possible higher monotypic ranks as (subphylum) Cristidiscoidea Page, 1987 or Paramycia Cavalier-Smith 2012. (The traditional approach is applied in the section "Classification" of the article, but with misleading reference to the system of Adl et al. 2012, in which the taxon Cristidiscoidea is not used).
Mycologists recently (since 2018 [2]) prefer the rank kingdom and name Nucleariae Tedersoo, Sánch.-Ram., Kõljalg, M. Bahram, M. Döring, Schigel, T.W. May, M. Ryberg & Abarenkov, 2018 IFMB, with the split into nuclearids and fonticlulids already at the level of division/phylum: Nuclearida Tedersoo, Sánch.-Ram., Kõljalg, M. Bahram, M. Döring, Schigel, T.W. May, M. Ryberg & Abarenkov, 2018 IFMB and Fonticulida Tedersoo, Sánch.-Ram., Kõljalg, M. Bahram, M. Döring, Schigel, T.W. May, M. Ryberg & Abarenkov, 2018 IFMB.
I think all approaches and the crutial synonyms should be mentioned in the article and exist as redirects, to provide the reader the correct link to this article based on any searched variant of the clade name. 
I added the taxon identifiers for Cristidiscoidia (rank class in Wikidata instead of subphylum WoRMS, maybe inspired by AlgaeBase), Rotosphaerida and Nucleariae (all with the identical content). Petr Karel (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Petr Karel Yes, you get it! Thanks for chiming in and helping. This article definitely needs a lot of additions and fixes. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
2 additional remarks:

The different approaches of protistologists and mycologists have historical reasons:
The origins of the protistological approach: Nucleariid species were described and classified together with other naked or covered filose amoebae; later classified as Rotosphaeridia – a small group of a lower taxonomic rank (order) within heliozoans, to include non-flagellated, scaled, filose amoebae lacking axopodia; later reclassified to order Cristidiscoidida, within class Filosea, to include families Pompholyxophryidae and Nucleariidae because of the disc-shaped mitochondrial cristae ... (= the system was built up from individual genera to higher level taxa).
The reasons for the recent mycological approach: The established kingdom Fungi included originally a specific dustbin "taxon" (polyphyletic, later paraphyletic) – Fungi imperfecti. New molecular methods allowed the general systematic cleanup in early years of the 21st century leading to the system based on phylogenetic principles – the main line of the kingdom Fungi to the Eumycota clade has recently several branches classified as subkingdoms (Rozellomyceta, Aphelidiomyceta). To preserve this system and extend it to the whole Holomycota/Nucletmycea clade, it was reasonable to set the taxonomic level kingdom for the sister group of kingdom Fungi (= setting the system from above).
@User:Snoteleks: Does the common name nucleariid (applied for the article) really mean the whole group, including fonticulids (as for instance in this ref? Can we be sure, that it does not sometimes mean only the order Nucleariida, which would be confusing? (English is not my mother tongue, its difficult for me to confirm the correctness.) --Petr Karel (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Petr Karel As far as I have seen in the literature, yes, nucleariid is 100% the common name for the entire sister group of Fungi, including also Fonticula. I provided bibliographic references to support that claim (first sentence of the article; see Gabaldon et al. 2022, but there's many other papers that support this). — Snoteleks (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I just noticed you also linked to that ref. But like I said, there's other papers. If you search "nucleariid" on Google Scholar it will turn up plenty of sources. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nucleariid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 21:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: ZKevinTheCat (talk · contribs) 09:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Beginning the GA review — ZKevinTheCat

Pretty good article you have here. There are no major problems and everything is in order. I have made some edits to fix grammar mistakes and also clarified some sentences. There is one thing that I found though that needs to be adressed:
Spot check:
[3] - good
[9] - good
[24] - X; Micronuclearia is not mentioned in the source ZKevinTheCat (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot to add the Micronuclearia ref. It's done now, let me know if there's anything else. — Snoteleks (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
@ZKevinTheCat pinging just in case — Snoteleks (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks good now. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
@ZKevinTheCat Thanks so much for reviewing! — Snoteleks (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)